Annoying creationists

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think that you will find that point mutations and natural selection is the cornerstone of your theory. You have no other mechanism to explain the de novo evolution of a gene.
So deletions, insertions, stutters, reversals, and partial replications don't matter? Are you sure you're not limiting yourself to Ev's single type of mutation because you're trying to make a point using only Ev as evidence?

~~ Paul

[delphi_ote]

Delphi, I’m the “Annoying creationist” so use your skills in deductive logic to figure out what I believe is the mechanism which produced the "endless forms most beautiful".
Great. An alternate hypothesis. Where is your evidence for this? "I think evolution is impossible, therefore creationism" doesn't explain anything. As I said before, it's an excuse for ignorance.
Don’t worry, I won’t tell anyone.
It only demonstrates your ignorance and bias more that you think I would be embarassed about being published in Science.

[Beleth]

The more I read the Bible, the more I am convinced it is true.What is it about the Bible that convinces you?

I recommend you read it more than once because it is difficult to read the Bible like a novel. Until you understand that part of the book is Biblical law, part of the book is historical, part of the book is a song book, part of the book is prophetical, part of the book is instructional. These different parts are woven into a tapestry that can be difficult to understand until you read this book several times. Many people if they have any knowledge of the Bible, it is limited to a couple small segments of the book, for example the Noah flood story or the story of David and Goliath or maybe the Christmas story.I've read rather more of the Bible than that. I've also read quite a few scholarly works about it. I'm quite familiar with the accretion and redaction processes the Bible went through.

And yet I'm also quite familiar with scientific works. How the evidence points to a universe and an Earth not 6000 years old like the Bible says, but billions of years old. And that gets me to thinking. Thinking about what to conclude when there are such conflicting stories. Thinking about which story is more credible, and why the stories are so different.

And on top of that, I'm also quite familiar with other religious works. How each one differs from each other, and how they all at their heart differ in a very fundamental way with direct observation of the reality around me.

And after all that studying... after all that searching for a religious truth... I have yet to come to a satisfactory conclusion. So when I come across a person such as yourself who has come to a conclusion, I die of curiosity to find out why. What knowledge have they discovered that I have not? Or, possibly, what knowledge have I discovered that casts a shadow on the conclusion they have come to? I see us both on the same path; the question is, which one of us has walked further down that path?

Now, you unquestioningly have a boatload more knowledge about the inner workings of evolution than I do. If you are ahead of me on the path, you are a worthwhile person to follow. Which is why I am asking such basic questions. I want to determine if you are ahead of me on the path.

I am not sure this is the answer you or looking for so I will put it this way. The Bible is God’s love letter to us. It is filled with God’s promises of His lovingkindness, mercy and forgiveness that He has for us. But the Bible also tells of God’s requirement of justice and what is due us. When that day of judgment comes, you will not be able to choose the terms of your defense. So you better have a really good lawyer when you face that Judge.I am aware that that is a common interpretation of the Bible. But it doesn't jibe with certain aspects of the real world that I am aware of; for instance, the existence of inoperable, untreatable, terminal, excruciatingly painful, brain tumors that affect children. I cannot reconcile the thought of a just, loving God with the fact that such an unjust, unkind condition exists.

This is where I am stuck on the path.
If you are further on the path than I am, I'd love to know how you got past this.

[kleinman]

I am not sure this is the answer you or looking for so I will put it this way. The Bible is God’s love letter to us. It is filled with God’s promises of His lovingkindness, mercy and forgiveness that He has for us. But the Bible also tells of God’s requirement of justice and what is due us. When that day of judgment comes, you will not be able to choose the terms of your defense. So you better have a really good lawyer when you face that Judge.A Moslem would say the same about the Koran, a Jew about the Torah, and so on....you can't all be right, or possibly you can't all be all right - they might all be partly true, and then again they may all be wrong.
Trimble, you are correct in your analysis. So how do you distinguish which if any is true? Is it Islam which believes that your good deeds outweigh your bad deed you make to heaven or you get an express ticket to heaven with 70 virgins if you commit suicide while killing infidels? No wonder there are so few female Islamic suicide bombers. I have never met a woman who thought having sex with 70 virgin males was heaven. If you are female and do think that is heaven, don’t bother telling me, I am not a Moslem cleric. Or is it the orthodox Jewish belief that following Talmudic law leads to righteousness. Somehow by good deeds we can make ourselves acceptable to God. Or any of the myriad of other religions that says if you do the right thing or good deeds, you will make it to heaven or nirvana or eternal peace. What distinguishes Christianity from all other religions is that it is not our deeds that enable us to approach God, it is the price that was paid by God sending His own Son to die for our sins that buys our forgiveness.
I think that you will find that point mutations and natural selection is the cornerstone of your theory. You have no other mechanism to explain the de novo evolution of a gene. So deletions, insertions, stutters, reversals, and partial replications don't matter? Are you sure you're not limiting yourself to Ev's single type of mutation because you're trying to make a point using only Ev as evidence?
Paul, if you believe any of these other mechanisms will rescue the theory of evolution from the restrictions imposed by ev, feel free to prove this mathematically. I limit myself to ev because that is the model available to us and the broad claims Dr Schneider has made based on this model which are so easily disproved. I have said repeatedly that ev only represents an argument against random point mutations and natural selection as a mechanism of macroevolution. My arguments against other mechanisms of evolution is not based in mathematical logic so doesn’t have the force that the arguments using ev carries. Whether these other mechanism matter or not is up to you evolutionists to prove mathematically. I am glad that is not a task for me because I have the feeling this will be a fruitless effort.
Delphi, I’m the “Annoying creationist” so use your skills in deductive logic to figure out what I believe is the mechanism which produced the "endless forms most beautiful". Great. An alternate hypothesis. Where is your evidence for this? "I think evolution is impossible, therefore creationism" doesn't explain anything. As I said before, it's an excuse for ignorance.
I think that by the rules of logic, if you have two possible explanations for the occurrence of an event and you disprove one of the explanations, you have supported the other explanation. If you want to look for other explanations for the origin of life, that’s fine with me, but I don’t believe that the theory of evolution has all the scientific foundation you attribute to the theory.
Don’t worry, I won’t tell anyone. It only demonstrates your ignorance and bias more that you think I would be embarassed about being published in Science.
Dr Schneider invited me to review his work published in Nucleic Acids Research. Are you inviting me to review your work in Science?

[delphi_ote]

I think that by the rules of logic, if you have two possible explanations for the occurrence of an event and you disprove one of the explanations, you have supported the other explanation.
That's not logic at all. Disproving that the Earth is flat does not support the conclusion that it is a cube. You have to have evidence for the alternate hypothesis. What is your evidence for "Goddidit"? Evolutionary theory has great predictive power. What theory are you suggesting we put in its place, and how can you demonstrate it has greater predictive power?
Dr Schneider invited me to review his work published in Nucleic Acids Research. Are you inviting me to review your work in Science?
That would be a riot. You're so far from even a basic understanding of modern biology, I might as well have my cat review it.

[Timble]

What distinguishes Christianity from all other religions is that it is not our deeds that enable us to approach God, it is the price that was paid by God sending His own Son to die for our sins that buys our forgiveness.


OK, that's you'r unique selling point, but beyond personal belief you've no evidence that it's true, or indeed that the Bible is anything more than the Bumper Book of Middle Eastern Myths and Legends. Some of it's probably history, some of it has parallels in wisdom literature and poetry from neighbouring cultures (particularly Eygpt), some of it's stories are found in versions in other sets of mythology. There's some new material.

It doesn't prove your claim in any way.

[kleinman]

I think that by the rules of logic, if you have two possible explanations for the occurrence of an event and you disprove one of the explanations, you have supported the other explanation. That's not logic at all. Disproving that the Earth is flat does not support the conclusion that it is a cube. You have to have evidence for the alternate hypothesis. What is your evidence for "Goddidit"? Evolutionary theory has great predictive power. What theory are you suggesting we put in its place, and how can you demonstrate it has greater predictive power?
So you are suggesting that proving that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible still does not eliminate it as a candidate for how we came to being because the only other alternative is that we were created. That’s about as scientific a proof of the theory of evolution as joozb’s argument for abiogenesis that anything is possible.
Dr Schneider invited me to review his work published in Nucleic Acids Research. Are you inviting me to review your work in Science? That would be a riot. You're so far from even a basic understanding of modern biology, I might as well have my cat review it.
So if your article is such a strong argument for the theory of evolution, give us the name of it so we can scratch at it or is this something that only your secret society can understand.
What distinguishes Christianity from all other religions is that it is not our deeds that enable us to approach God, it is the price that was paid by God sending His own Son to die for our sins that buys our forgiveness.OK, that's you'r unique selling point, but beyond personal belief you've no evidence that it's true, or indeed that the Bible is anything more than the Bumper Book of Middle Eastern Myths and Legends. Some of its probably history, some of it has parallels in wisdom literature and poetry from neighbouring cultures (particularly Eygpt), some of it's stories are found in versions in other sets of mythology. There's some new material.

It doesn't prove your claim in any way.
You evolutionarians really are slow learners. I’m not here to prove the Bible to be true, I'm here to prove that the theory of evolution by random point mutation and natural selection is mathematically impossible as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev computer model. You have some understanding of my faith and I have some understanding of your evolutionary faith. It’s too bad that Dr Schneider’s ev model undermines your faith in random point mutations and natural selection but that’s what hard mathematical science does to weak soft scientific theories.

[Beleth]

So you are suggesting that proving that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible still does not eliminate it as a candidate for how we came to being because the only other alternative is that we were created.

:notm

Also, I see you have replied to posts made after my previous post, without responding to my previous post. How may I help you out?

[Timble]

You evolutionarians really are slow learners. I’m not here to prove the Bible to be true, I'm here to prove that the theory of evolution by random point mutation and natural selection is mathematically impossible as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev computer model. You have some understanding of my faith and I have some understanding of your evolutionary faith. It’s too bad that Dr Schneider’s ev model undermines your faith in random point mutations and natural selection but that’s what hard mathematical science does to weak soft scientific theories.



You're the only person who claims that random point mutations, and nothing else, determines the rate at which the genome evolves. The thing's a partial model at best. We knew that.

[Bronze Dog]

Even if evolution was proven impossible, that would mean precisely zero for the viability of ID/Creationism.

Of course, sticking needles into an oversimplified model doesn't prove evolution impossible, so the above is pretty much moot. You need stronger juju.

[delphi_ote]

So you are suggesting that proving that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible still does not eliminate it as a candidate for how we came to being because the only other alternative is that we were created.
This is the very definition of a false dilemma. The only other alternative to evolution is that we were created? You can't be serious! There are infinitely many possible explanations for how humans came to be. Evidence against one of them is not evidence in favor of all of the rest. Evolution has explanatory and predictive power. "Goddidit", last time I checked, had neither.
So if your article is such a strong argument for the theory of evolution, give us the name of it so we can scratch at it or is this something that only your secret society can understand.
It's not my paper. I am very honored to be one of about 100 co-authors. The paper is not an argument for evolution. It's a paper that, among many other things, demonstrates the importance of chromosomal duplication events in the history of plant evolution. Those events are very different than point mutations, and are not accounted for in Ev.

[joobz]

As Yazhi stated, we're just spitting in the wind.
Kleinman's convinced of his own correctness, you'll not prove otherwise. Even where it is undoubtably clear that he is wrong, he refuses to admit it. He sticks with his missinterpretations, missquoting, and game playing rather than logic. There is no debate with such a person. There is no learning to be had.

Kleinman, you keep stating I have an "anything possible" hypothesis and that is completely untrue. I would expect you to not bear false witness, but I guess your are able to commit sins as long as you prove your point, eh?

Delphi_ote, Congrats on the Pub. You should be proud of that work.

[kleinman]

So you are suggesting that proving that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible still does not eliminate it as a candidate for how we came to being because the only other alternative is that we were created.No
So what are you saying great completer of unfinished mansions?
Also, I see you have replied to posts made after my previous post, without responding to my previous post. How may I help you out?
Sorry, I’m responding to about 20 different bloggers, only one of which is willing to talk about Dr Schneider’s ev program, so if I missed your incisive question, please repeat it so I may clarify your confused state.
You evolutionarians really are slow learners. I’m not here to prove the Bible to be true, I'm here to prove that the theory of evolution by random point mutation and natural selection is mathematically impossible as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev computer model. You have some understanding of my faith and I have some understanding of your evolutionary faith. It’s too bad that Dr Schneider’s ev model undermines your faith in random point mutations and natural selection but that’s what hard mathematical science does to weak soft scientific theories.You're the only person who claims that random point mutations, and nothing else, determines the rate at which the genome evolves. The thing's a partial model at best. We knew that.
Would you like to find a quote where I said that only random point mutations and nothing else determines the rate at which the genome evolves? Perhaps you would like to create a mathematical model which uses these other mechanism to evolve the genome and take the theory of evolution out of it’s mathematically deficient state?

What you evolutionists fail to see is that genetic similarities between one species and the next are not sufficient to prove the theory of evolution. You need to account for how you transform a genome from one species to the next in the time available. Ev shows that random point mutations and natural selection does not account for this transformation. If you believe that other mechanisms of gene mutation do account for this transformation, do the mathematics, otherwise the theory of evolution will always be a weak soft science.
Even if evolution was proven impossible, that would mean precisely zero for the viability of ID/Creationism.

Of course, sticking needles into an oversimplified model doesn't prove evolution impossible, so the above is pretty much moot. You need stronger juju.
Again, I’m not posting here to try to prove ID/Creationism. I think you are being cruel describing Dr Schneider’s ev model as oversimplified. It is based on his PhD thesis, it has been peer reviewed and published and Dr Schneider has over 20 years invested in this model. Have you even run one case with the model or are you another evolutionarian who draws conclusions without doing any analysis? What a sad statement for people who call themselves scientists.
So if your article is such a strong argument for the theory of evolution, give us the name of it so we can scratch at it or is this something that only your secret society can understand. It's not my paper. I am very honored to be one of about 100 co-authors. The paper is not an argument for evolution. It's a paper that, among many other things, demonstrates the importance of chromosomal duplication events in the history of plant evolution. Those events are very different than point mutations, and are not accounted for in Ev.
Your statement is contradictory, you say that the paper is not an argument for evolution yet it demonstrates the importance of chromosomal duplication events in the history of plant evolution. Which is it? Come on, tell us the name of the article. Pretty please with sugar on top.

[Timble]

You ask other people to provide mathematical proof when all you do is quote Schneider selectively.

You're more interested in point scoring than admit that no-one yet has the whole picture.

Evolution may be soft science, but creationism backed by the Bible is storytelling, I'd sooner back partial evidence that 3,000 year old campfire tales.

[delphi_ote]

Your statement is contradictory, you say that the paper is not an argument for evolution yet it demonstrates the importance of chromosomal duplication events in the history of plant evolution. Which is it? Come on, tell us the name of the article. Pretty please with sugar on top.
No, my statement is not contradictory. The paper is not an argument for evolution. That is not the thesis of the paper. I linked to it already. If you're capable of posting here, you're capable of clicking on the link.

Also,
This is the very definition of a false dilemma. The only other alternative to evolution is that we were created? You can't be serious! There are infinitely many possible explanations for how humans came to be. Evidence against one of them is not evidence in favor of all of the rest. Evolution has explanatory and predictive power. "Goddidit", last time I checked, had neither.
Good job ignoring your flagrant mistake.

[kleinman]

You ask other people to provide mathematical proof when all you do is quote Schneider selectively.

You're more interested in point scoring than admit that no-one yet has the whole picture.

Evolution may be soft science, but creationism backed by the Bible is storytelling, I'd sooner back partial evidence that 3,000 year old campfire tales.
Of course I quote Dr Schneider, he has written the best model of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection. He has a large web site dedicated to this mathematical model. You evolutionist need to take responsibility for providing your own mathematical proof. I doubt any mathematical model I would write that models the other mechanisms of mutations would prove the theory of evolution and evolutionists would ignore it because it was written by a creationist. The reason I get any traction at all in this debate is that ev was written by an evolutionist, the model has been peer reviewed and published and has been defended for years by the author who heads a group at the National Cancer Institute. Evolutionists have been making points off this model for years based on Dr Schneider’s superficial analysis with a single case from his model. Now a more in depth analysis shows something more that contradicts the theory of evolution. What’s the problem, you are a scientist, let the data speak for itself.

You are right, the Bible is storytelling. It just happens to be the greatest story ever told.
Your statement is contradictory, you say that the paper is not an argument for evolution yet it demonstrates the importance of chromosomal duplication events in the history of plant evolution. Which is it? Come on, tell us the name of the article. Pretty please with sugar on top. No, my statement is not contradictory. The paper is not an argument for evolution. That is not the thesis of the paper. I linked to it already. If you're capable of posting here, you're capable of clicking on the link.
Ok, your statement is not contradictory, stop being coy, where did you post your link?
This is the very definition of a false dilemma. The only other alternative to evolution is that we were created? You can't be serious! There are infinitely many possible explanations for how humans came to be. Evidence against one of them is not evidence in favor of all of the rest. Evolution has explanatory and predictive power. "Goddidit", last time I checked, had neither.
You don’t have to post all infinite number of explanations for how humans came to be, just post the 10 trillion most plausible explanations. The theory of evolution seems to be having trouble mathematically predicting the evolution of binding sites on realistic length genomes with realistic mutation rates in the time available. Perhaps if you give the theory a little push with gene duplication, you can fix this deficiency in the theory.

[Beleth]

So what are you saying great completer of unfinished mansions?Great completer of unfinished mansions? Me? You flatter me.

Anyway. I am saying that No, delphi_ote is not suggesting what you said. And I see that delphi_ote himself has responded, so you may take it from the horse's mouth, as it were.

Sorry, I’m responding to about 20 different bloggers, only one of which is willing to talk about Dr Schneider’s ev program, so if I missed your incisive question, please repeat it so I may clarify your confused state.No problem. It's here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2112420#post2112420). I linked it instead of reposting or summarizing because the second part loses a great deal in summarization.

And if I may be so bold, I'd like to mention in passing that "suddenly becoming too busy" is a common reaction to the subject of Diffuse Pontine Glioma. Which is, I suppose, why I'm stuck here at this particular point on the path.

[Beleth]

You don’t have to post all infinite number of explanations for how humans came to be, just post the 10 trillion most plausible explanations.As I'm sure you are aware, 10 trillion alternative explanations isn't necessary to prove your interpretation is a false dilemma. Merely a third alternative will suffice.

But here are a third and a fourth, for good measure:
3) One or more of the assumptions made in ev are wrong.
4) Something else is happening, that is neither evolution (as she is currently understood) nor creation, that we don't have a hypothesis for yet.

[kleinman]

Sorry, I’m responding to about 20 different bloggers, only one of which is willing to talk about Dr Schneider’s ev program, so if I missed your incisive question, please repeat it so I may clarify your confused state.No problem. It's here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2112420#post2112420). I linked it instead of reposting or summarizing because the second part loses a great deal in summarization.

And if I may be so bold, I'd like to mention in passing that "suddenly becoming too busy" is a common reaction to the subject of Diffuse Pontine Glioma. Which is, I suppose, why I'm stuck here at this particular point on the path.
The reality is that I can’t respond to every post especially since my motivation is to discuss the ev computer model but since you persist with your questions, I will try to give you my understanding of these things you raise.
And after all that studying... after all that searching for a religious truth... I have yet to come to a satisfactory conclusion. So when I come across a person such as yourself who has come to a conclusion, I die of curiosity to find out why. What knowledge have they discovered that I have not? Or, possibly, what knowledge have I discovered that casts a shadow on the conclusion they have come to? I see us both on the same path; the question is, which one of us has walked further down that path?
I’m not sure whether you are asking me about my faith or why I oppose the theory of evolution. I try to respond to both points with one sentence. I can not live without hope and the theory of evolution is without hope.
I am aware that that is a common interpretation of the Bible. But it doesn't jibe with certain aspects of the real world that I am aware of; for instance, the existence of inoperable, untreatable, terminal, excruciatingly painful, brain tumors that affect children. I cannot reconcile the thought of a just, loving God with the fact that such an unjust, unkind condition exists.

This is where I am stuck on the path.
If you are further on the path than I am, I'd love to know how you got past this.
I disagree with you that there is a common interpretation of the Bible. Two people can read that same verses in the Bible and draw completely different conclusions. Why do you think there are so many different denominations? Look at the striking different interpretation of many key verses in the Old Testament that Jewish scholars have when compared to Christian scholars.

I can’t answer your question about why God would allow children to suffer with painful diseases. What I can tell you is that we are all here for only a moment and that God does not allow anything to happen without His purposes being fulfilled. God does not promise us that we won’t suffer in this life, what God does promise us that He will never leave us nor forsake us. When everything in this world fails us, you still can cling to God’s eternal everlasting love.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, if you believe any of these other mechanisms will rescue the theory of evolution from the restrictions imposed by ev, feel free to prove this mathematically.
No, sorry, it doesn't work that way. You're the one who is worried about it and claims to have proven mathematically that evolution is impossible (even though we have yet to see the proof). Just be sure that your proof takes all forms of mutation into account.


I have said repeatedly that ev only represents an argument against random point mutations and natural selection as a mechanism of macroevolution.
It doesn't represent that, because your nonexistent proof doesn't take into account population, binding site width, selection method, and other things that even the simple Ev model includes. Actually, maybe it does, but we haven't seen your proof yet.


So you are suggesting that proving that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible still does not eliminate it as a candidate for how we came to being because the only other alternative is that we were created.
Say what?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The theory of evolution seems to be having trouble mathematically predicting the evolution of binding sites on realistic length genomes with realistic mutation rates in the time available.
What were those genome lengths, mutation rates, and time available, again?


~~ Paul

[kleinman]

Paul, if you believe any of these other mechanisms will rescue the theory of evolution from the restrictions imposed by ev, feel free to prove this mathematically. No, sorry, it doesn't work that way. You're the one who is worried about it and claims to have proven mathematically that evolution is impossible (even though we have yet to see the proof). Just be sure that your proof takes all forms of mutation into account.
Nice try Paul, I have only proven that macroevolution is impossible by random point mutations and natural selection thanks to Dr Schneider’s well designed mathematical model and your excellent java programming skills. You evolutionary scientists have to figure out how to rescue your own theory.
I have said repeatedly that ev only represents an argument against random point mutations and natural selection as a mechanism of macroevolution.It doesn't represent that, because your nonexistent proof doesn't take into account population, binding site width, selection method, and other things that even the simple Ev model includes. Actually, maybe it does, but we haven't seen your proof yet.
Give it your best shot and produce the data from ev that contradicts my assertions. How is that 2 meg population case doing? Do you want me to start posting my binding site width cases? I don’t think any of your evolutionarian brethren have any idea what this model is about so posting the data now wouldn’t be helpful. I’ll post more data when a few more bloggers show that they have some understanding of the model.
So you are suggesting that proving that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible still does not eliminate it as a candidate for how we came to being because the only other alternative is that we were created.Say what?
There are no gaps in the theory of evolution that will cause a devout evolutionarian to renounce his belief system.
The theory of evolution seems to be having trouble mathematically predicting the evolution of binding sites on realistic length genomes with realistic mutation rates in the time available. What were those genome lengths, mutation rates, and time available, again?
It certainly isn’t G=256, mutation rate on 1 mutation per 256 bases per generations and 1000 generations.

[Timble]

Keinman, I notice you're still looking at ridiculously small populations. 2 meg is nothing to bacteria.

You ignored that point earlier.

[delphi_ote]

You don’t have to post all infinite number of explanations for how humans came to be, just post the 10 trillion most plausible explanations.
Actually, I only have to posit three explainations to prove that yours was a false dilemma. And the third doesn't even have to be plausible, as I don't find your explaination to be very likely and you're not requiring evidence.

So, a third possibility: we are all one consiousness dreaming itself.

[delphi_ote]

Ok, your statement is not contradictory, stop being coy, where did you post your link?
In the first post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2106774#post2106774) that mentioned the paper!

[Beleth]

The reality is that I can’t respond to every post especially since my motivation is to discuss the ev computer model but since you persist with your questions, I will try to give you my understanding of these things you raise.I appreciate it.

I’m not sure whether you are asking me about my faith or why I oppose the theory of evolution. I try to respond to both points with one sentence. I can not live without hope and the theory of evolution is without hope.I was asking why you believed in the Bible, but I find this answer very helpful.

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with your assessment of evolution being without hope. I find it to be brimming over with hope. The hope that, no matter what's wrong with the planet today, that some day it'll get solved naturally. The hope that some day pontine tumors will no longer kill children painfully. And so forth.

And I hate to be blunt, but I can think of no other way to phrase this: I put it to you that your need for hope is neither evidence for Creationism nor evidence against evolution, and therefore must rationally be disregarded.

I disagree with you that there is a common interpretation of the Bible. Two people can read that same verses in the Bible and draw completely different conclusions.I agree. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding; I meant "common" as in "popular" and not as in "universal". I also put it to you that the ability to draw completely different conclusions from the same verses in the Bible is evidence of its weakness as a basis of belief.

I can’t answer your question about why God would allow children to suffer with painful diseases.Don't worry about it. It's a tough question. I have not yet heard an adequate answer to it. It just means that you are behind me on the path, and that's okay.

What I can tell you is that we are all here for only a moment and that God does not allow anything to happen without His purposes being fulfilled.The adjective that best describes such a God, a God Who allows pontine tumors to painfully kill innocent children, is "evil." If that is what your interpretation of the Bible leads you to, and that you find a message of hope in that, then I have to wonder whether you have really put much thought into it.

[D2011]

I believe the Bible is a totally believable and trustworthy book, but forget about me proving this to you mathematically

Oh man, I can feel it in my bones. Dr Ivan Panin is going to be wheeled out at any minute.

http://www.wordworx.co.nz/panin.html

We had better tell all the other religions that Christianity is right & they are wrong...Oh....wooops....they already tried that....so much for love they neighbour.

I know they couldnt have made 1 massive bible & needed to make an edited version, but do you you think we will ever see the directors cut bible with the gospels of Thomas, Mary & Enoch included? Cant wait.

For amusing bible contradictions see:

http://www.evilbible.com/

I have read the bible more than once & many of the other gospels. Its a pity Christians can only see the passages that Benny Hinn highlights for them.

D2011

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Nice try Paul, I have only proven that macroevolution is impossible by random point mutations and natural selection thanks to Dr Schneider’s well designed mathematical model and your excellent java programming skills. You evolutionary scientists have to figure out how to rescue your own theory.
You've only proven this limited assertion in your own mind until you present the proof. Are you ever going to present the proof to us?


Give it your best shot and produce the data from ev that contradicts my assertions. How is that 2 meg population case doing? Do you want me to start posting my binding site width cases? I don’t think any of your evolutionarian brethren have any idea what this model is about so posting the data now wouldn’t be helpful. I’ll post more data when a few more bloggers show that they have some understanding of the model.
You have seen Myriad's new selection method, right?

P.S. I've been playing around with the model. The curve of generations to convergence depends on the details of the selection mechanism. Change it so that ties are won by the bug whose worst mistake (greatest absolute value of the difference between the binding strength value from the weight matrix and the threshold) is less than the other bug's worst mistake, and the convergence time becomes (at least approximately) linear with respect to the genome length.

~~ Paul

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Trimble, you are correct in your analysis. So how do you distinguish which if any is true? Is it Islam which believes that your good deeds outweigh your bad deed you make to heaven or you get an express ticket to heaven with 70 virgins if you commit suicide while killing infidels? No wonder there are so few female Islamic suicide bombers. I have never met a woman who thought having sex with 70 virgin males was heaven. If you are female and do think that is heaven, don’t bother telling me, I am not a Moslem cleric. Or is it the orthodox Jewish belief that following Talmudic law leads to righteousness. Somehow by good deeds we can make ourselves acceptable to God. Or any of the myriad of other religions that says if you do the right thing or good deeds, you will make it to heaven or nirvana or eternal peace. What distinguishes Christianity from all other religions is that it is not our deeds that enable us to approach God, it is the price that was paid by God sending His own Son to die for our sins that buys our forgiveness.

So we can tell which the correct religion is based on it merits? And we should judge its merits based on the morality that came from the religion in the first place (well I'll assume that you think morality comes from religion, I don't know that for sure).

Not the method I would use, that is for sure.

LLH

[sphenisc]

There are infinitely many possible explanations for how humans came to be. Evidence against one of them is not evidence in favor of all of the rest.


Very interesting. As part of my campaign to unify all threads, I'd like to ask, "If I have three explanations and I select one as most likely and then someone eliminates one of the other explanations, doesn't the unchosen explanation become more likely?"

[Mr. Scott]

I just want to ask bluntly -- has anyone involved in making or promoting Ev claimed that it is a comprehensive model of all possible processes behind evolution? I suspect not.

My broad-brush understanding of the Ev story is that creationists claimed something was impossible, Ev showed it was possible, and the creationists moved the goalposts and claimed Ev couldn't show some other thing was possible.

This moving of goalposts has been going on since Copernicus and continues with the ongoing discoveries of missing links creationists claim have yet to be discovered. I have no doubt the goalposts will continue their journeys forever. No one willingly gives up the fairy tales they learned as children.

So, Mr. Kleinman, is there some testable claim that you will make for which you will promise not to move the goalpost and, if evolutionismistiesariansists prove you wrong, you will throw the bible into the trash heap of exposed hoaxes? I'm sure that evolutionismistiesarians have enough faith in their view to do that with Darwin. Can you draw a line in the sand at a reasonable point where, if crossed by evolutionismistiesariansists, you would not draw a new line, but announce the defeat of creationism?

If so, then do it. Hold the snake and let's see if you are bitten. Refuse, and you reveal to all of us your lack of faith.

[drkitten]

Very interesting. As part of my campaign to unify all threads, I'd like to ask, "If I have three explanations and I select one as most likely and then someone eliminates one of the other explanations, doesn't the unchosen explanation become more likely?"

No.

[Dr Adequate]

Darwin had no idea how complex living things are. He didn’t know they were irreducibly complex. Of course he did, don't be silly.

Dr Schneider came close but no prize, only refutation of the theory when realistic parameters are used in his model. As I have pointed out, you have not used realistic parameters. In particular, your value for q is wrong.

If you are trying to get an idea of what Dr Schneider ev model is simulating by looking at his model as a simplified probabilistic model, then you will find population has less than an additive affect on the probabilities of a mutation occurring at the proper locus. Of course. To be precise, as population size tends to infinity, the number of generations required tends to 1. The relationship can't be linear because you can't achieve the desired result in a negative number of mutations.

Similarly the relationship of q to n is non-linear, and tends to 1 as n tends to infinity.

I’m not sure what probabilities you are trying to compute. Ah, an argument from incomprehension.

Could you be more specific about what it is you don't understand? It's really very simple; perhaps you should read my post again until you get it.

---

What you've done is what computer scientists call GIGO --- "garbage in, garbage out". By using completely unrealistic assumptions, you've got a completely unrealistic answer. Well done.

[sphenisc]

No.

Is it possible to reformulate my query so that it is sufficiently analogous to Monty Hall problem, so that the answer would be "Yes"?

And, in order to forestall your monosyllabic grunt; how so? :)

[Bronze Dog]

I can not live without hope and the theory of evolution is without hope.

1. The universe does not revolve around you. Ask Yagyu (http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/fallacies/isought.htm).

2. Quite frankly, I don't see how some people can miss out on the hope that evolution and the understanding of evolution bring to mankind.

[kleinman]

Keinman, I notice you're still looking at ridiculously small populations. 2 meg is nothing to bacteria. You ignored that point earlier.
I didn’t ignore that point, you ignored the population data series I posted earlier on this thread.
You don’t have to post all infinite number of explanations for how humans came to be, just post the 10 trillion most plausible explanations. Actually, I only have to posit three explainations to prove that yours was a false dilemma. And the third doesn't even have to be plausible, as I don't find your explaination to be very likely and you're not requiring evidence.So, a third possibility: we are all one consiousness dreaming itself.
Actually, I am not the one with the dilemma. You evolutionarians have a mathematical model written by one of your own high priests which has been peer reviewed, confirmed and published in the center of your belief system (Oxford) and when realistic values are used in this model, it refutes your own theory. Your squirming with these types of arguments you try to present here demonstrates the mathematical vise that Dr Schneider has put your theory in, you have no direct evidence to refute the points presented here from ev.
Ok, your statement is not contradictory, stop being coy, where did you post your link? In the first post that mentioned the paper!
Thank you for pointing out that link. Once we have finished scratching at the ev scratching post, we can start scratching at your publication. The thought that I can annoy a hundred evolutionists at a time causes chills to go up and down my spine. By the way, this is the first time I have lied in these postings on ev, your statements really are contradictory. You evolutionarians think the truth is a lie and a lie is the truth.
What I can tell you is that we are all here for only a moment and that God does not allow anything to happen without His purposes being fulfilled. The adjective that best describes such a God, a God Who allows pontine tumors to painfully kill innocent children, is "evil." If that is what your interpretation of the Bible leads you to, and that you find a message of hope in that, then I have to wonder whether you have really put much thought into it.
That is a common view that many people take. When God blesses you with a child, did you ever think to thank God for this blessing? However, when a child is ill, we are so quick to curse God when things don’t work out the way we want. These types of events can fill the rest of your life with bitterness; do you think this is what your child would want to happen to you? Godly love is not cheap, it costs you everything.
Nice try Paul, I have only proven that macroevolution is impossible by random point mutations and natural selection thanks to Dr Schneider’s well designed mathematical model and your excellent java programming skills. You evolutionary scientists have to figure out how to rescue your own theory.You've only proven this limited assertion in your own mind until you present the proof. Are you ever going to present the proof to us?
Paul, you may call this a limited assertion only proven in my own mind but when you said the following: I think Ev rankles the IDers because it is a model of actual life, and also because Schneider is fairly good at advertising it.You slammed into reverse gear on the first part of your quote once you realized what ev shows but we never really talked about the second part of the quote. It doesn’t seem that Dr Schneider has been doing any recent advertising of his model. Perhaps my proof goes beyond my own mind?
Give it your best shot and produce the data from ev that contradicts my assertions. How is that 2 meg population case doing? Do you want me to start posting my binding site width cases? I don’t think any of your evolutionarian brethren have any idea what this model is about so posting the data now wouldn’t be helpful. I’ll post more data when a few more bloggers show that they have some understanding of the model.You have seen Myriad's new selection method, right?P.S. I've been playing around with the model. The curve of generations to convergence depends on the details of the selection mechanism. Change it so that ties are won by the bug whose worst mistake (greatest absolute value of the difference between the binding strength value from the weight matrix and the threshold) is less than the other bug's worst mistake, and the convergence time becomes (at least approximately) linear with respect to the genome length.
Sure I saw his quote, Myriad and I have talked about this a little of the Evolutionisdead forum. In fact, we have a wager on this and I am looking forward to him posting the data. Maybe you want to get in on the bet?
Trimble, you are correct in your analysis. So how do you distinguish which if any is true? Is it Islam which believes that your good deeds outweigh your bad deed you make to heaven or you get an express ticket to heaven with 70 virgins if you commit suicide while killing infidels? No wonder there are so few female Islamic suicide bombers. I have never met a woman who thought having sex with 70 virgin males was heaven. If you are female and do think that is heaven, don’t bother telling me, I am not a Moslem cleric. Or is it the orthodox Jewish belief that following Talmudic law leads to righteousness. Somehow by good deeds we can make ourselves acceptable to God. Or any of the myriad of other religions that says if you do the right thing or good deeds, you will make it to heaven or nirvana or eternal peace. What distinguishes Christianity from all other religions is that it is not our deeds that enable us to approach God, it is the price that was paid by God sending His own Son to die for our sins that buys our forgiveness.So we can tell which the correct religion is based on it merits? And we should judge its merits based on the morality that came from the religion in the first place (well I'll assume that you think morality comes from religion, I don't know that for sure).

Not the method I would use, that is for sure.
LLH, that is not what I am saying, in fact I am saying the exact opposite.

[Timble]

....Godly love is not cheap, it costs you everything...



This is where you begin to see that Lucifer had a point and feel some sympathy for the Devil.


Better to rule in Hell, than serve in Heaven.

[fishbob]

Selected statements, numbered for my convenience:

1 - Don’t forget, I’m annoying as well.

2 - I believe the Bible is a totally believable and trustworthy book, but forget about me proving this to you mathematically. I will prove to you that macroevolution is mathematically impossible (at least my random point mutations and natural selection) using an evolutionist’s model.

3 - Darwin had no idea how complex living things are. He didn’t know they were irreducibly complex. If he had, I don’t think he would have extrapolated his observations the way he did.

4 -
a) I am using Biblical arguments against the theory of evolution.
b) I am using the many Biblical admonitions to measure and weigh to determine what is true.
c) The mathematical arguments I raise here is measuring and weighing your theory.
d) The measurements shown from ev show that the theory of evolution is lacking when placed on the mathematical scale.

1 - No need to comment.

2 - Nobody cares what you believe, what can you show?

3 - Darwin apparently knew quite well the complexity of living things, he just didn't know as much detail as we do today. As some of us know today.

Of course he didn't know anything about irreducible complexity since that is a much newer, non-scientific, fabricated with faulty reasoning from false assumptions, and thoroughly discredited concept.

4a - Pointlessly.
4b - Ad nauseumly.
4c - Bushismly (Meaninglessly)
4d - Incorrectly.

[kleinman]

So, Mr. Kleinman, is there some testable claim that you will make for which you will promise not to move the goalpost and, if evolutionismistiesariansists prove you wrong, you will throw the bible into the trash heap of exposed hoaxes? I'm sure that evolutionismistiesarians have enough faith in their view to do that with Darwin. Can you draw a line in the sand at a reasonable point where, if crossed by evolutionismistiesariansists, you would not draw a new line, but announce the defeat of creationism?
If you read my original post on the Evolutionisdead forum you will find that I have not moved any goal posts. It is you evolutionarians who are changing your position on what ev represents. If you want to read my initial position on this debate, you can find it at: http://www.evolutionisdead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=348&sid=1434cf179889b7b9d23dc99e61d4fbdb (http://www.evolutionisdead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=348&sid=1434cf179889b7b9d23dc99e61d4fbdb) Feel free to quote me and show where I have moved the goal posts.
Darwin had no idea how complex living things are. He didn’t know they were irreducibly complex. Of course he did, don't be silly.
How could I be so silly, Darwin knew all about DNA, RNA, enzymes and structural proteins, cofactors, metabolic pathways…
Dr Schneider came close but no prize, only refutation of the theory when realistic parameters are used in his model. As I have pointed out, you have not used realistic parameters. In particular, your value for q is wrong. qcuse me.
If you are trying to get an idea of what Dr Schneider ev model is simulating by looking at his model as a simplified probabilistic model, then you will find population has less than an additive affect on the probabilities of a mutation occurring at the proper locus. Of course. To be precise, as population size tends to infinity, the number of generations required tends to 1. The relationship can't be linear because you can't achieve the desired result in a negative number of mutations. Similarly the relationship of q to n is non-linear, and tends to 1 as n tends to infinity.
You better go back to your abacus on this calculation, because Dr Schneider’s model is showing something completely different. If you think that you can evolve the binding sites that Dr Schneider is simulating in a single generation with an infinite population, I think you will find even Paul doesn’t agree with this. Even so, as large as bacterial populations can get, they will never be infinite.
I’m not sure what probabilities you are trying to compute.Ah, an argument from incomprehension. Could you be more specific about what it is you don't understand? It's really very simple; perhaps you should read my post again until you get it.
I don’t see how you are applying your simple probabilistic model to Dr Schneider’s model. Start by defining the variables in your calculations and then describe the rules of probability that you are applying in your computation.
What you've done is what computer scientists call GIGO --- "garbage in, garbage out". By using completely unrealistic assumptions, you've got a completely unrealistic answer. Well done.
I have made no assumptions about Dr Schneider’s model, what I have done is taken Dr Schneider’s model and assumptions and applied realistic parameters to the model. I take it that you believe that Dr Schneider’s use of unrealistic parameters in his model to predict the evolution of a human genome is an appropriate application of his model and my use of realistic parameters in his model to show how slow random point mutation and natural selection is an inappropriate application of his model. Your analogy Dr is inAdequate.

[Dr Adequate]

How could I be so silly, Darwin knew all about DNA, RNA, enzymes and structural proteins, cofactors, metabolic pathways… Of course he didn't. Don't be silly.

You better go back to your abacus on this calculation, because Dr Schneider’s model is showing something completely different. If you think that you can evolve the binding sites that Dr Schneider is simulating in a single generation with an infinite population, I think you will find even Paul doesn’t agree with this. I think you'll find he does.

Yes, that's the obvious asymptote. I think you'll find that anyone with the most basic competence in probability theory will also do so.

Even so, as large as bacterial populations can get, they will never be infinite. No. But they are much larger than the figure you're using.

I don’t see how you are applying your simple probabilistic model to Dr Schneider’s model. Start by defining the variables in your calculations I have done so.

and then describe the rules of probability that you are applying in your computation. Er, the usual ones. There is, so far as I know, only one set of laws of probability.

I have made no assumptions about Dr Schneider’s model, what I have done is taken Dr Schneider’s model and assumptions and applied realistic parameters to the model. No you haven't. And saying it won't make it so.

In particular, your figure for population size is unrealistic by a dozen or so orders of magnitude. Hello?

I take it that you believe that Dr Schneider’s use of unrealistic parameters in his model to predict the evolution of a human genome is an appropriate application of his model...No. In particular, Dr Schneider has not used his model "to predict the evolution of a human genome".

and my use of realistic parameters in his model to show how slow random point mutation and natural selection is an inappropriate application of his model. I believe that your use of totally unrealistic parameters to get a totally unrealistic answer is an abuse of the model.

[joobz]

Of course he didn't. Don't be silly.

I think you'll find he does.

No. But they are much larger than the figure you're using.

I have done so.

Er, the usual ones. There is, so far as I know, only one set of laws of probability.

No you haven't. And saying it won't make it so.

In particular, your figure for population size is unrealistic by a dozen or so orders of magnitude. Hello?

No. In particular, Dr Schneider has not used his model "to predict the evolution of a human genome".

I believe that your use of totally unrealistic parameters to get a totally unrealistic answer is an abuse of the model.
Dr. Adequate,
You've done a very nice job in explaining your position and the flaws that kleinman has made. Unfortunately, he doesn't use logic or reason and is completely happy using intellectually dishonesty. Many flaws in his argument have been demonstrated, yet he refuses to acknowledge these. He'll stick to his "takes too long" story. For that is all it is, a story.

[Dr Adequate]

I don't think creationists are usually dishonest, I think they're just misinformed.

However, this guy keeps reciting his rubbish about how he's used "realistic parameters" when one of his parameters is a dozen or so orders of magnitude too small and he knows it.

[delphi_ote]

Very interesting. As part of my campaign to unify all threads, I'd like to ask, "If I have three explanations and I select one as most likely and then someone eliminates one of the other explanations, doesn't the unchosen explanation become more likely?"
No. Because there are always more explanations possible. In general, evidence against one hypothesis is not evidence for a different hypothesis. In the end, a hypothesis stands and falls based on its own merits.

[delphi_ote]

Actually, I am not the one with the dilemma.
No. You have the dilemma. You assume evolution is false. How do you then decide between your hypothesis, "Goddidit" and my hypothesis that the universe is one consciousness dreaming itself?

[joobz]

I don't think creationists are usually dishonest, I think they're just misinformed.
I agree. That was the reason I orignally responded to his questions and comments. However, once I learned his true intent was to missquote, lie, refuse to admit mistakes and deny facts to make his case, he lost any respect I would hold for him.

[Jekyll]

Is it possible to reformulate my query so that it is sufficiently analogous to Monty Hall problem, so that the answer would be "Yes"?

And, in order to forestall your monosyllabic grunt; how so? :)

You could always say "If I have three explanations and I select one as most likely and then someone eliminates one of the other explanations, doesn't the unchosen explanation become relatively more likely?"

"It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet ~ Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

[Dr Adequate]

"It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet ~ Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Alas, creationists don't eliminate the impossible.

Imagine if Sherlock Holmes reasoned like a creationist.

"I don't know who murdered Lord Ponsonby. So God did it. I think a talking snake may also have been involved. Case closed."

[Jekyll]

Alas, creationists don't eliminate the impossible.

Imagine if Sherlock Holmes reasoned like a creationist.

"I don't know who murdered Lord Ponsonby. So God did it. I think a talking snake may also have been involved. Case closed."

In many respects he did, he'd take a few odd unrelated facts, throw together some tenuous hypothesis, not bother to check for confirmation or refutation, and then lay down his conclusion as incontrovertible scientific fact.

I much preferred Father Brown, oddly enough.

[Yahzi]

So deletions, insertions, stutters, reversals, and partial replications don't matter?
When I first read this sentence, I thought you were talking about the Bible.

:D

[Yahzi]

I can not live without hope and the theory of evolution is without hope.
Why didn't you say that in the beginning?

Instead, you concealed your real motives and goals, and pretended to care about scientific facts.

If you would have us respect you, then you must respect us enough to tell us the truth.

Next time you want to argue about evolution, start with your real reasons. You'll find that people won't be quite so harsh on your character if you don't start out by lying to them.

[kleinman]

How could I be so silly, Darwin knew all about DNA, RNA, enzymes and structural proteins, cofactors, metabolic pathways… Of course he didn't. Don't be silly.
Then why would you be so silly to say: Of course he did, don't be silly. when describing Darwin’s understanding of the complexity of living things. Darwin had no idea of these things.
Yes, that's the obvious asymptote. I think you'll find that anyone with the most basic competence in probability theory will also do so.
If you paid closer attention to this discussion you would know that Paul also said the following about the population effect in ev:
Of course it is approaching an asymptote: zero. And I'm perfectly willing to believe it's actually approaching a higher asymptote.
If you examined the ev model, you would find that it is not a simple probability problem but you appear to be afflicted with the same deficiency that other evolutionarians suffer from, superficiality. Your analysis of this model Dr is inAdequate.
Even so, as large as bacterial populations can get, they will never be infinite. I don’t see how you are applying your simple probabilistic model to Dr Schneider’s model. Start by defining the variables in your calculations
The problem for you evolutionarians is that ev appears to be showing that population much smaller than 2 meg appear to be approaching an asymptote. Why do you think Paul is doing this 2 meg case, he is trying to show that you still get some reduction in the generations for convergence. For your sake, I will post the series which Paul is talking about, G=1000, mutation rate = 1 mutation per 1000 bases per generation, gamma = 16, binding site width = 6:
Population \ generation for convergence
2 \ failed to converge
4 \ 66547
8 \ 15916
16 \ 17257
32 \ 16416
64 \ 9082
128 \ 9378
256 \ 4078
512 \ 3685
1024 \ 2793
2048 \ 2080
4096 \ 2565
6000 \ 1541
8192 \ 1798
16384 \ 1001
32768 \ 743
65536 \ 633
131072 \ 483
262144 \ 702
524288 \ 642
1048576 \ 438
Paul is clinging to the hope that the 2 meg population case will continue to show fewer generations for convergence and that what is being seen between population 32768 and 1048576 is not simply noise due to the stochastic process.

You evolutionarians have another problem with your theory. Stephen Gould said that evolution by punctuated equilibrium occurs in small sub-populations in short time spans. This data from ev is in direct contradiction to Gould’s hypothesis.

I take it that you believe that Dr Schneider’s use of unrealistic parameters in his model to predict the evolution of a human genome is an appropriate application of his model... No. In particular, Dr Schneider has not used his model "to predict the evolution of a human genome".
You have not done an adequate job in reading Dr Schneider’s writings. I will post a third time on this thread what Dr Schneider ascribed to his single case published in Nucleic Acids Research. Myriad please note that I publish Dr Schneider’s quote in full.
Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of ~4x10^9 bits (assuming an average of 1 bit/base, which is clearly an overestimate) could evolve in a billion years, even without the advantages of large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer.
Please feel free to do the evolutionarian twist on Dr Schneider’s statement.
and my use of realistic parameters in his model to show how slow random point mutation and natural selection is an inappropriate application of his model.I believe that your use of totally unrealistic parameters to get a totally unrealistic answer is an abuse of the model.
Maybe you should start the society for the prevention of abuse of evolutionist computer models.
Dr. Adequate, You've done a very nice job in explaining your position and the flaws that kleinman has made. Unfortunately, he doesn't use logic or reason and is completely happy using intellectually dishonesty. Many flaws in his argument have been demonstrated, yet he refuses to acknowledge these. He'll stick to his "takes too long" story. For that is all it is, a story.
Joozb, is it Dr inAdequate’s argument that anything is possible at infinity or his sounds good to me argument that convinced you.
Actually, I am not the one with the dilemma. No. You have the dilemma. You assume evolution is false. How do you then decide between your hypothesis, "Goddidit" and my hypothesis that the universe is one consciousness dreaming itself?
Hey, don’t blame me, it’s Dr Schneider’s model that is showing this.

[Dr Adequate]

Then why would you be so silly to say: when describing Darwin’s understanding of the complexity of living things. Darwin had no idea of these things. Don't be silly. Of course Darwin knew that living things are complex. Of course, he did not know modern genetics.

Do you understand the difference now, or do I have to explain further?

If you paid closer attention to this discussion you would know that Paul also said the following about the population effect in ev: Yes, he did. And then, when I pointed out that the generation number tends to 1, he agreed with me.

If you examined the ev model, you would find that it is not a simple probability problem but you appear to be afflicted with the same deficiency that other evolutionarians suffer from, superficiality. Your analysis of this model Dr is inAdequate. So, you don't have any actual counterarguments.

You evolutionarians have another problem with your theory. Stephen Gould said that evolution by punctuated equilibrium occurs in small sub-populations in short time spans. This data from ev is in direct contradiction to Gould’s hypothesis. You're just rambling now.

Which data?

Evolution does occur in small sub-populations in short time spans. Look at the speciation of the Wood's Hole worms.

You have not done an adequate job in reading Dr Schneider’s writings. I will post a third time on this thread what Dr Schneider ascribed to his single case published in Nucleic Acids Research. You said that he'd used his model "to predict the evolution of a human genome". Your quotation does not substantiate that.

Maybe you should start the society for the prevention of abuse of evolutionist computer models. It's more a one man operation.

Still, I'm glad you got through that post without lying about "realistic parameters".

Can you stop using that bloody stupid font, too? Cheers.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If you paid closer attention to this discussion you would know that Paul also said the following about the population effect in ev:

Of course it is approaching an asymptote: zero. And I'm perfectly willing to believe it's actually approaching a higher asymptote.
Zero because the initial random genome could be perfect, requiring not even one generation to get there. I mentioned a higher asymptote because in the real world, where there are not infinite creatures, there may be some practical higher asymptote. However, I don't know what it would be.


The problem for you evolutionarians is that ev appears to be showing that population much smaller than 2 meg appear to be approaching an asymptote. Why do you think Paul is doing this 2 meg case, he is trying to show that you still get some reduction in the generations for convergence. For your sake, I will post the series which Paul is talking about, G=1000, mutation rate = 1 mutation per 1000 bases per generation, gamma = 16, binding site width = 6:
Population \ generation for convergence
2 \ failed to converge
4 , 66547
8 , 15916
16 , 17257
32 , 16416
64 , 9082
128 , 9378
256 , 4078
512 , 3685
1024 , 2793
2048 , 2080
4096 , 2565
6000 , 1541
8192 , 1798
16384 , 1001
32768 , 743
65536 , 633
131072 , 483
262144 , 702
524288 , 642
1048576 , 438
Paul is clinging to the hope that the 2 meg population case will continue to show fewer generations for convergence and that what is being seen between population 32768 and 1048576 is not simply noise due to the stochastic process.
You are being disingenuous here. You know that the variance in the number of generations is high. We should really run each case a half dozen times and use the mean. I will run the 2 million population case when I've got a week with nothing better to do.

I ran the 4K, 8K, 32K, and 65K populations 5 times each and got these means:

4086, 1770
8192, 1641
32768, 1288
65536, 922

Let's use those numbers along with yours for populations of 4K and higher. That data fits $12800p^{-.24}$. Extrapolating to 100 million creatures, we get 153 generations.

I'd love to know what Myriad gets with his alternate tie-breaking scheme.

~~ Paul

[fishbob]

I don't think creationists are usually dishonest, I think they're just misinformed.

However, this guy keeps reciting his rubbish about how he's used "realistic parameters" when one of his parameters is a dozen or so orders of magnitude too small and he knows it.

I think that creationists ARE usually dishonest in one of two ways:

Refusal to look at facts - intellectual dishonesty through deliberate ignorance.
Misrepresentation of facts - lying.

I have had no luck in finding one that doesn't fit one of these models.

[kleinman]

If you paid closer attention to this discussion you would know that Paul also said the following about the population effect in ev:Of course it is approaching an asymptote: zero. And I'm perfectly willing to believe it's actually approaching a higher asymptote.
And
Zero because the initial random genome could be perfect, requiring not even one generation to get there. I mentioned a higher asymptote because in the real world, where there are not infinite creatures, there may be some practical higher asymptote. However, I don't know what it would be.
I’m sure joozb likes your anything is possible zero estimate. It probably even sounds good to him.
The problem for you evolutionarians is that ev appears to be showing that population much smaller than 2 meg appear to be approaching an asymptote. Why do you think Paul is doing this 2 meg case, he is trying to show that you still get some reduction in the generations for convergence. For your sake, I will post the series which Paul is talking about, G=1000, mutation rate = 1 mutation per 1000 bases per generation, gamma = 16, binding site width = 6:
Population \ generation for convergence
2 \ failed to converge
4 , 66547
8 , 15916
16 , 17257
32 , 16416
64 , 9082
128 , 9378
256 , 4078
512 , 3685
1024 , 2793
2048 , 2080
4096 , 2565
6000 , 1541
8192 , 1798
16384 , 1001
32768 , 743
65536 , 633
131072 , 483
262144 , 702
524288 , 642
1048576 , 438
Paul is clinging to the hope that the 2 meg population case will continue to show fewer generations for convergence and that what is being seen between population 32768 and 1048576 is not simply noise due to the stochastic process.You are being disingenuous here. You know that the variance in the number of generations is high. We should really run each case a half dozen times and use the mean. I will run the 2 million population case when I've got a week with nothing better to do.
Disingenuous? I take that as an improvement from you, you usually call me a liar when I quote you. So let’s look at the mean values you computed:
I ran the 4K, 8K, 32K, and 65K populations 5 times each and got these means:
4086, 1770
8192, 1641
32768, 1288
65536, 922
The trends for increasing population appear similar. Changing the random seed number may change the absolute value for the generations for convergence but the trends don’t appear to be affected.
I'd love to know what Myriad gets with his alternate tie-breaking scheme.
My wager with Myriad is still open to you as well, don’t you want to get in on it?

[Dr Adequate]

The problem for you evolutionarians is that ev appears to be showing that population much smaller than 2 meg appear to be approaching an asymptote. Why do you think Paul is doing this 2 meg case, he is trying to show that you still get some reduction in the generations for convergence. Oh, I missed this bit.

YES, OF COURSE IT'S APPROACHING THE ASYMPTOTE. THAT'S WHAT I SAID.

OF COURSE YOU GET A REDUCTION IN THE GENERATIONS. THAT'S THE BLEEDIN' POINT.

Hello, Earth to stupid guy?

Sheesh.

If you rolled in male clue musk and ran naked through a field of horny female clues in the clue mating season, you still couldn't get a clue.

Paul is clinging to the hope that the 2 meg population case will continue to show fewer generations for convergence and that what is being seen between population 32768 and 1048576 is not simply noise due to the stochastic process. Yes, he's "clinging to the hope" that what is mathematically certain is true.

Me too. I'd hate to live in a Universe where the laws of logic were abolished.

[Dr Adequate]

Zero because the initial random genome could be perfect, requiring not even one generation to get there. But wouldn't you count the first (and final) generation as being one (1) generation?

Otherwise, since Schneider starts with a randomized population, you're right.

[joobz]

I’m sure joozb likes your anything is possible zero estimate. It probably even sounds good to him.
I don't even know what you are trying to say here. But, I'm sure it makes sense to you.

Feel free to continue your misrepresentation of my views. feel free to continue to deny the mistakes and errors you've made in your arguements and conclusions.

I'm sure god will forgive you. Afterall, he's never made a rule against lying and bearing false witness, has he? or any rules for humility? Or any rules for hypocricy? Well, I'm sure your you can work it out with him.

[kleinman]

Paul is clinging to the hope that the 2 meg population case will continue to show fewer generations for convergence and that what is being seen between population 32768 and 1048576 is not simply noise due to the stochastic process. Yes, he's "clinging to the hope" that what is mathematically certain is true. Me too. I'd hate to live in a Universe where the laws of logic were abolished.
Dr inAdequate also clings to the hope that his logic will prove that the 2 meg population will converge in 1 generation. Dr inAdequate, what was the population of our primate ancestors when we supposedly evolved from them? This case from ev is for the evolution of 96 loci on a 1000 base genome and it is taking about 400 generations for a population of 1,000,000. Since human and chimp genome lengths are at least 3 billion bases long and ev shows that the increasing the genome length increases the generations for convergence proportional to at least the genome length to the second power, the number of generations to evolve a human length genome is inadequate according to the results from ev. I really enjoy abusing evolutionist computer programs. I think it is because it annoys evolutionists so much.

I can’t attract a horny female clue but for some reason I am able to attract frustrated and annoyed evolutionarians in abundance. Where is the logic in this Dr inAdequate?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But wouldn't you count the first (and final) generation as being one (1) generation?
Ev counts generations as those that have passed, so the initial population is created on generation 0. But it's probably fair to say that one generation has passed after initial creation.

I'll go with an asymptote of 1.

~~ Paul

[Dr Adequate]

Dr inAdequate also clings to the hope that his logic will prove that the 2 meg population will converge in 1 generation. I said absolutely no such thing. Are you lying again, or are you just to stupid to understand what I said? I'll be happy to explain it again using shorter words.

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

Dr inAdequate, what was the population of our primate ancestors when we supposedly evolved from them? This case from ev is for the evolution of 96 loci on a 1000 base genome and it is taking about 400 generations for a population of 1,000,000. Since human and chimp genome lengths are at least 3 billion bases long and ev shows that the increasing the genome length increases the generations for convergence proportional to at least the genome length to the second power, the number of generations to evolve a human length genome is inadequate according to the results from ev. If you don't show your working, I can't point out your mistakes.

I really enjoy abusing evolutionist computer programs. I think it is because it annoys evolutionists so much. Of course dishonesty irritates us. Why you enjoy irritating people by lying to them, I have no idea. Are you a childish sociopath, or is there some other reason?

I can’t attract a horny female clue but for some reason I am able to attract frustrated and annoyed evolutionarians in abundance. Where is the logic in this Dr inAdequate? Did that mean anything?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

... what was the population of our primate ancestors when we supposedly evolved from them?
Is that when binding sites evolved?


Since human and chimp genome lengths are at least 3 billion bases long and ev shows that the increasing the genome length increases the generations for convergence proportional to at least the genome length to the second power, ...
Did binding sites evolve on gigabase genomes using only point mutations?

I wonder what the proportion is for Myriad's tie-breaking method?

~~ Paul

[Dr Adequate]

Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html)

[kleinman]

Ev counts generations as those that have passed, so the initial population is created on generation 0. But it's probably fair to say that one generation has passed after initial creation. I'll go with an asymptote of 1.
Paul, have you been taking classes from joozb. You are using his sounds good system of scientific proof.
... what was the population of our primate ancestors when we supposedly evolved from them? Is that when binding sites evolved?
That’s an interesting question. Do you think that genes will evolve faster than binding sites? Or perhaps you believe all the genes and binding sites were already evolved in our primate ancestor and only recombination was required to evolve humans and chimps. You evolutionists are going to have some explaining to do if there are genes in humans that don’t exist in chimps and visa versa if you adopt this point of view.
Since human and chimp genome lengths are at least 3 billion bases long and ev shows that the increasing the genome length increases the generations for convergence proportional to at least the genome length to the second power, ... Did binding sites evolve on gigabase genomes using only point mutations? I wonder what the proportion is for Myriad's tie-breaking method?
Maybe Delphi’s chromosomal duplication will explain it, of course that is for plants. Chromosomal duplications don’t help humans very much. How about frame shifts, evolutionists do like shifts, but it is usually into reverse gear on their previous statements. I think joozb’s method is best, just use whatever sounds good but whatever you do, do not make a computer simulation of your concept. There are creationists out there who will abuse your computer models, if only to annoy evolutionarians.
Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04072.html)
There you go. They are starting to quantify point substitutions, insertion/deletions, recombination and other mechanisms for evolution. You have about 500,000 generations to account for the differences between the two species. You have to account for at least 35,000,000 single nucleotide changes and five million insertion deletion events. Hard mathematical science requires you do the accounting. Ev is not going to be much of a help for those 35,000,000 single nucleotide changes. I note this following line from their discussion section:
Some questions can be directly answered by comparing the human and chimpanzee sequences, including estimates of regional mutation rates and average selective constraints on gene classes.
They are seeking a mutation rate which fits the differences in the genomes of the two species. As genome sequencing improves such that generation by generation sequencing can be done quickly and cheaply, the validity of this assumption made by these authors to determine mutation rates can be tested.

[joobz]

Paul, have you been taking classes from joozb. You are using his sounds good system of scientific proof.If you call stating a hypothesis based on SOUND consistent logic, than yes, he has been. I wish you would take similar lessons instead of making insulting claims.

That’s an interesting question. Do you think that genes will evolve faster than binding sites? Or perhaps you believe all the genes and binding sites were already evolved in our primate ancestor and only recombination was required to evolve humans and chimps. You evolutionists are going to have some explaining to do if there are genes in humans that don’t exist in chimps and visa versa if you adopt this point of view. At no point was there a coherent thought in this statement. You've presented another false dilemma. Please, tell me more.

How about gene's must become peanut butter or they must taste like chicken. If they do neither, than craetionism is right.


Maybe Delphi’s chromosomal duplication will explain it, of course that is for plants. Chromosomal duplications don’t help humans very much. How about frame shifts, evolutionists do like shifts, but it is usually into reverse gear on their previous statements. I think joozb’s method is best, just use whatever sounds good but whatever you do, do not make a computer simulation of your concept.
where did i say this? Hmm? Please continue to dig deep. I'm sure god loves to see his name linked to someone who's so willing to lie and slander.

There you go. They are starting to quantify point substitutions, insertion/deletions, recombination and other mechanisms for evolution. You have about 500,000 generations to account for the differences between the two species. You have to account for at least 35,000,000 single nucleotide changes and five million insertion deletion events. Hard mathematical science requires you do the accounting. Ev is not going to be much of a help for those 35,000,000 single nucleotide changes.
Wow, you said something fairly true. Ev might not be much help here. It will need to be expanded to account for more of the mutation possibilities and it will also have to start considering evolution of genes other than binding sites. Afterall, that's just one piece of the puzzle. So good job, you've actually made a statement that's about right.

Now, if I can only get you to understand what thermodyanmics is, then we'd be doing even better.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Chromosomal duplications don’t help humans very much.
You sure?

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0030314


~~ Paul

[delphi_ote]

Hey, don’t blame me, it’s Dr Schneider’s model that is showing this.
Even if the model was showing whatever it is you think it's showing, this is not evidence of creation. Your dilema is still there. What is your alternate hypothesis and where is the evidence for it? How does it account for what you find lacking in evolution? Most importantly, how does it explain all of the evidence evolution already explains?

Sorry, but you're not allowed to sit on your ass and be grumpy in science. If you present a hypothesis, you have to defend it.

[Mr. Scott]

If you read my original post on the Evolutionisdead forum you will find that I have not moved any goal posts.

Good.

Considering the context of my question you've responded to...

Will you agree that if supporters of evolution prove to you that your calculations on this topic are incorrect, you will declare creationism dead?

[joobz]

Good.

Considering the context of my question you've responded to...

Will you agree that if supporters of evolution prove to you that your calculations on this topic are incorrect, you will declare creationism dead?

I enjoy your intent here, but you are assuming kleinman is capable of honor. He hasn't in demonstrated the ability to admit error in something as simple as incorrectly defining terms. He'll NEVER actually admit error in something that could shake the foundations of his faith.

[articulett]

I don't even know what you are trying to say here. But, I'm sure it makes sense to you.

Feel free to continue your misrepresentation of my views. feel free to continue to deny the mistakes and errors you've made in your arguements and conclusions.

I'm sure god will forgive you. Afterall, he's never made a rule against lying and bearing false witness, has he? or any rules for humility? Or any rules for hypocricy? Well, I'm sure your you can work it out with him.


Well C.S. Lewis has read the bible and cocluded that PRIDE is the worse sin of all. (I was thinking torture, murder, and pedophilia topped pride, but what do I know; the bible makes no coherent sense to me...nor does kleinman. But genetics makes ready sense--it's like game theory on a grand scale)

I used to be like Dr. Adequate and I just thought creationists were misinformed and had the thinking muddied by having been told their salvation depended upon them believing a certain way. But I now think they are purposefully dishonest. They purposefully ignore the explanations to their queries and pretend that their obfuscations regarding certain particulars of evolution somehow means that their completely unsupported alternate theory which can be summed up as "god went poof" is true. They are dishonest, because when you give up trying to comprehend what it is they are trying to say, they use it as evidence that "scientists" and "skeptics" have no answer to this dilemma therefore "god went poof".

When I hear certain sorts of questions or arguments that contain inherent ignorance and bias, my stomach turns. I imagine someone saying to scientists past-- "why can't you say how far it is to the end of the earth?!...and don't give me 'the earth is a sphere' crap because if it was a sphere the oceans would spill out--besides, wouldn't god have mentioned it if it was spherical?!! He's omniscient, you know --plus you have to invent gravity to have a spherical planet which means this planet is supposedly spinning...but I have very sensitive motion sickeness, and I would know if it was spinning...why aren't you answering...you don't have a good answer, do you. That's because you know the earth is flat".

How is anyone supposed to answer that. And if it's not dishonest, it certainly is indicative of someone who believes they already have the answer...not of someone who actually desires to know what is known.

I have a hypothesis that when you train your brain to find deep spiritual truths is rather barbaric and arcane writings you also train your brain to perceive your dishonest "debates" as being righteous, deep, and wise.

Evolution is alive and thriving. To pretend otherwise is to lie to yourself and others in the name of religion. The only people who have problems with the mathematics of evolution or irreducible complexity are creationists. The scientific community has stopped giving these people the time of day.

[Dr Adequate]

There you go. They are starting to quantify point substitutions, insertion/deletions, recombination and other mechanisms for evolution. You have about 500,000 generations to account for the differences between the two species. You have to account for at least 35,000,000 single nucleotide changes and five million insertion deletion events...

They are seeking a mutation rate which fits the differences in the genomes of the two species. As genome sequencing improves such that generation by generation sequencing can be done quickly and cheaply, the validity of this assumption made by these authors to determine mutation rates can be tested.

Certainly.

For starters, we should be able to predict how different the genomes should be. The seven million years of evolution in each lineage represents about 350,000 generations in each (assuming 20 years per generation). How many mutations happen per generation? Estimating mutation rates is not easy (at least without assuming common descent): it is hard to find a few changed nucleotides out of 3 billion that have not changed. By studying new cases of genetic diseases, individuals whose parents' do not have the disease, however, it is possible to identify and count new mutations, at least in a small number of genes. Using this technique, it has been estimated[1] that the single-base substitution rate for humans is approximately 1.7 x 10^-8 substitutions/nucleotide/generation, that is, 17 changes per billion nucleotides. That translates into ~100 new mutations for every human birth. (17 x 3, for the 3 billion nucleotides in the genome, x 2 for the two genome copies we each carry). At that rate, in 350,000 generations a copy of the human genome should have accumulated about 18 million mutations, while the chimpanzee genome should have accumulated a similar number.

The evolutionary prediction, then, is that there should be roughly 36 million single-base differences between humans and chimpanzees. The actual number could be determined when both the chimpanzee and human genomes had been completely sequenced. When the two genomes were compared[2], thirty-five million substitutions were found, in remarkably good agreement with the evolutionary expectation. Fortuitously good agreement, in fact: the uncertainty on most of the numbers used in the estimate is large enough that it took luck to come that close.

There you go.

You can move the goalposts how you like --- we can still put the ball through them.

[Beleth]

Very interesting. As part of my campaign to unify all threads, I'd like to ask, "If I have three explanations and I select one as most likely and then someone eliminates one of the other explanations, doesn't the unchosen explanation become more likely?"I think you're mixing concepts here in a confusing way.

Explanations of a past event never become "more likely"; either an explanation correctly explains an event, or it doesn't. The probability of evolution happening is either 0 or 1; likewise with creation.

If I rolled a die, a number definitely got rolled. That I rolled a 2 doesn't become more likely just because I discover that I didn't roll a 5.

This is actually the essence of the Monty Hall paradox. When I pick a door, I divide the doors into two groups: The Door I Picked, and the Doors I Didn't Pick. The likelihood of the car being behind TDIP doesn't change just because one of TDsIDP is shown to be empty.

[sphenisc]

This site gives a similar argument to Dr A's but uses rather different figures.

http://www.hells-handmaiden.com/?p=237

The conclusion,however, is much the same.

(I liked the fact that Dr A's generation length value matched AiG's - both rather anthropocentric).

[kleinman]

Chromosomal duplications don’t help humans very much.You sure?
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perl...l.pbio.0030314 (http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0030314)
Apparently the authors of that article are not aware of the effects of trisomies on humans.
Hey, don’t blame me, it’s Dr Schneider’s model that is showing this. Even if the model was showing whatever it is you think it's showing, this is not evidence of creation. Your dilema is still there. What is your alternate hypothesis and where is the evidence for it? How does it account for what you find lacking in evolution? Most importantly, how does it explain all of the evidence evolution already explains?
I have repeatedly said that I am not here to prove creation. I am only presenting evidence from a computer model written by an evolutionist, peer reviewed and published in an evolutionist journal that contradicts your belief system and you evolutionists get annoyed and cry foul. The theory of evolution started without a mathematical foundation and remains that way.
Sorry, but you're not allowed to sit on your ass and be grumpy in science. If you present a hypothesis, you have to defend it.
What is this? Now I’m the Grinch who stole evolutionism. I don’t feel grumpy at all, I’m enjoying this discussion.
If you read my original post on the Evolutionisdead forum you will find that I have not moved any goal posts. Good.

Considering the context of my question you've responded to...

Will you agree that if supporters of evolution prove to you that your calculations on this topic are incorrect, you will declare creationism dead?
Mr Scott, there is a double standard in your proposal. Evolutionists never scrutinized Dr Schneider’s computer model before I posted the results using realistic parameters. Once I did this, evolutionists have been discrediting the model rather than acknowledging these results. What I will agree to is if evolutionist can prove that my calculations on this topic are incorrect that they will have more evidence in support of their theory.

The genetic evidence in support of the theory of evolution can be summed up as apparent genomic similarity between one species and the next. This is only half the proof; evolutionists have to prove how one genome transforms to another in the time available with the mechanisms available. Dr Schneider’s model shows how difficult this mathematical hurdle is.

Mr Scott, fire away and prove that the data that I have posted from ev is incorrect and that you can make ev converge quickly enough to support the concept of macroevolution and punctuated equilibrium.

Of course, abiogenesis is another problem that evolutionists have. The best argument I have seen is joozb’s scientific conclusion that anything is possible.
I enjoy your intent here, but you are assuming kleinman is capable of honor. He hasn't in demonstrated the ability to admit error in something as simple as incorrectly defining terms. He'll NEVER actually admit error in something that could shake the foundations of his faith.
Joozb, you must have turned your grammar and spell checker on in your word processor. You are the best argument against teaching the theory of evolution to grade schoolers. What is more important to teach children, the theory of evolution or how to read and write?
There you go. They are starting to quantify point substitutions, insertion/deletions, recombination and other mechanisms for evolution. You have about 500,000 generations to account for the differences between the two species. You have to account for at least 35,000,000 single nucleotide changes and five million insertion deletion events...

They are seeking a mutation rate which fits the differences in the genomes of the two species. As genome sequencing improves such that generation by generation sequencing can be done quickly and cheaply, the validity of this assumption made by these authors to determine mutation rates can be tested. Certainly.

For starters, we should be able to predict how different the genomes should be. The seven million years of evolution in each lineage represents about 350,000 generations in each (assuming 20 years per generation). How many mutations happen per generation? Estimating mutation rates is not easy (at least without assuming common descent): it is hard to find a few changed nucleotides out of 3 billion that have not changed. By studying new cases of genetic diseases, individuals whose parents' do not have the disease, however, it is possible to identify and count new mutations, at least in a small number of genes. Using this technique, it has been estimated[1] that the single-base substitution rate for humans is approximately 1.7 x 10^-8 substitutions/nucleotide/generation, that is, 17 changes per billion nucleotides. That translates into ~100 new mutations for every human birth. (17 x 3, for the 3 billion nucleotides in the genome, x 2 for the two genome copies we each carry). At that rate, in 350,000 generations a copy of the human genome should have accumulated about 18 million mutations, while the chimpanzee genome should have accumulated a similar number.

The evolutionary prediction, then, is that there should be roughly 36 million single-base differences between humans and chimpanzees. The actual number could be determined when both the chimpanzee and human genomes had been completely sequenced. When the two genomes were compared[2], thirty-five million substitutions were found, in remarkably good agreement with the evolutionary expectation. Fortuitously good agreement, in fact: the uncertainty on most of the numbers used in the estimate is large enough that it took luck to come that close.

There you go.
There is a big flaw in your logic. You have assumed that every one of the 1.7x10^-8 mutations are good mutations. The reality is that the majority of mutations are harmful and slow any potential evolutionary process. If you studied the ev model a little bit, you would get a sense of the mathematical deficiency in your calculation.
You can move the goalposts how you like --- we can still put the ball through them.
What you see as me moving the goal posts is your slow paced understanding of my arguments. I’ll be patient with you too. Once you understand that my argument is that Dr Schneider’s computer model of random point mutations and natural selection shows this mechanism is too slow to explain macroevolution, contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium and contradicts the argument that huge populations will accelerate evolution sufficiently to rescue the theory of evolution, then you will see the goal post I have set. Let’s see you put the ball through that goal.

[Dr Adequate]

Mr Scott, there is a double standard in your proposal. Evolutionists never scrutinized Dr Schneider’s computer model before I posted the results using realistic parameters. Your parameters are not realistic. One of them is wrong by a dozen orders of magnitude. We know this. Stop lying.

There is a big flaw in your logic. You have assumed that every one of the 1.7x10^-8 mutations are good mutations. The reality is that the majority of mutations are harmful and slow any potential evolutionary process. If you studied the ev model a little bit, you would get a sense of the mathematical deficiency in your calculation.:dl:

Oh dear me.

We are the descendants of primates without any lethal point mutations.

Sheesh.

You really don't understand the theory of evolution at all, do you?

What you see as me moving the goal posts is your slow paced understanding of my arguments. I’ll be patient with you too. Once you understand that my argument is that Dr Schneider’s computer model of random point mutations and natural selection shows this mechanism is too slow to explain macroevolution, contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium and contradicts the argument that huge populations will accelerate evolution sufficiently to rescue the theory of evolution, then you will see the goal post I have set. Let’s see you put the ball through that goal I understood that argument. You were wrong about the mechanism being too slow to explain macroevolution, wrong about punctuated equilibrium, and wrong about population size.

So you started making a fool of yourself over primate evolution instead.

[kleinman]

Mr Scott, there is a double standard in your proposal. Evolutionists never scrutinized Dr Schneider’s computer model before I posted the results using realistic parameters. Your parameters are not realistic. One of them is wrong by a dozen orders of magnitude. We know this. Stop lying.
Why don’t you post the parameters that I used in Dr Schneider’s model and the parameters Dr Schneider used in his publication and point out my lie? Otherwise your point Dr is inAdequate.
There is a big flaw in your logic. You have assumed that every one of the 1.7x10^-8 mutations are good mutations. The reality is that the majority of mutations are harmful and slow any potential evolutionary process. If you studied the ev model a little bit, you would get a sense of the mathematical deficiency in your calculation. Oh dear me.
We are the descendants of primates without any lethal point mutations.
Sheesh.
You really don't understand the theory of evolution at all, do you?
Your response here Dr is inAdequate.
What you see as me moving the goal posts is your slow paced understanding of my arguments. I’ll be patient with you too. Once you understand that my argument is that Dr Schneider’s computer model of random point mutations and natural selection shows this mechanism is too slow to explain macroevolution, contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium and contradicts the argument that huge populations will accelerate evolution sufficiently to rescue the theory of evolution, then you will see the goal post I have set. Let’s see you put the ball through that goal I understood that argument. You were wrong about the mechanism being too slow to explain macroevolution, wrong about punctuated equilibrium, and wrong about population size. So you started making a fool of yourself over primate evolution instead.
If I am wrong about these points, the author of the model has a web site which he defends his model. He has chosen to remain silent and let Paul Anagnostopoulos, the java programmer for his model to defend the model. You are not able to defend against the results I have posted from ev. Paul has been forced to retract his statement that ev models reality and you whine that I am somehow moving the goal posts. Your response here Dr is inAdequate. Are there any evolutionists who aren’t whimpering crybabies? By the way, Happy Thanksgiving!

[joobz]

I have repeatedly said that I am not here to prove creation. I am only presenting evidence from a computer model written by an evolutionist, peer reviewed and published in an evolutionist journal that contradicts your belief system and you evolutionists get annoyed and cry foul. The theory of evolution started without a mathematical foundation and remains that way.
wrong.

What is this? Now I’m the Grinch who stole evolutionism. I don’t feel grumpy at all, I’m enjoying this discussion.
Do you call retorting logical arguments with bad information, baseless assertions and personal attacks a discussion?



Mr Scott, there is a double standard in your proposal. Evolutionists never scrutinized Dr Schneider’s computer model before I posted the results using realistic parameters. Once I did this, evolutionists have been discrediting the model rather than acknowledging these results. really?

What I will agree to is if evolutionist can prove that my calculations on this topic are incorrect that they will have more evidence in support of their theory.
really?

The genetic evidence in support of the theory of evolution can be summed up as apparent genomic similarity between one species and the next. This is only half the proof; evolutionists have to prove how one genome transforms to another in the time available with the mechanisms available.
Really?

Dr Schneider’s model shows how difficult this mathematical hurdle is.
you use the word "mathematical" as though it were some shield, but it doesn't shield you from logic. It doesn't shield you from fact. If the basis of your calculations are wrong, than your conclusions are wrong.

But please, continue to claim a "mathematical argument." I've enjoyed watching the hole you've dug for yourself.

Mr Scott, fire away and prove that the data that I have posted from ev is incorrect and that you can make ev converge quickly enough to support the concept of macroevolution and punctuated equilibrium.

Of course, abiogenesis is another problem that evolutionists have. The best argument I have seen is joozb’s scientific conclusion that anything is possible.
regardless of what some people say, repetition doesn't equal truth. Continue to missquote me and missrepresent my hypotheses. remember as you stated,"Google is watching." you continue to lie, it will haunt you even more.


Joozb, you must have turned your grammar and spell checker on in your word processor. You are the best argument against teaching the theory of evolution to grade schoolers. What is more important to teach children, the theory of evolution or how to read and write?
i've admitted to writing rapidly without proofreading. that's my problem. You've denied any wrong, that's your problem.
But, go ahead and continue to lie and cheat your way through this debate. You've exposed yourself as a little boy. One who doesn't accept responsibility. You are found morally and ethically wanting.

There is a big flaw in your logic. You have assumed that every one of the 1.7x10^-8 mutations are good mutations. The reality is that the majority of mutations are harmful and slow any potential evolutionary process. If you studied the ev model a little bit, you would get a sense of the mathematical deficiency in your calculation. That's your mathematical proof? "Majority of mutations are harmful?" really? How do you quantify "Majority"? Hmm, you are really sounding precise in your analysis.

BTW, if "the majority of mutations are harmful" How do you explain rather benign differences between protein polymorphisms?

but please, continue with your "mathematical" highly quantitative analysis. It's very enlightening.

What you see as me moving the goal posts is your slow paced understanding of my arguments. I’ll be patient with you too. Once you understand that my argument is that Dr Schneider’s computer model of random point mutations and natural selection shows this mechanism is too slow to explain macroevolution, contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium and contradicts the argument that huge populations will accelerate evolution sufficiently to rescue the theory of evolution, then you will see the goal post I have set. Let’s see you put the ball through that goal.
Ahh, there's that final mathematical conclusion.. "too slow" did you get this kinetic result by thermodyanmic analysis again? I'd love to hear all about it.

[Bronze Dog]

If the majority of mutations are harmful, wouldn't that mean we'd all be dead?

[sphenisc]

If the majority of mutations are harmful, wouldn't that mean we'd all be dead?

We all will be, it's just some of us get there faster than others.

[joobz]

If the majority of mutations are harmful, wouldn't that mean we'd all be dead?
The advantage to kleinman's logical reasoning is that it doesn't need truth or reality to support it.

Mutations aren't all bad. many are rather insignificant.
But that would go against his primary goal of "evolution is bad." So he fully allows himself to make up facts.


Nope, no logic in kleinman's attacks. Just silly little insults peppered with the words "too slow" over and over again.

[delphi_ote]

What is this? Now I’m the Grinch who stole evolutionism. I don’t feel grumpy at all, I’m enjoying this discussion.
If you're going to make a hypothesis, defend it. Sitting there with your arms crossed complaining, "This theory isn't good enough for me," is purely arrogant and immature intellectual laziness. Positing an alternate theory you're not willing to hold to the same evidentiary standards as alternatives is the height of hypocracy. You have no scientific ethic whatsoever.

[delphi_ote]

Just silly little insults peppered with the words "too slow" over and over again.
It's Christophera in reverse.

[delphi_ote]

Your response here Dr is inAdequate.
That gets more clever every time some nitwit posts it.

[kleinman]

What is this? Now I’m the Grinch who stole evolutionism. I don’t feel grumpy at all, I’m enjoying this discussion. If you're going to make a hypothesis, defend it. Sitting there with your arms crossed complaining, "This theory isn't good enough for me," is purely arrogant and immature intellectual laziness. Positing an alternate theory you're not willing to hold to the same evidentiary standards as alternatives is the height of hypocracy. You have no scientific ethic whatsoever.
Will the whimpering ever stop? Ok, Delphi creation is scientifically true because joozb says anything is possible, but macroevolution is mathematically impossible by point mutation and natural selection, ev shows this.
Your response here Dr is inAdequate. That gets more clever every time some nitwit posts it.
I thought it was Foster Zygote’s job to defend crybaby evolutionists. Did you get a promotion?

Delphi, you really need to lay off the sterno.

[Dr Adequate]

Why don’t you post the parameters that I used in Dr Schneider’s model and the parameters Dr Schneider used in his publication and point out my lie? I have done so.

Your response here Dr is inAdequate. So, I see that you are unable to refute my point.

If I am wrong about these points, the author of the model has a web site which he defends his model. He has chosen to remain silent and let Paul Anagnostopoulos, the java programmer for his model to defend the model. Dr Scheider is under no obligation to reply to every snivelling halfwitted liar with a grudge against reality.

You are not able to defend against the results I have posted from ev. You are a liar. I have done so.

Paul has been forced to retract his statement that ev models reality and you whine that I am somehow moving the goal posts. Your response here Dr is inAdequate. Are there any evolutionists who aren’t whimpering crybabies? Childish abuse is no substitute for argument, but I guess it's all you've got.

[delphi_ote]

Will the whimpering ever stop? Ok, Delphi creation is scientifically true because joozb says anything is possible...
As I said before, positing an alternate theory you're not willing to hold to the same evidentiary standards as alternatives is the height of hypocracy.

[joobz]

Will the whimpering ever stop? Ok, Delphi creation is scientifically true because joozb says anything is possible, but macroevolution is mathematically impossible by point mutation and natural selection, ev shows this.
Repetition doesn't equal truth. Continue to missquote me and missrepresent my hypotheses. remember as you stated,"Google is watching." as you continue to lie, it will haunt you even more.

I thought it was Foster Zygote’s job to defend crybaby evolutionists. Did you get a promotion?

childish insults are all you have left. Facts and truth have abandoned you.

But please, continue your foolishness. I want to see how deeply entrenched in fantasy you become.

[kleinman]

Here is a Thanksgiving treat for you readers;

Since it has been shown that ev takes profoundly huge numbers of generations to converge for observed mutation rates and genome lengths, ev as an abbreviation for evolution is not an appropriate acronym. The following is a list of more appropriate words for the acronym ev:

evacuate-what an evolutionist must do with his scientific objectivity in order to say the ev proves that a human genome can evolve in a billion years by point mutations and natural selection.

evade-what an evolutionist must do when a parametric study of ev is done.

evaluate-what an evolutionist doesn’t do with a parametric study of ev.

evanescent-what happens to the proof of evolution from ev.

evangel-ev is bad news for evolutionists

evaporate-the proof of evolution disappears with a parametric study of ev.

evade-what an evolutionist does when a parametric study of ev is done.

evenhanded-something which an evolutionist doesn’t do with the data from ev.

eventually-convergence which ev will do with observed genome lengths and mutation rates if you are willing to wait long enough.

everlasting-the amount of time necessary for ev to converge with observed genome lengths and mutation rates.

eveready-if you put in observed genome lengths and mutation rates in ev, it just keeps on running and running and running.

evidence-what ev is not for the theory of evolution.

evert-what ev does with the theory of evolution.

eviscerate-ev deprives the theory of evolution of vital or essential parts.

evolution-an appropriate word for the acronym ev only when you subscribe to Dr Schneider’s notion that information equals entropy rather than the more intuitive and proper mathematical representation that information equals the negative of entropy.

evulsion-what ev forcibly does with mutations and natural selection from the theory of evolution.

evil-what evolutionists think of creationists who evalutate ev for evidence of evolution in an evenhanded manner. Unfortunately, evolutionist evade the discussion because they realize their arguments evaporate when they see that ev only converges eventually. When evolutionists realize that ev actually everts the theory of evolution by eviscerating the core principle of mutation and natural selection, they evacuate from the discussion. Ev mathematically evulses mutation and natural selection from the theory of evolution because of the everlasting computer run times. I hope this discussion topic on Dr Schneider’s ev program has evoked some thoughts.

[delphi_ote]

$$ {word game}\ne{evidence} $$

[Dr Adequate]

Since it has been shown that ev takes profoundly huge numbers of generations to converge for observed mutation rates and genome lengths ... ... and population sizes which are a dozen orders of magnitude too small, you will aboandon all pretence of argument and degenerate into mere raving.

Was that it? That's all you've got?

That was your best shot?

Poor, frustrated, impotent little creationist.

Come back when you've thought of some new lies.

[Anacoluthon64]

Here is a Thanksgiving treat for you readers;

<...snip...>

Hey kleinman, you left out "evict" and "evaginate," the very things you would do to reason.

'Luthon64

[fishbob]

Here is a Thanksgiving treat for you readers;

- Long list of E words -

You left out Evolve.
Which your argument, through mutation, has done over the last few days.
Fatally.

[hammegk]

No. You have the dilemma. You assume evolution is false. How do you then decide between your hypothesis, "Goddidit" and my hypothesis that the universe is one consciousness dreaming itself?
Your dream hypothesis at the moment still leaves modern evolutionary theory on one hand and "goddidit" (I prefer "intent") as an alternate answer.

Currently I'm happy enough with modern theory coupled with a least some element of "intent". You are equally free to have faith the "intent" component does not exist.

I will also note that "intent" in my worldview may even predate the big bang, and definitely would be operative with that event. It is obvious that science has not identified this component, nor under a worldview of 'materialism/100% atheism' could it exist.

[kjkent1]

I'm not a scientist or mathematician, so I wonder if someone could help me better understand this debate.

Wasn't Dr. Schneider's EV program originally intended to demonstrate that information gain can be obtained via a model of random mutation and selection?

And, doesn't EV show information gain?

I realize that the present argument seems to have advanced (dare I say, "evolved") into one of whether or not EV can show information gain within the time allotted for natural evolution to have actually occured. But that seems to be a much more sophisticated goal -- one which deserves separate experiment and peer review publication of results.

Thanks in advance.

[delphi_ote]

Currently I'm happy enough with modern theory coupled with a least some element of "intent".
Then that's a different discussion for a different thread. As long as you're not positing an alternate hypothesis for material phenomena (i.e. "Evolution is mathematically impossible, therefore God created the world.") , we should pretty much agree here.

[Dr Adequate]

It is obvious that science has not identified this component... Let us know when it does.

Cheers.

[delphi_ote]

I realize that the present argument seems to have advanced (dare I say, "evolved") into one of whether or not EV can show information gain within the time allotted for natural evolution to have actually occured. But that seems to be a much more sophisticated goal -- one which deserves separate experiment and peer review publication of results.
Dr. A did a very good job of addressing (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2117943#post2117943) that problem, just in case you missed it.

[Dr Adequate]

I should point out that the bit in italics is a quotation (hence the italics) from some geneticists.

[hammegk]

Let us know when it does.

Cheers.
Until such should occur, feel free to have faith it will not.

Cheers to you as well.

[Dr Adequate]

Until such should occur, feel free to have faith it will not. Faith has no appeal to me: I prefer the certain knowledge that this hasn't occurred.

But do let me know the moment there is a shred of a scrap of a scintilla of evidence for this "intent" of which you speak.

I am also interested in any evidence for winged monkeys, 'cos I want one.

[kjkent1]

I should point out that the bit in italics is a quotation (hence the italics) from some geneticists.

Can you give me a url (or a citation) to the source of the quote?

[hammegk]

Faith has no appeal to me: I prefer the certain knowledge that this hasn't occurred.

But do let me know the moment there is a shred of a scrap of a scintilla of evidence for this "intent" of which you speak.
Should such occur, I may not be the bearer of that message.

And I have faith that you prefer not to examine the portions of your worldview that are faith-based.


I am also interested in any evidence for winged monkeys, 'cos I want one.
Given the current state of genetic engineering, you may get your wish.

[CapelDodger]

Faith has no appeal to me: I prefer the certain knowledge that this hasn't occurred.
I've often staked my reputation on it not occurring, and I take my reputation seriously. The further and deeper we look into the Universe the same we see no need to postulate an intent.

I am also interested in any evidence for winged monkeys, 'cos I want one.
Be careful what you wish for. Seagulls are one thing, but winged monkeys have a) decent hand-eye co-ordination b) a wicked sense of humour and c) no qualms about getting their hands dirty.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Apparently the authors of that article are not aware of the effects of trisomies on humans.
Say what?


We are the descendants of primates without any lethal point mutations.
By cracky, you are right, sir!


Paul has been forced to retract his statement that ev models reality and you whine that I am somehow moving the goal posts.
You have nothing left but lies.

~~ Paul

[Dr Adequate]

Can you give me a url (or a citation) to the source of the quote? It appears as a post here (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=26036339&postcount=51). I'd thought it was a paper. (I had the quote but not the source.)

I realize that christianforums is not part of the peer reviewed literature, but the author is a geneticist.

[Dr Adequate]

And I have faith that you prefer not to examine the portions of your worldview that are faith-based. Your crackpot religion extends to fantasies about my state of mind?

Interesting.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Wasn't Dr. Schneider's EV program originally intended to demonstrate that information gain can be obtained via a model of random mutation and selection?

And, doesn't EV show information gain?
Yes and yes.

~~ Paul

[Dr Adequate]

Be careful what you wish for. Seagulls are one thing, but winged monkeys have a) decent hand-eye co-ordination b) a wicked sense of humour and c) no qualms about getting their hands dirty. The perfect henchmen! ... er, primates of hench ... plus I can pay 'em peanuts.

[delphi_ote]

The perfect henchmen! ... er, primates of hench ... plus I can pay 'em peanuts.
Let's be honest. The real reason we support biological sciences and evolutionary theory is that deep down we all want to live to see the day when our dream of unleashing an army of evil genetically engineered hench monkeys from our secret evolutionist bunker onto fundamentalist Christians is finally realized.

[hammegk]

Your crackpot religion extends to fantasies about my state of mind?
I'm an a-theist.


Interesting.
Define energy.

[CapelDodger]

The perfect henchmen! ... er, primates of hench ... plus I can pay 'em peanuts.
You wish! Maybe the soldiers, but the capos will want something sweeter.

All the same, a couple of these on your roof and you'll never be bothered by Mormons again. Or Trick-or-Treaters.

[joobz]

Let's be honest. The real reason we support biological sciences and evolutionary theory is that deep down we all want to live to see the day when our dream of unleashing an army of evil genetically engineered hench monkeys from our secret evolutionist bunker onto fundamentalist Christians is finally realized.
I prefer my mutant monkeys to be forced to naviagate elaborate mazes while locked into clear plastic balls.

But that's just me.

[T'ai Chi]

What we know is:

-EV program originally intended to demonstrate that information gain can be obtained via a model of random mutation and selection

-EV program intelligently designed

So does once conclude that
-this is evidence that random mutation on selection can yield information
or
-this is evidence that intelligent design can yield information

[CapelDodger]

Let's be honest. The real reason we support biological sciences and evolutionary theory is that deep down we all want to live to see the day when our dream of unleashing an army of evil genetically engineered hench monkeys from our secret evolutionist bunker onto fundamentalist Christians is finally realized.
I'm in a traditionalist cell, we're working on snakes. Making some progress as well, starting from Indonesian stock. The toxin still needs some work.

[delphi_ote]

I prefer my mutant monkeys to be forced to naviagate elaborate mazes while locked into clear plastic balls.

But that's just me.
Flying attack monkeys in clear plastic balls?! That leads me to ask the obvious question. Can we mount laser weapons on these plastic balls?

[CapelDodger]

I prefer my mutant monkeys to be forced to naviagate elaborate mazes while locked into clear plastic balls.

But that's just me.
You bastard! Genetic manipulation or not, you could be talking about relatives of mine! :mad:

[delphi_ote]

EV program intelligently designed
Define "intelligently designed."

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So does once conclude that
-this is evidence that random mutation on selection can yield information
or
-this is evidence that intelligent design can yield information
It is evidence that humans can design computer programs, which are a form of information. It is evidence that random mutation and selection are sufficient for information to evolve.

What evolution does, in part, is transmute information from the environment to the genome. Whether the environment is created by humans, by natural processes, or by both, is irrelevant.

If you do not think information can evolve in nature without help from some "intelligence," it would be useful to explain why.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

There is no doubt whatsoever that information evolves. "Why" is the question.

Perhaps if you start at the quark-gluon plasma state ... :)

[Bronze Dog]

Well, Tai's moved the goalposts. An unintelligent program (like Ev and the universe) can create information. Now he just needs to show us that the universe was programmed.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

There is no doubt whatsoever that information evolves. "Why" is the question.
Because if you replicate the critters that have a certain sort of information simply by chance, and kill off the ones that don't, then inevitably, without any need for evidence, you will end up with more of the critters with the particular sort of information.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

You forgot to start with the quark-gluon plasma.

And yes we all know that abiogenesis of life is something modern evolution takes as a given.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You forgot to start with the quark-gluon plasma.

And yes we all know that abiogenesis of life is something modern evolution takes as a given.
The quark-gluon plasma and abiogenesis have nothing to do with the question you asked: "There is no doubt whatsoever that information evolves. 'Why' is the question." I gave you the answer.

Now, if you want to ask about the specific history of life on Earth once there was something that could replicate, mutate, and get selected, that's a different question. You'll have to be patient. Jumping to a conclusion before the evidence is in serves no purpose.

~~ Paul

[T'ai Chi]

An unintelligent program (like Ev and the universe) can create information. Now he just needs to show us that the universe was programmed.

Why would I need to show anything about Ev? I'm not making any claims here.

BTW, it sounds like you're saying Ev and the universe are unintelligent? It was already claimed by a programmer of Ev that it was intelligently designed, so you're wrong.

And you're probably wrong about the universe too. If you're not, and therefore your argument is not intelligent, then I see no reason to pay attention to it. ;)

[T'ai Chi]

It is evidence that humans can design computer programs, which are a form of information.


You don't find it the slightest bit odd that you're using intelligent design to try and prove something about evolution?


It is evidence that random mutation and selection are sufficient for information to evolve.


Well, a simulation of random mutation and selection anyway.


Whether the environment is created by humans, by natural processes, or by both, is irrelevant.


So you're arguing for theistic evolution then since you're saying a creator is OK.

[hammegk]

The quark-gluon plasma and abiogenesis have nothing to do with the question you asked: "There is no doubt whatsoever that information evolves. 'Why' is the question." I gave you the answer.
Sorry, but you are wrong, unless you have faith we are quark-gluon plasma dreaming reality ... or just a dream.


Now, if you want to ask about the specific history of life on Earth once there was something that could replicate, mutate, and get selected, that's a different question. You'll have to be patient. Jumping to a conclusion before the evidence is in serves no purpose.

Thanks, but I, and most here have a reasonable handle on modern evolutionary theory.

And most probably also agree that computer models will never answer the most basic questions of life on earth, "Why?" being one of them.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You don't find it the slightest bit odd that you're using intelligent design to try and prove something about evolution?
No, why should I? You're talking as if there is some magic teleportation of information from my brain to the random/selective process that is occuring while the program runs. I only set up the environment; I did not rig up an information source other than the process (unless there is a bug).


Well, a simulation of random mutation and selection anyway.
As I said: Because if you replicate the critters that have a certain sort of information simply by chance, and kill off the ones that don't, then inevitably, without any need for evidence, you will end up with more of the critters with the particular sort of information.


So you're arguing for theistic evolution then since you're saying a creator is OK.
I'm arguing no such thing. I'm saying that there are two separate things going on: (a) the establishment of an environment; and (b) the resulting evolution within that environment.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And most probably also agree that computer models will never answer the most basic questions of life on earth, "Why?" being one of them.
That's a different "why" from the one you asked above.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

And the answer to either, and both, will always elude us ... ;)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And the answer to either, and both, will always elude us ...
Especially if there is no reason why. :D

~~ Paul

[fishbob]

You don't find it the slightest bit odd that you're using intelligent design to try and prove something about evolution?


I don't find it the slightest bit odd that you would use the phrase 'intelligent design' meaning something very different from common usage. I don't find it a bit odd that you would base an argument on an obvious misrepresentation.

Meeting lowered expectations is not really an accomplishment to be proud of.

[hammegk]

Especially if there is no reason why. :D

~~ Paul
Are you free to choose that as your faith, or was it only pre-destined?

[articulett]

Are you free to choose that as your faith, or was it only pre-destined?

I'm sure his thinking evolved. You seem to see the world in black and white while others see it in technicolor and can't make sense of your "Is it black or white" kind of questions.

Theology arguments always seem to end with..."and we can never know...it is beyond our understanding...and it's arrogant to try and figure it out"-- Whereas, science says, "wow, look at this path of discovery, what is the next step towards understanding more!--look at all the great stuff we've managed to figure out already!"

When the only people who support your arguments subscribe to a particular religious belief system and the majority of scientists around the world don't give your argument a second glance...don't you think that maybe, just maybe, you ought to change your sources of information?

I'm sure many Muslims agree that Christians pray to a false god. I bet I could make up an argument replete with math that convincingly proves this to them--but does if one wanted to know the truth about whether there is any scientific evidence for heaven, hell, an afterlife, reincarnation, etc...I think your best bet would be science, right? Otherwise, what is the criteria you use to determine your "intelligent designer" is more likely to be real than Kent Hovinds' Intelligent Designer or Tom Cruises' creation beliefs or Hindu creation stories? When your only evidence is to point to holes amidst a solid fact based theory...how is it you arrive at your answer which has no evidence in support of it...as opposed to someone elses' equally unsupported claim?

I don't understand where this need for a designer comes in, when it seems that natural selection and time are perfectly suited for creating complexities (that would naturally look designed in a brain evolved to recognize patterns and find meaning in them.). Humans once believed in weather gods too...who else could be responsible for huge storms and thunder... but science dared to try and find out.

If there is no "intelligent designer" hammegk and kleinman...would you actually want to know? Or would you prefer to remain secure in your belief? I would rather leave something unknown then to believe a lie. At least the unknown is a fitting place to put knew knowledge...you can't add knowledge if you think you already have "the facts" filled in. Suppose science comes to pretty strong agreement regarding the origins of life...do you then make apologies for god or call them arrogant and claim they are getting in deeper with the false beliefs they have or what? Does it never occur to you that maybe that which you have faith in, isn't worthy of your faith?

[hammegk]

What I have faith in is that scientists know much less about reality than they think they do.


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2007490.ece

Seems "interesting" .... :D

[articulett]

[QUOTE=kleinman;2118974]Here is a Thanksgiving treat for you readers;

Since it has been shown that ev takes profoundly huge numbers of generations to converge for observed mutation rates and genome lengths, ev as an abbreviation for evolution is not an appropriate acronym. The following is a list of more appropriate words for the acronym ev:

evacuate-what an evolutionist must do with his scientific objectivity in order to say the ev proves that a human genome can evolve in a billion years by point mutations and natural selection.

Is your thinking impenetrable. We understand quite a bit about the genome and there are many factors in addition to point mutation that allows for change. The fact that that never seems to penetrate your consciousness is astounding. Faith can do scary things to a brain I suppose. We can actually SEE many of the changes in DNA that have taken place not only through human evolution (and such determinations are the basis of forensic testing, paternity testing, migration studies, population genetics, etc.) but we can also see how closely related species are and what things changed to give one species an edge in a given environment... We can SEEE it. Darwin could only guess at what it was. And your understanding of pointing mutations is as limited as your understanding of other modes of creating changes in a genome so that natural selection can filter out the best of the changes. Point mutations can have huge affects on a phenotype (as in achondroplasia), and cause whole new proteins as in frame shift mutations...or they can do nothing...or they could just provide a variant that doesn't add or subtract to reproductive fitness (red hair vs. brown hair for example). And sometimes they can alter a protein just a little or cause a gene to be expressed a tad earlier or later or die out sooner--and sometimes these little changes can make a huge and lucky (or unlucky difference). Sickle cell trait (being a carrier) is caused by independent point mutations in a certain gene which caused the carriers of the gene to have a greater liklihood of surviving malaria--it changed the shape of a certain number of their blood cells which allows the spleen to grab them easier and filter them out should they become infected with malaria. This happens to be a good advantage in climates with a lot of mosquitos that carry Malaria...so we see this mutation has cropped up independently in several African populations felled by malaria (point mutations in different spots altering the same gene in a similar way)

So why should anyone take your math extrapolations seriously when you seem to have a very poor grasp of, not only the myriad of ways that genomes change,...but also a very poor grasp on the one mode you claim to know a little bit about. Not all mutations are point mutations...(and sexual recombinations are probably more important than point mutations in "manufacturing" potentially "new and improved" offspring--) and not all point mutations are of equal consequence. Tiny changes can have huge effects, and huge chunks of DNA can disappear without any noticeable effect at all. In fact, sometimes getting rid of genes confers a survival advantage. Point mutations refer to a single base pair--but DNA has a myriad of ways of coming together, changing, recombining, deleting, and editing the information in any given genome.

[T'ai Chi]

I only set up the environment; I did not rig up an information source other than the process


Human DNA --> information
Computer program --> information
Pseudorandom source --> information

These are inputs. Then when information comes out as output it is supposed to be surprising?

[Yahzi]

You don't find it the slightest bit odd that you're using intelligent design to try and prove something about evolution?
This is ludicrous, even for you, T'ai.

If you drop a ball, does that mean gravity is intelligently controlled? After all, the ball was dropped by an intelligent agent!

Setting up a program or experiement does not, itself, contaminate the experiment. The EV solution uses simple rules to create complexity. The fact that the EV program required vast complexity to create those simple rules is utterly unimportant. It has no bearing on what those simple rules do or do not do.

You might as well argue that math done with a calculator has a different answer than the same math done with pencil and paper.

[Mercutio]

What we know is:

-EV program intelligently designed

Do you have any evidence of this? Do you, perhaps, even know the name of the designer? If not, could you find it?

Funny, the exact same flaw in your argument shows up in more than one thread...

[delphi_ote]

There is no doubt whatsoever that information evolves. "Why" is the question.
A very, very deep question that. Why does information evolve?

Unfortunately, we have to start with a definition of information. The most brilliant minds in the world have wrestled to define that term. Literally. Shannon, Einstein, Heisenberg, Maxwell, Gell-Mann, Chaitin, Komorgorov, Kullback and Leibler, Wolfram, Mandlebrot, Holland, Arthur, Kauffman, Bohr, Turing, Church, Kleene, Godel... I literally just spit out that list off the top of my head as fast as I could type. I could probably fill this page if I kept going. Almost all of these people invented entirely new disciplines while trying to cope with the ideas surrounding the concepts of "complexity" and "information." The question is linked to problems in biology, quantum mechanics, information theory, meterology, computer science, cryptography, pattern recognition, astronomy, evolutionary computation, optimization, controls theory, statistics, nonlinear dynamics, signal processing, fluid dynamics, economics, natural languages... again, I could go on all day. This subject is clearly very important, but we simply don't have a satisfying answer. Yet.

The wisest thing I've ever heard anyone say is, "Maturity is the capacity to endure uncertainty." This issue, for now, is an uncertainty we all must endure. Species evolve. Information accumulates over millions and billions of years in the genomes of these species and produces magnificent, beautiful diversity. We know the mechanics with an astounding accuracy. But we don't know why it happened. We learn more about it every day. You can sit down with just a PC, publicly available data, and open source algorithms and make totally new discoveries in biology. You want a dendogram of the evolutionary relationships between all of the organisms with sequenced chloroplasts? It's literally one command away. If you can think of the right questions to ask, there's a lot to learn. We live in exciting times.

We don't know how life started. Was it a fluke? Was it inevitable? We don't know what the odds were, we don't even know precisely what mechanisms were involved in starting this long chain reaction that ultimately produced you and me. These are open questions in science. But people have wondered about them for thousands (maybe millions) of years, and we will answer some of them in our lifetime. You might know the answers before you die, and nobody else ever did.

Anyone advertising simple answers to these questions is simply avoiding enduring the uncertainty. If people who assume they know better could stop badgering those of us actually trying to figure this stuff out, come off their high horse, and get to work, we might answer the questions sooner. Chip in and help out instead of nagging about how uncomfortable you are with certain facts we already figured out. We all want to know the real answers to these questions. Deep down, we're not comfortable with our little personal pet theories. Once we know the real answers, we can stop fighting over the made up answers we cling to in the face of that yawning gulf of uncertainty stretching out in all directions.

Emotionally, I can understand that instinct to cling. Rationally, it's the ultimate folly. An open question is an opportunity, not a threat. It's exciting. Let go of those comfortable delusions and look around. There's a chance we can all know better how we fit into this big mystery, and nobody knows how it's going to turn out.

Don't just endure uncertainty. Revel in it.

[Dr Adequate]

What we know is:

-EV program originally intended to demonstrate that information gain can be obtained via a model of random mutation and selection

-EV program intelligently designed

So does once conclude that
-this is evidence that random mutation on selection can yield information
or
-this is evidence that intelligent design can yield information Since this is a simulation of mutation and selection, rather than a simulation of intelligent design, it proves the former.

In the same way, a simluation of the theory of gravity which gives the right results supports the theory of gravity, not the theory of Intelligent Falling (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512).

[T'ai Chi]

In the same way, a simluation of the theory of gravity which gives the right results supports the theory of gravity,


An intelligently designed program that supports the theory of gravity shows that an intelligently design program supports the theory of gravity.

And?

[Dr Adequate]

An intelligently designed program that supports the theory of gravity shows that an intelligently design program supports the theory of gravity. Rather than supporting Intelligent Design. Quite.

[T'ai Chi]

Rather than supporting Intelligent Design. Quite.

How does admitting the code is intelligently designed count as evidence against a designer? How does that work in your worldview?

[Cuddles]

Man, after 10 pages of this I'm hungry.

Ingredients
For the torte:
75g/3oz milk chocolate, chopped
100g/4oz caster sugar
150ml/¼ pint double cream
3 tbsp full fat milk
1 medium egg, white
For the sauce:
25g/1oz milk chocolate, chopped
75g/3oz caster sugar
150ml/¼ pint water
icing sugar, for dusting



Method
1. Preheat the oven to 220C/425F/Gas7.
2. In a medium bowl, over a pan of simmering water, melt the chocolate.
3. In a small saucepan, gently bring the cream and milk to a simmer.
4. Stir in the sugar.
5. In a large, clean, grease-free bowl, whisk the egg white to stiff peaks.
6. Fold the cream mixture, then the melted chocolate into the egg white.
7. Pour the torte mixture into 2 x 7.5cm/3in fluted, loose-bottomed tart tins.
8. Bake for 8-10 minutes, or until cooked through.
9. Remove the tortes from the oven and allow to cool a little.
10. To make the sauce: gently heat the sugar and water until all the sugar has melted, in a medium pan.
11. Bring to the boil, then simmer until a syrup is formed. Remove from the heat.
12. Carefully remove the tins from the tortes.
13. Serve the tortes drizzled with the syrup and a dusting of icing sugar.

From here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/database/chocolatetortewithch_70699.shtml).

[Hawk one]

How does admitting the code is intelligently designed count as evidence against a designer? How does that work in your worldview?

Did Dr. A say it was evidence -against- God*?

No.

He said it just wasn't evidence -for- God.

Once you learn some elementary logic, you'll be able to spot the difference.

*Since the vast majority of all IDers debating on the net is really referring to God when they mean Intelligent Designer, I see no reason to not just type it out.

[fls]

Man, after 10 pages of this I'm hungry.

I would like to point out that I called (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2099319#post2099319) it first.

Linda

[Cuddles]

I would like to point out that I called (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2099319#post2099319) it first.

Linda

Yeah, but mine has chocolate in it.:p

[fls]

Yeah, but mine has chocolate in it.:p

D'oh!

Linda

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Are you free to choose that as your faith, or was it only pre-destined?
I have no faith that there is no reason why. Nor do I have faith that there is.


What I have faith in is that scientists know much less about reality than they think they do.
Are you sure they think they know a lot? You appear to want every statement by a scientist to be appended with "(But oh gosh you know I might be wrong and so don't think I'm being dogmatic <hand wringing>.)"

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Human DNA --> information
Computer program --> information
Pseudorandom source --> information

These are inputs. Then when information comes out as output it is supposed to be surprising?
No, that's exactly the point, it's not supposed to be surprising, either in the computer program or in nature. Tell that to the Creationists who think the only way we can get information in nature is if goddoesit.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

I have no faith that there is no reason why. Nor do I have faith that there is.
I've always considered you a closet dualist unwilling to take a stand.


Are you sure they think they know a lot?
Ones who politicize their views give that appearance. And as a basic answer, yes.


You appear to want every statement by a scientist to be appended with "(But oh gosh you know I might be wrong and so don't think I'm being dogmatic <hand wringing>.)"

~~ Paul
It just rankles you and most here that appending that statement provides the truth of the situation.

[Dr Adequate]

I've always considered you a closet dualist unwilling to take a stand. Reciting this nonsense about "closet dualists" is one of the stupider rituals of your religion.

I just rankles you and most here that appending that statement provides the truth of the situation. Well, that was weird.

[Dr Adequate]

How does admitting the code is intelligently designed count as evidence against a designer? How does that work in your worldview? http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/strawman.jpg

[joobz]

Are you sure they think they know a lot? You appear to want every statement by a scientist to be appended with "(But oh gosh you know I might be wrong and so don't think I'm being dogmatic <hand wringing>.)"
I just rankles you and most here that appending that statement provides the truth of the situation.
But the truth is that everyone who actually participates in scientific research understands that that statement in always there, unspoken.

And if we catered to the wishywashy nature of that fact, nothing gets done. Nothing is learned. So we adobt a type of advocate strategy. You must be the advocate of the theories you make, and defend them against all other researchers within your group. If they can withstand the evaluations of the immediate group, you then send it in mauscript form to the community at large. But then they must withstand the test of time. Not many theories do this. Hardly any theory does this. Only the biggies do, and these are the ones that are attacked and the ones that are used to claim scientists are dogmatic. But look at science at large and how often it's theories were wrong. Can you really call it dogmatic?

[hammegk]

Reciting this nonsense about "closet dualists" is one of the stupider rituals of your religion.
I realize you don't have a clue about the meaning of my statement.


Well, that was weird.
Nah, it's just you are playing checkers in a chess match.


But the truth is that everyone who actually participates in scientific research understands that that statement in always there, unspoken.

Why yes, we do.

Accounts of science in the popular press represent politics, not science; and having that pointed out gets panties in a wad here, doesn't it?

Pride, and hubris, affect scientists too. Dr. A offers a wonderful example (I give him the benefit of the doubt he actually understands some of the things he says, and rates the label 'scientist').

[Dr Adequate]

I realize you don't have a clue about the meaning of my statement. Well, stop me if I'm wrong, but a "closet dualist" would be someone who's a dualist but doesn't admit it.

Nah, it's just you are playing checkers in a chess match. Not noticeably.

Pride, and hubris, affect scientists too. Dr. A offers a wonderful example (I give him the benefit of the doubt he actually understands some of the things he says, and rates the label 'scientist'). It is neither pride nor hubris which leads me to think I know better than you.

In the face of the universe, I can feel awestruck humility with the best of 'em. In the face of your feeble arguments, I'm afraid that derision and contempt is all you're getting.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Accounts of science in the popular press represent politics, not science; and having that pointed out gets panties in a wad here, doesn't it?
Well, the accounts are certainly clouded with politics. I've said that for years, and my panties are not in a wad. That's why I don't get my science news from the popular press.


Pride, and hubris, affect scientists too.
Absolutely. The cool thing is that there are a bunch of other scientists just waiting to knock the proud and hubristic from their lofty perches. In science, you may sometimes get funding by merely going along with the status quo, but you rarely get fame that way.

~~ Paul

[fishbob]

Accounts of science in the popular press represent politics, not science; and having that pointed out gets panties in a wad here, doesn't it?


Considering what gets published in the popular press as somehow relevant to actual science is not very smart.

[hammegk]

Well, stop me if I'm wrong, but a "closet dualist" would be someone who's a dualist but doesn't admit it.
Actually I did suspect you could make that leap. Next see if you can figure some of the implications.


Not noticeably.


It is neither pride nor hubris which leads me to think I know better than you.
:rub:


In the face of the universe, I can feel awestruck humility with the best of 'em.
You hide it well.


In the face of your feeble arguments, I'm afraid that derision and contempt is all you're getting.
I don't recall making any argument.



Considering what gets published in the popular press as somehow relevant to actual science is not very smart.
Yet that's all that most people will ever get, if that.

[Dr Adequate]

Actually I did suspect you could make that leap. Next see if you can figure some of the implications. Er ... you're a delusional idiot who thinks that someone adhering to a widely-held philosophical viewpoint would attempt to conceal this fact?

I don't recall making any argument. First your powers of reasoning ... then your memory ... unfortunately, it seems that your ability to type will be the last faculty you lose.

[hammegk]

There there little fella; don't get all upset. ;)

[Dr Adequate]

You think you have my sympathy?

Think again.

[hammegk]

There there little fella; don't get all upset. ;)


BTW, the delusional idiots are those adhering to a widely-held philosophical viewpoint, that being some form of interactive dualism. I hope you have the balls to be a 100% materialist/100% atheist; that position is at least a logically defensible worldview.

[Dr Adequate]

Your connection to reality has been lost. Try turning yourself off and then on again.

[hammegk]

I hope you have the balls to be a 100% materialist/100% atheist; that position is at least a logically defensible worldview.

You must have overlooked that. Too busy frothing at the mouth & telling yourself how smart you are?

[joobz]

Accounts of science in the popular press represent politics, not science; and having that pointed out gets panties in a wad here, doesn't it?
Maybe I'm a bit slow, but how does this relate to the thread at hand?
I thought we've been discussing the validity of evolution and the relationship of ev to that validity.

Pride, and hubris, affect scientists too. Dr. A offers a wonderful example (I give him the benefit of the doubt he actually understands some of the things he says, and rates the label 'scientist').
Except perhaps for the last series of interchanges (which have been quite amusing, thank you), I didn't think any of the posts that Dr. A had made here could be interpreted as Hubris or Prideful. And I tend to be hypersensitive to such attitudes (see, Atheism is Faith thread for verification of this).

The only arrogance that exists in this thread has been Kleinman's. His complete refusal to acknowledge error in any form is beyond my abilities to accept.

[fishbob]

Yet that's all that most people will ever get, if that.

Which means that 'most people' don't have informed opinions.
Which also means that majority rule on this issue is not relevant.
Which means that 'most people' should shut their pieholes.

[hammegk]

Which means that 'most people' should shut their pieholes.
Feel free to fight among yourselves on whose piehole should be listened to. It will turn out to be the man with the largest, meanest group of brownshirts with clubs following his charismatic ideas and receiving the rewards he metes out.

Science that one out. Maybe a simple-minded mathematical model would help? ;)


joobz: You are correct that I'm disrupting a (valueless imo) discussion on mathematical proofs of the unprovable. I apologise.

If your continuing-I-hope presence here bears out your assumption that Dr.A, pridefulness, and hubris have no commonality, that will be your choice, too, but not one that I share. :)

[fishbob]

Feel free to fight among yourselves on whose piehole should be listened to. It will turn out to be the man with the largest, meanest group of brownshirts with clubs following his charismatic ideas and receiving the rewards he metes out.

Science that one out. Maybe a simple-minded mathematical model would help? ;)

Still missing the point. Deliberately?

Who says something is not relevant. Brownshirts with clubs are not part of science and have no relevance. Although some of the religious fundamentalists seem to lean that way.

What is said, and how it is supported is what counts.
Even a simple mind should be able to figure this out. No fighting required.

[D2011]

Hahaha. By the amount of views on this topic, many have enjoyed the debate so far.

Facts here & there mixed in with a bit of "my understanding of evolution/creationism/naturalism/genome/DNA/RNA/Science/Religion is far superior than yours" has been riveting.

But this page 11 has made my day seeing the topic digress for a full page of slanging. The frustrations of neither side giving an inch boiling over...hilarious!



Originally Posted by Dr Adequate http://forums.randi.org/helloworld/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2120962#post2120962)
Well, stop me if I'm wrong, but a "closet dualist" would be someone who's a dualist but doesn't admit it.
Actually I did suspect you could make that leap. Next see if you can figure some of the implications.


Quote:
Not noticeably.


It is neither pride nor hubris which leads me to think I know better than you.
:rub:


Quote:
In the face of the universe, I can feel awestruck humility with the best of 'em.
You hide it well.


Quote:
In the face of your feeble arguments, I'm afraid that derision and contempt is all you're getting.
I don't recall making any argument.



Originally Posted by Fishbob
Considering what gets published in the popular press as somehow relevant to actual science is not very smart.
Yet that's all that most people will ever get, if that.

lol

Er ... you're a delusional idiot who thinks that someone adhering to a widely-held philosophical viewpoint would attempt to conceal this fact?


LOL!

First your powers of reasoning ... then your memory ... unfortunately, it seems that your ability to type will be the last faculty you lose.

Ahah!

There there little fella; don't get all upset. :wink:

Ahahah!

You think you have my sympathy?

Think again.

Ahahah.. ok stop my sides are hurting

There there little fella; don't get all upset. :wink:


BTW, the delusional idiots are those adhering to a widely-held philosophical viewpoint, that being some form of interactive dualism. I hope you have the balls to be a 100% materialist/100% atheist; that position is at least a logically defensible worldview

Ahahahha...stop it I said!...the pain from laughter getting... too much.

Your connection to reality has been lost. Try turning yourself off and then on again.

No more...lol.....must...not ....feel compelled...to read... the next...hilarious....rebuttal.

You must have overlooked that. Too busy frothing at the mouth & telling yourself how smart you are?

Damn you guys! my thigh is bruised from all the leg slapping,lol.

Except perhaps for the last series of interchanges (which have been quite amusing, thank you),

Yes, thankyou, was a refreshing digression. Now....who's gonna admit they are wrong?

D2011

[hammegk]

Still missing the point. Deliberately?

Who says something is not relevant. Brownshirts with clubs are not part of science and have no relevance.
All of recorded history says you are wrong about that. Brownshirts with clubs are all that has relevance.


Although some of the religious fundamentalists seem to lean that way.
Religion has offered a subterfuge in mens' struggles for power, but nothing more. Statism is another approach. Fundamentalism may take other guises, perhaps, although to date none other than religion or statism have worked in even the near term.


What is said, and how it is supported is what counts.
Even a simple mind should be able to figure this out. No fighting required.
In valueless discussions on bulletin boards, you are correct, so far at least. Reality beckons; Dawkins at least seems to realize the actual stakes, and game. Unfortunately, by its' very definition, atheism offers only every man for himself.


Hahaha. ... Now....who's gonna admit they are wrong?

D2011
About what?

[D2011]

Originally Posted by D2011 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2121858#post2121858)
Hahaha. ... Now....who's gonna admit they are wrong?

D2011
About what?

Well, it was my poor attempt at humour. Its obvious NO ONE will admit they are wrong about anything.

D2011

[lupus_in_fabula]

A very, very deep question that. Why does information evolve?

Unfortunately, we have to start with a definition of information. The most brilliant minds in the world have wrestled to define that term. Literally. Shannon, Einstein, Heisenberg, Maxwell, Gell-Mann, Chaitin, Komorgorov, Kullback and Leibler, Wolfram, Mandlebrot, Holland, Arthur, Kauffman, Bohr, Turing, Church, Kleene, Godel... I literally just spit out that list off the top of my head as fast as I could type. I could probably fill this page if I kept going. Almost all of these people invented entirely new disciplines while trying to cope with the ideas surrounding the concepts of "complexity" and "information." The question is linked to problems in biology, quantum mechanics, information theory, meterology, computer science, cryptography, pattern recognition, astronomy, evolutionary computation, optimization, controls theory, statistics, nonlinear dynamics, signal processing, fluid dynamics, economics, natural languages... again, I could go on all day. This subject is clearly very important, but we simply don't have a satisfying answer. Yet.

The wisest thing I've ever heard anyone say is, "Maturity is the capacity to endure uncertainty." This issue, for now, is an uncertainty we all must endure. Species evolve. Information accumulates over millions and billions of years in the genomes of these species and produces magnificent, beautiful diversity. We know the mechanics with an astounding accuracy. But we don't know why it happened. We learn more about it every day. You can sit down with just a PC, publicly available data, and open source algorithms and make totally new discoveries in biology. You want a dendogram of the evolutionary relationships between all of the organisms with sequenced chloroplasts? It's literally one command away. If you can think of the right questions to ask, there's a lot to learn. We live in exciting times.

We don't know how life started. Was it a fluke? Was it inevitable? We don't know what the odds were, we don't even know precisely what mechanisms were involved in starting this long chain reaction that ultimately produced you and me. These are open questions in science. But people have wondered about them for thousands (maybe millions) of years, and we will answer some of them in our lifetime. You might know the answers before you die, and nobody else ever did.

Anyone advertising simple answers to these questions is simply avoiding enduring the uncertainty. If people who assume they know better could stop badgering those of us actually trying to figure this stuff out, come off their high horse, and get to work, we might answer the questions sooner. Chip in and help out instead of nagging about how uncomfortable you are with certain facts we already figured out. We all want to know the real answers to these questions. Deep down, we're not comfortable with our little personal pet theories. Once we know the real answers, we can stop fighting over the made up answers we cling to in the face of that yawning gulf of uncertainty stretching out in all directions.

Emotionally, I can understand that instinct to cling. Rationally, it's the ultimate folly. An open question is an opportunity, not a threat. It's exciting. Let go of those comfortable delusions and look around. There's a chance we can all know better how we fit into this big mystery, and nobody knows how it's going to turn out.

Don't just endure uncertainty. Revel in it.

Acta est fabula, plaudite! Very well said!

It appears to me that there are people who always want to find closure about our understanding of the universe. For example, during Galileos time, many wanted to settle for the current world views as final. Yet, knowledge slipped trough the claws of ignorance, and now we know so much more. It’s somewhat surprising that this process still continues: Many are desperate to enclose all we know today and settle here. Perhaps there’s some kind of need for closure. Perhaps they find solitude in stasis? Why come to this world, when there’s warmth and serenity in our mother’s wombs?

For me, a far more interesting question regarding Intelligent Design is: why do some people have such an urge for closure, especially when there’s overwhelming evidence that our knowledge will surpass our current state?

[Dr Adequate]

Well, it was my poor attempt at humour. Its obvious NO ONE will admit they are wrong about anything. You're new here, aren't you? Hammy's just a troll. Every bit of his rubbish on this thread has been recycled from other threads. From interminable other threads. Unless he can come up with some new gibberish, there's no need to take him seriously.

[Dr Adequate]

Thread topic: "Annoying creationists"

I've always considered you a closet dualist unwilling to take a stand.

Thread topic: "Is free will a paranormal concept"

Welcome to the problem wannabe materialists should examine ... just before they become 100% illogical in-the-closet dualists.

Thread topic: "Free will redux: what is true free will?"

Of course, a materialist can always "choose" to remain a closet dualist .... :)

Thread topic: "A critique of skepticism"

No it is not stylistic. That is the not-quite-100% 'unknown' that allows a closet dualist to pretend he is a materialist.

Thread topic: "Materialists"

Just his closet dualism peeking out .... ;)

Thread topic: "Darwinism"

No, my goal is to point out that's the primary, tacit, article of faith for the great majority of posters here. :)

Although imnsho, many are actually closet dualists.

Thread topic: "To think or blindly follow"

Erm, yes. SFAICS, Scientific Naturalism (ala Stimpy) allows one to be a closet dualist while pretending otherwise. Whatever. :rolleyes:

Thread topic: "The relationship between science and materialism"

Just the usual bunch of closet dualists pretending they are real, 100%, materialists.

Thread topic: "Our subconscious - real or woo?"

Have you ever had the balls to declare what philosophy you cling to? Materialist? If so, hopefully eliminative, although that requires 100% certainty in atheism and I doubt you are sure of anything. More likely you're just another closet, illogical, dualist with an unwillingness to look deeper than epistemology.

Thread topic: "Fossil evidence of transition from water to land"

Do you actually have a coherent worldview, or like most, you prefer not to examine it too closely? I assume you deny being an illogical dualist. How do you categorize yourself?

Thread topic: "Is anyone a former scientific creationist"

Interesting question. There is an alternative: if you a 'materialist', you should in good faith assign 100% probability that your view is correct; if the probabity you assign is not 100%, either you are a closet dualist, or a liar.

Thread topic: "Materialism and immaterialism"

LOL. Would the missing part be "immaterial"? If so one would need to be a (closet?) dualist. Idealism is an easier choice.

Thread topic: "What is emergence of mind?"

Of course. Would you say that if one chooses "not to choose" one of a binary choice, is that person just a "closet dualist"? :)

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/1601/brokenrecorddt1.jpg

[articulett]

I prefer my mutant monkeys to be forced to naviagate elaborate mazes while locked into clear plastic balls.

But that's just me.

I thought we were supposed to keep the monkey thing on the down low...

[articulett]

It is evidence that humans can design computer programs, which are a form of information. It is evidence that random mutation and selection are sufficient for information to evolve.

What evolution does, in part, is transmute information from the environment to the genome. Whether the environment is created by humans, by natural processes, or by both, is irrelevant.

If you do not think information can evolve in nature without help from some "intelligence," it would be useful to explain why.

~~ Paul

But the truly imponderable question is, can the thinking of a creationist evolve?

[D2011]

You're new here, aren't you? Hammy's just a troll. Every bit of his rubbish on this thread has been recycled from other threads. From interminable other threads. Unless he can come up with some new gibberish, there's no need to take him seriously

I never noticed all those references to "closet" while readin through all of these pages, but now you draw my attention to it, they were all from this thread?

Quite the catch phrase isnt it?

D2011

[Dr Adequate]

I never noticed all those references to "closet" while readin through all of these pages, but now you draw my attention to it, they were all from this thread? No, they aren't, that's my point. This is why I listed the thread topics. They're from thirteen different threads on wildly diverse topics, the first of which is nearly three years old (and there might well be more if so many threads hadn't got lost).

Whatever you're discussing, from free will to the evolution of amphibians, hammy may randomly turn up and start explaining that anyone who disagrees with him is:

(a) a "dualist";

(b) a liar who won't admit that he's a "dualist"

--- as a substitute for:

(1) arguing with the actual opinions of the people he disagrees with;

(2) discussing the topic of the thread.

:tr:

[Cuddles]

I thought we were supposed to keep the monkey thing on the down low...

Isn't that illegal?

[cyborg]

:tr:

For some definitions of troll that would depend upon whether or not he actually believes what he writes.

[kleinman]

Did you all have a good Thanksgiving? Could you find anything to be thankful for?

Wasn't Dr. Schneider's EV program originally intended to demonstrate that information gain can be obtained via a model of random mutation and selection?

And, doesn't EV show information gain?

I realize that the present argument seems to have advanced (dare I say, "evolved") into one of whether or not EV can show information gain within the time allotted for natural evolution to have actually occured. But that seems to be a much more sophisticated goal -- one which deserves separate experiment and peer review publication of results.
I have never argued that you can’t have an increase in information as Dr Schneider has modeled in his ev computer simulation.

What I do argue against and what ev shows is that Dr Schneider’s broad sweeping claims based on his single published case using nonexistent input parameters in his model have no scientific basis. He extrapolated the rate of information gain from his 256 genome case and mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation to the evolution of a human genome. This model and these claims were published in a peer reviewed journal. I don’t question the validity of the model; I question the validity of using unrealistic parameters (genome lengths and mutation rates) to establish a rate of information gain. Some evolutionists think I am abusing Dr Schneider’s model by using realistic parameters in the model. My response to them is that is not abuse, that is the purpose for mathematical models.

Dr Schneider has used the internet to trumpet the results of his model. He has a web site dedicated to ev. I have tried to write a letter to the editor to the editors of Nucleic Acids Research (the publishers of the ev paper) to raise my points about what they published but they don’t accept letters to the editor. Dr Schneider has started a discussion thread on the Evolutionisdead forum on information theory and ev so I think discussing this topic on the internet is appropriate. In addition, Paul Anagnostopoulos wrote the java version of ev and is a moderator on this forum. The only problem with presenting my findings this way is that I have to listen to the continuous whimpering and whining of crybaby evolutionists, but I have found you can get used to this. In fact, I find that when the volume of the whining goes up, I know that I have hit the target. Very few evolutionists are willing to investigate the ev model especially now that the behavior of the model is better defined and the hard mathematical evidence that this model presents which contradicts key parts of their theory. I like presenting my findings on the net like this. There are probably more readers of this forum than there are readers of Nucleic Acids Research anyway.

Currently I'm happy enough with modern theory coupled with a least some element of "intent". Then that's a different discussion for a different thread. As long as you're not positing an alternate hypothesis for material phenomena (i.e. "Evolution is mathematically impossible, therefore God created the world.") , we should pretty much agree here.
Delphi, why don’t you take a serious look at the many ID websites and see whether there is anything which constitutes a scientific argument? If Dr Schneider had taken to heart the IDer criticism of his model about unrealistic genome lengths and mutation rates, this discussion we are having would never have happened. Instead, Dr Schneider shrugged off these issues without ever investigating what would happen to the rate of information gain when more realistic parameters are used in his model. If you don’t consider any other views, you will become an inbred mutual admiration society if you evolutionarians haven’t already achieved that status. What differentiates soft science from hard science is that hard science includes mathematical accounting. This issue is not going away, especially with the huge number of base differences between humans and chimpanzees and the small populations and small number of generations available to achieve these differences. Al Capone was brought down my accountants; it appears the same thing is going to happen with the theory of evolution.

Delphi, can I borrow some of your sterno, I want to keep this thanksgiving ev turkey leftovers warm. It will go good with Linda’s cookies and Cuddles tort.

Enough of the ramblings, now back to our subject. The following will bring joy to the hearts of evolutionarians (especially joozb) far and wide. I am about to admit that I was wrong. Adequate has asserted that I am not using realistic parameters in the ev computer model. Dr Schneider has used a mutation rate in his published case of 3.9x10^-3 to compute the evolution of a human genome in 1 billion years. I used the mutation rate of 1x10^-6 in Dr Schneider’s case and his computation shows that it would take 4 trillion years to evolve a human genome. Now Adequate says that an appropriate mutation rate is 1.7x10^-8. I admit my error. I have used this evolutionist approved value for a mutation rate in Dr Schneider’s program and it gives a generation for convergence to Perfect Creature of 948,952,092 generations. The rate of information acquisition using this mutation rate shows that the evolution of a human genome by random point mutations and natural selection would take over 900 trillion years. I give thanks to Adequate for the recommendation that a proper mutation rate be used when computing the rates of acquisition of information in Dr Schneider’s simulation of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection. I offer apologies for not using a realistic genome length to make a more accurate estimate of the evolution of a human genome by random point mutations and natural selection but since this computer model takes an eternity to converge when you try to use realistic parameters for all inputs to this case, that computation must wait.

Lest Myriad and other evolutionarians say that I do not include Dr Schneider’s full published statement about his computation, I post it again:
Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of ~4x10^9 bits (assuming an average of 1 bit/base, which is clearly an overestimate) could evolve in a billion years, even without the advantages of large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer.
I think you evolutionarians had better reconsider panspermia and include intergalactic gene transfers as well as the other mechanisms Dr Schneider proposes, based on this results when Adequate’s approve mutation rate is used in evolutionist Dr Schneider’s (head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute) peer reviewed and published (in the Oxford University Press Journal Nucleic Acids Research) computer model of random point mutations and natural selection.

Since evolutionarians continue having difficulty seeing the goal posts, I again remind you where they are: 1. the rate of information acquisition by random point mutations and natural selection is profoundly slow in the ev model when realistic parameters are used, too slow to explain macroevolution, 2. Ev directly contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium due to the profoundly slow convergence and that decreasing population sizes cause increasing generations for evolution, and 3. Increasing populations do not have a marked effect on the rate of convergence of ev.

I expect Adequate to respond to this with a gif, URL or some simple minded probability analysis, or joozb’s idea of a scientific proof that anything is possible or if it sounds good it must be true, or Delphi’s complaint that I can't just disprove his theory, I have to offer and alternative, or Paul’s “huh?” Dr Schneider’s superficial analysis of his own computer model is a perfect example of the sloppy pseudo-science that evolutionarians engage in.

I am thankful for this evolutionist computer model!

[Dr Adequate]

Some evolutionists think I am abusing Dr Schneider’s model by using realistic parameters in the model. You are a liar. I think that you are abusing the model by using unrealistic parameters.

1. the rate of information acquisition by random point mutations and natural selection is profoundly slow in the ev model when realistic parameters are used, too slow to explain macroevolution, You are a liar. You have not used realistic parameters.

2. Ev directly contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium due to the profoundly slow convergence and that decreasing population sizes cause increasing generations for evolution, You are a liar. No data you have shown contradicts the possibility of punctuated equilibrium.

and 3. Increasing populations do not have a marked effect on the rate of convergence of ev. You are a liar. The data clearly show that increasing population size decreases the required number of generations, as does basic probability theory.

I expect Adequate to respond to this with a gif, URL or some simple minded probability analysis It is not necessary to post a complicated probability analysis to expose your very simple, not to say childish, errors.

It is interesting that you should describe my analysis as "simple-minded" when your own posts reveal that you are unable to understand it. I can only make it so simple: I cannot make it comprehensible to the uneducated, the retarded, or the congenitally innumerate.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Since evolutionarians continue having difficulty seeing the goal posts, I again remind you where they are: 1. the rate of information acquisition by random point mutations and natural selection is profoundly slow in the ev model when realistic parameters are used, too slow to explain macroevolution,
Please define macroevolution.


2. Ev directly contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium due to the profoundly slow convergence and that decreasing population sizes cause increasing generations for evolution,
Could you tell us what Gould's timeframe, population, and evolving mechanisms were?


3. Increasing populations do not have a marked effect on the rate of convergence of ev.
From what data are you extrapolating this claim?

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Acta est fabula, plaudite! Very well said!
My thought also.

Originally Posted by delphi_ote
A very, very deep question that. Why does information evolve?

... again, I could go on all day. This subject is clearly very important, but we simply don't have a satisfying answer. Yet.
Nor does it appear likely we ever will. Perhaps the next evolutionary cycle will provide analysis power sufficient to find that answer.

Originally Posted by delphi_ote
The wisest thing I've ever heard anyone say is, "Maturity is the capacity to endure uncertainty."

Don't just endure uncertainty. Revel in it.
Of course that is our only available course of action. However, for discussions' sake, a worldview that allows a dualistic component cannot provide a logically defensible basis; 100% materialism does provide a logical basis, as does ~materialism (in my case I term it objective idealism).

Scientific epistemology works as well under either choice and cannot differentiate between either.


For me, a far more interesting question regarding Intelligent Design is: why do some people have such an urge for closure, especially when there’s overwhelming evidence that our knowledge will surpass our current state?
Intelligent Design provides a large tent; those huddled together in defense of YEC Xianity have little to sustain that position.


For some definitions of troll that would depend upon whether or not he actually believes what he writes.
Although I do, do you rule out a 'devil's advocate'?


No, they aren't, that's my point. This is why I listed the thread topics. They're from thirteen different threads on wildly diverse topics, the first of which is nearly three years old (and there might well be more if so many threads hadn't got lost).
You probably got most of them. I doubt I'd arrived at my current position much sooner than that.


Whatever you're discussing, from free will to the evolution of amphibians, hammy may randomly turn up and start explaining that anyone who disagrees with him is:

(a) a "dualist";

(b) a liar who won't admit that he's a "dualist"

--- as a substitute for:

(1) arguing with the actual opinions of the people he disagrees with;

(2) discussing the topic of the thread.
The 100% materialism question I ask -- and that you have chosen not to answer -- is just a check to see if anyone has the couage to accept the actual worldview they are arguing for, as that position must underlie any logical defense of their presentation. I know of no question that can be posed or discussed that does not rest on one assumption or the other.

However, I also agree to cease this derail and allow y'all to whack one-another on the math and model. TTFN. :p

[Dr Adequate]

I have given you an answer years ago, and I suspect that others have too. For a detailed answer, why don't you consult some of the other threads you've derailed with your boring irrelevant trash?

[UnrepentantSinner]

I don't have a response to this thread for now, but after several years of posting to Christianforums.com I decided to try out some place new. I wound up at Christianity.com forums and am involved in a thread where a Creationist is insisting that a Gryphon could be incorperated into the phylogenetic tree with no problem and that there is no discovery that would falsify evolutionary theory, despite all of the evolution supporters telling him that a Gryphon would destroy evolutionary theory. It's almost like stepping into bizarroworld.

I've upped the ante and asked him whether finding a Centaur population in Brazil would falsify evolution so we'll see what his answer is.... I'll cross post it here.

[Dr Adequate]

Where would it be incorporated into the phylogenetic tree? I'm fascinated.

Which six-limbed tetrapod (er? ... yes, quite ...) would it be descended from?

Where are the intermediate forms?

[kleinman]

Some evolutionists think I am abusing Dr Schneider’s model by using realistic parameters in the model. You are a liar. I think that you are abusing the model by using unrealistic parameters.
“
“
“
“
“
“
Adequate raises the pointer on the whino-meter (not to be confused with Delphi’s wino-meter). I try to make Adequate happy by using his mutation rate and I only annoy him. At least he didn’t respond with a gif or url. What would really surprise me if he posted some data from ev that contradicts the claims that I have made about this evolutionist developed, peer reviewed and published computer model of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection.
Since evolutionarians continue having difficulty seeing the goal posts, I again remind you where they are: 1. the rate of information acquisition by random point mutations and natural selection is profoundly slow in the ev model when realistic parameters are used, too slow to explain macroevolution,Please define macroevolution.
Use the wikipedia definition.
2. Ev directly contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium due to the profoundly slow convergence and that decreasing population sizes cause increasing generations for evolution,
Could you tell us what Gould's timeframe, population, and evolving mechanisms were?
Ok, I’ll repost this information. Let’s start with Dr Schneider’s publication in Nucleic Acids Research, where he said the following:
This roughly-sigmoidal rapid transition corresponds to (and the program was inspired by) the proposal that evolution proceeds by punctuated equilibrium [18 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node7.html#Gould1977.sigmoid),19 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node7.html#Gould.Eldredge1993)], with noisy `active stasis' clearly visible from generation 705 to 2000 (Fig. 2 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node6.html#fig.curves)b, Fig. 3 (http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/latex/node6.html#fig.logos)).
Reference 18 and 19 refer to these two documents:
18 Gould, S. J. (1977) Is the cambrian explosion a sigmoid fraud?. In Ever Since Darwin, Reflections in Natural History N. Y.: W. W. Norton & Co. pp. 126-133.
19 Gould, S. J. and Eldredge, N. (1993) Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. Nature, 366, 223-227.
Gould said the following on page 127 of his Ever Since Darwin publication.
Complex life did arise with startling speed near the base of the Cambrian. (Readers must remember that geologists have a peculiar view of rapidity. By vernacular standards, it is a slow fuse indeed that burns for 10 million years. Still, 10 million years is but 1/450 of the earth's history, a mere instant to a geologist.)

Paleontologists have spent a largely fruitless century trying to explain this Cambrian "explosion"—the steep rise in diversity during the first 10 to 20 million years of the Cambrian period.

Gould said the following in his Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. publication:

As a neonate in 1972, punctuated equilibrium entered the world in unusual guise. We claimed no new discovery, but only a novel interpretation for the oldest and most robust of palaeontological observations: the geologically instantaneous origination and subsequent stability (often for millions of years) of palaeontological 'morphospecies'. This observation had long been ascribed, by Darwin and others, to the notorious imperfection of the fossil record, and was therefore read in a negative light--as missing information about evolution (defined in standard palaeontological textbooks of the time 9 as continuous anagenetic transformation or populations, or phyletic gradualism).
Gould further adds the following:
Mayr's 10 peripatric theory or speciation in small populations peripherally isolated from a parental stock, would yield stasis and punctuation when properly scaled into the vastness of geological time--for small populations speciating away from a central mass in tens or hundreds of thousands of years, will translate in almost every geological circumstance as a punctuation on a bedding plane, not gradual change up a hill of sediment, whereas stasis should characterize the long and recoverable history of successful central populations.
Later in this paper Gould applies the concept of punctuated equilibrium to Homo Sapiens:
Homo sapiens is a young species, perhaps no more than 200,000 years old. If most of our increment accrued quickly at our origin, but we then express this entirety from our origin to the present time as a darwin rate, we calculate a high value because our subsequent time of stasis has been so short. But if the same speciation event, with the same increment in the same time, had occurred two million years ago (with subsequent stasis), the darwin rate for the identical event would be much lower.
From these quotes from Gould’s writings on punctuated equilibrium, it is clear that Gould is attempting to explain the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. In addition, Gould sets the upper limit on the duration of the time span for punctuated equilibrium at 20 million years. However Gould then talks about much shorter time spans for punctuated equilibrium in the tens or hundreds of thousands of years time spans.

The value for the time span according to Gould and used as a reference in Dr Schneider’s paper is much less than 20 million. Gould says that ” small populations speciating away from a central mass in tens or hundreds of thousands of years,” is his proposed time scale.

These statements are in direct contradiction to the results from ev. Not only does your estimate of 575 million years to evolve 16 binding sites (96 loci) on a 100k genome far exceed the upper limit of punctuated equilibrium mentioned by Gould, Gould says macroevolutionary processes can occur in time spans of tens or hundreds of thousands of years.

Again, Gould says that this process occurs in small populations which is in direct contradiction to the results from ev which show that reducing population increases the generations required for evolution of binding sites.

Even though ev demonstrates a sigmoidal convergence curve, the scale of this curve far exceeds the requirements for Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium. The results from ev are a direct contradiction to Gould’s hypothesis of macroevolution.
3. Increasing populations do not have a marked effect on the rate of convergence of ev. From what data are you extrapolating this claim?
I’ll repost the population data from ev if you like.
G=256, mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation, gamma=16, site width=6. Cases marked with evpascal required the pascal version of ev due to memory limitations in the java version of the program.
Population\Generations for Rs >= Rf
64\675
128\807
256\481
512\646
1024\452
2048\268
4096\178
8192\247
16384\166
32768\186
65536\189 evpascal
The following series used all the same parameters except G=512.
64\2925
128\1858
256\1508
512\1157
1024\1027
2048\953
4096\694
8192\610
16384\534
32768\369 evpascal
65536\297 evpascal
131072\387 evpascal
The following series used all the same parameters except G=1024
64\10108
128\4446
256\4095
512\3896
1024\2710
2048\1684
4096\1445
8192\1702
16384\1931 evpascal
32768\1548 evpascal
65536\1124 evpascal
131072\847 evpascal
262144\868 evpascal
genome 1024
sites 16
widths 5/6
1 mu / genome
Population, Generations
4, 95600
8, 43400
16, 22000
32, 14800
64, 18000
128, 4400
256, 4000
512, 3900
1024, 2700
2048, 1800
4096, 1140
8192, 1180
16384, 1144
32768, 1148
46200, 1709
65536, 863
92680, 708
110000, 1177
G=1000, mutation rate = 1 mutation per 1000 bases per generation, gamma = 16, binding site width = 6:
Population \ generation for convergence
2 \ failed to converge
4 , 66547
8 , 15916
16 , 17257
32 , 16416
64 , 9082
128 , 9378
256 , 4078
512 , 3685
1024 , 2793
2048 , 2080
4096 , 2565
6000 , 1541
8192 , 1798
16384 , 1001
32768 , 743
65536 , 633
131072 , 483
262144 , 702
524288 , 642
1048576 , 438
Every one of these tables show that increasing populations are showing a markedly decreasing affect on the generations for convergence as population increases. The most marked affect on the generations for convergence occurs for populations under 1000. Why don’t you run that 2 meg population case and show that series has not reached an asymptote?

[hammegk]

I have given you an answer years ago, and I suspect that others have too. For a detailed answer, why don't you consult some of the other threads you've derailed with your boring irrelevant trash?
No thanks. The answer would matter only to you, not me, anyway.

I agree were I a 100% materialist, or a dualist, I wouldn't mention it either when it's so easy to duck, dance, dodge, and evade. :)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Use the wikipedia definition [of macrevolution].
Here it is, recently updated, I believe:

Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution.

Macroevolution is controversial in two ways:

It is disputed among biologists whether there are macroevolutionary processes that are not described by strictly gradual phenotypic change, of the type studied by classical population genetics. Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, microevolution is thought to be the only mode of evolution.
A misunderstanding about this biological controversy has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists. They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.


The value for the time span according to Gould and used as a reference in Dr Schneider’s paper is much less than 20 million. Gould says that ” small populations speciating away from a central mass in tens or hundreds of thousands of years,” is his proposed time scale.
What does this have to do with the time required to evolve binding sites? Is that a speciation event?

I'm too bored to continue responding.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

These statements are in direct contradiction to the results from ev. Not only does your estimate of 575 million years to evolve 16 binding sites (96 loci) on a 100k genome far exceed the upper limit of punctuated equilibrium mentioned by Gould, Gould says macroevolutionary processes can occur in time spans of tens or hundreds of thousands of years.
So you're using some guess I made as evidence? Did Gould say all macroevolutionary processes occur in tens or hundreds of thousands of years? Is the evolution of binding sites a macroevolutionary process? Did it occur during the Cambrian?

Why the hell are you talking about?

~~ Paul

[sphenisc]

Where would it be incorporated into the phylogenetic tree? I'm fascinated.

Which six-limbed tetrapod (er? ... yes, quite ...) would it be descended from?

Where are the intermediate forms?

I bet it's close to this!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3839522a4560,00.html

[Dr Adequate]

No thanks. The answer would matter only to you, not me, anyway. If the answer doesn't matter to you, why ask the question?

I agree were I a 100% materialist, or a dualist, I wouldn't mention it either when it's so easy to duck, dance, dodge, and evade. :) With whom are you agreeing? The voices in your head?

[Dr Adequate]

Adequate raises the pointer on the whino-meter (not to be confused with Delphi’s wino-meter). I try to make Adequate happy by using his mutation rate and I only annoy him. At least he didn’t respond with a gif or url. What would really surprise me if he posted some data from ev that contradicts the claims that I have made about this evolutionist developed, peer reviewed and published computer model of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection. What would astonish me is if you could produce any data which supports your claims.

But you can't.

Hey, you lying tosser, you made the claims, the burden of proof is on you.

Here's some evidence which contradicts your claims:

Population \ generation for convergence
2 \ failed to converge
4 , 66547
8 , 15916
16 , 17257
32 , 16416
64 , 9082
128 , 9378
256 , 4078
512 , 3685
1024 , 2793
2048 , 2080
4096 , 2565
6000 , 1541
8192 , 1798
16384 , 1001
32768 , 743
65536 , 633
131072 , 483
262144 , 702
524288 , 642
1048576 , 438

This disproves your lie that:

3. Increasing populations do not have a marked effect on the rate of convergence of ev.

There you go.

If you wish to snivel out these halfwitted fairy-tales about ev, try a creationist forum. The idiots there might believe you.

[kleinman]

Paul raises the needle on the whino-meter.
The value for the time span according to Gould and used as a reference in Dr Schneider’s paper is much less than 20 million. Gould says that ” small populations speciating away from a central mass in tens or hundreds of thousands of years,” is his proposed time scale. What does this have to do with the time required to evolve binding sites? Is that a speciation event?

I'm too bored to continue responding.
Do you think that speciation will occur more quickly than the evolution of binding sites?

Here it is, I am one of the few people who shows interest in talking about the ev computer program which you have invested so much time in porting to the java language so that we all could learn something about evolution and you are bored. You are much more fun when you are annoyed.
These statements are in direct contradiction to the results from ev. Not only does your estimate of 575 million years to evolve 16 binding sites (96 loci) on a 100k genome far exceed the upper limit of punctuated equilibrium mentioned by Gould, Gould says macroevolutionary processes can occur in time spans of tens or hundreds of thousands of years. So you're using some guess I made as evidence? Did Gould say all macroevolutionary processes occur in tens or hundreds of thousands of years? Is the evolution of binding sites a macroevolutionary process? Did it occur during the Cambrian?

Why the hell are you talking about?
Why don’t you tell the readers how you came to make that guess? The only thing we have from Gould is his writings, I don’t know if he distinguished one macroevolutionary process from the next. He certainly applied this concept to human evolution. With respects to the evolution of binding sites as whether this is a macroevolutionary process, based on the results from ev, one would have to say yes.

That’s better, you are no longer bored.

[Dr Adequate]

Do you think that speciation will occur more quickly than the evolution of binding sites? Since speciation can occur in one generation (polyploid speciation, chromosome doubling, et cetera) I should say almost certainly.

Here it is, I am one of the few people who shows interest in talking about the ev computer program which you have invested so much time in porting to the java language so that we all could learn something about evolution and you are bored. Unfortunately, your interest in the program seems to extend only to telling idiotic lies about the deliberate misuse you have made of it.

Why don’t you tell the readers how you came to make that guess? The only thing we have from Gould is his writings, I don’t know if he distinguished one macroevolutionary process from the next. Given that the man wasn't a shambling lunatic, we may conclude that he could indeed tell the difference between one macroevolutionary process and another. In particular, he has made it clear that his statements about the fossil record apply to change between species:

"[T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record ... Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am —- for I have become a major target of these practices ... it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Do you think that speciation will occur more quickly than the evolution of binding sites?
I have no idea, but see the previous post.


Here it is, I am one of the few people who shows interest in talking about the ev computer program which you have invested so much time in porting to the java language so that we all could learn something about evolution and you are bored. You are much more fun when you are annoyed.
I'm bored because this has become repeat theatre. We are going nowhere, because you simply repeat your assertions without presenting the proofs you said were forthcoming.


Why don’t you tell the readers how you came to make that guess?
I said that if the Ev model we were using is relevant to real life, and if my assumption about the length of a generation is correct, then that would translate to 575 million years. Why anyone would assume those conditions are true I cannot imagine. Even more ridiculous would be for someone to assume anything about binding site evolution vis-a-vis punctuated equilibrium.

The problem here is that you are employing the usual Creationist gambit of getting scientists to appear to disagree with one other so you can point out the obvious fact that scientists disagree with one another. But no one gives a damn what I think.

~~ Paul

[joobz]

joobz: You are correct that I'm disrupting a (valueless imo) discussion on mathematical proofs of the unprovable. I apologise.
the derail is acceptable since nothing new is coming from kleinman. I'm curious to know what you mean by closet dualist. There seems to be a huge backstory with your claim of 100% materialists. I don't really get how that fits into the evolution/religion/atheism thing. Could you provide some links to some threads or pages that would add some understanding to this debate.

As for the "proofs of the unprovable". I don't really see it that way. It all depends on what you expect from the simulation. If you expect the simulation to show that god doesn't exist, or that the model shows conclusviely HOW evolution happened, than you are right. But if you have realistic expectations of the simulation, it can definitely aide understanding. We learn know that through random mutation, it IS possible that a binding site could evolve without any other event occuring. This is a fairly important result, in that it shows that increases in order can occur without additional factors. This doesn't say that is what happened, but it helps answer the question if that pathway is possible.

I always use the hammer example. Math modeling is a tool, a hammer. You can't build without it, but you need still more than just it to create a skyscraper.

If your continuing-I-hope presence here bears out your assumption that Dr.A, pridefulness, and hubris have no commonality, that will be your choice, too, but not one that I share. :)
I would never think anyone is exclusively humble. I know i've had moments of arrogance, in this thread even. But in this case, in this thread, I'm fully Behind Dr. A's attempts at reasoning with Kleinman. Unfortunately, I think it is a valueless attempt. Kleinman has no desire to be truthful. You can't reason or debate such an individual.

[delphi_ote]

Acta est fabula, plaudite! Very well said!
Thank you very much.
It appears to me that there are people who always want to find closure about our understanding of the universe. For example, during Galileos time, many wanted to settle for the current world views as final. Yet, knowledge slipped trough the claws of ignorance, and now we know so much more. It’s somewhat surprising that this process still continues: Many are desperate to enclose all we know today and settle here. Perhaps there’s some kind of need for closure. Perhaps they find solitude in stasis? Why come to this world, when there’s warmth and serenity in our mother’s wombs?
Sagan really summed this up this kind of thinking quite nicely and gave a fantastic counter-argument to it in Pale Blue Dot:
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant"? Instead, they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way."
For me, a far more interesting question regarding Intelligent Design is: why do some people have such an urge for closure, especially when there’s overwhelming evidence that our knowledge will surpass our current state?
I think the problem is that we constantly teach the next generation a collection of static, immutable facts when we "educate" them. We need to let everyone understand that our species' collective knowledge constantly becomes more subtle, more accurate, and deeper through application of the scientific method.

[joobz]

I'm bored because this has become repeat theatre. We are going nowhere, because you simply repeat your assertions without presenting the proofs you said were forthcoming.
I think he believes he is providing proof. He still thinks that his simulations are proof positive to what ever crazy claim he's making. we've pointed out repeatedly the errors of his argument, and he deliberately ignores them. He doesn't have anything to add because there isn't anything more. He's done.

[kjkent1]

Did you all have a good Thanksgiving? Could you find anything to be thankful for?


I have never argued that you can’t have an increase in information as Dr Schneider has modeled in his ev computer simulation.

What I do argue against and what ev shows is that Dr Schneider’s broad sweeping claims based on his single published case using nonexistent input parameters in his model have no scientific basis. He extrapolated the rate of information gain from his 256 genome case and mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation to the evolution of a human genome. This model and these claims were published in a peer reviewed journal. I don’t question the validity of the model; I question the validity of using unrealistic parameters (genome lengths and mutation rates) to establish a rate of information gain. Some evolutionists think I am abusing Dr Schneider’s model by using realistic parameters in the model. My response to them is that is not abuse, that is the purpose for mathematical models.


Yes, I did have a pleasant Thanksgiving -- thanks for asking.

So, based on your response here, it appears that Dr. Schneider has established at least the mathematical possibility of evolving information from randomness. and, what remains to be established is that such evolution could occur within the time available since the creation of this universe.

Assuming that I've successfully characterized the issue, then, how do you know that the parameters which you are using to confirm your hypothesis that evolution could not have occured withing the available time constraints, are realistic?

I doubt that Dr. Schneider would dispute the claim that the original parameters of EV are not a realistic model of a known biological organism. But, in the real world, there are a myriad of ways under which evolution does not occur. That is, extinction "happens." So, the fact that you may be able to defeat EV with a particular set of conditions should be no surprise.

It should be equally unsurprising that other sets of parameters cause EV to work as advertised.

It seems to me that what remains to be done is for both sides of the debate to try to agree on a set of parameters that reasonably models some known biological organism, and then run EV and see what happens.

Then, if the outcome does not produce a realistic evolutionary outcome, tweek the paramaters until one appears. Then check the parameters to ensure that they continue to reasonably model the original biological organism.

Eventually, by repeating the above, I would think that you would come upon a set of parameters that will successfully evolve the target organism within the time required.

If not, then I'd say you have a reasonable proof that current evolutionary theory has a timing problem. This doesn't necessarily rule out evolution, but it may call for some additional research into the underlying mechanisms of evolutionary change.

Conversely, if the organism evolves within the time available, then I'd say that your ID hypothesis is falsified.

At the moment, it seems to me that EV has demonstrated that evolution is possible, within some limit of measurement, although the limit is questioned as being too great. It further seems to me that engaging in a flame war is a non-productive use of time, unless everyone enjoys casting insults at each other.

So, why not just get together and try to do the research and then offer the results for publication?

I'm not a scientist, but I thought that getting published is the "money zone" for a researcher, and I would think that trying to get published would be a more interesting pursuit than merely arguing amongst each other for free.

But, then, I really like money, so maybe that's just my personal prejudice sneeking into this post.

[kleinman]

Do you think that speciation will occur more quickly than the evolution of binding sites? Since speciation can occur in one generation (polyploid speciation, chromosome doubling, et cetera) I should say almost certainly. I have no idea.
That’s an interesting concept Adequate, does every example of chromosomal aberration represent speciation? If not, which examples of chromosomal doubling represent speciation? Why don’t you expand on this line of thought?

Paul, I respect your forthrightness.
Here it is, I am one of the few people who shows interest in talking about the ev computer program which you have invested so much time in porting to the java language so that we all could learn something about evolution and you are bored.Unfortunately, your interest in the program seems to extend only to telling idiotic lies about the deliberate misuse you have made of it.
Somebody stop me before I compute again!
Why don’t you tell the readers how you came to make that guess? The only thing we have from Gould is his writings, I don’t know if he distinguished one macroevolutionary process from the next. Given that the man wasn't a shambling lunatic, we may conclude that he could indeed tell the difference between one macroevolutionary process and another. In particular, he has made it clear that his statements about the fossil record apply to change between species:
Again Adequate raises the pointer on the whino-meter. I know you evolutionarians want to change the subject off of ev but I am trying not to ramble and stay on subject.
Here it is, I am one of the few people who shows interest in talking about the ev computer program which you have invested so much time in porting to the java language so that we all could learn something about evolution and you are bored. You are much more fun when you are annoyed. I'm bored because this has become repeat theatre. We are going nowhere, because you simply repeat your assertions without presenting the proofs you said were forthcoming.
Just think of our discussions as an example of Gould’s punctuated equilibrium and that our discussions are going on a geologic time scale. If you think back what you were saying just one year ago about ev and what you are saying now, you can appreciate the evolution that has occurred in your thinking.
Why don’t you tell the readers how you came to make that guess?I said that if the Ev model we were using is relevant to real life, and if my assumption about the length of a generation is correct, then that would translate to 575 million years. Why anyone would assume those conditions are true I cannot imagine. Even more ridiculous would be for someone to assume anything about binding site evolution vis-a-vis punctuated equilibrium.

The problem here is that you are employing the usual Creationist gambit of getting scientists to appear to disagree with one other so you can point out the obvious fact that scientists disagree with one another. But no one gives a damn what I think.
See what I mean, you are much more careful with your statements about ev than you were just one year ago. Dr Schneider asserts that ev represents reality, do you want me to post his quotes again? Dr Schneider also asserts the ev represents punctuated equilibrium according to the definition hypothesized by Gould. This has been published in a prestigious peer reviewed journal. You never question these assertions last year but now that you have a better idea of the mathematics simulated by ev, you now can see some of the problems with Dr Schneider’s assertions.

Paul, you probably won’t believe me but I do care about what you think. What do you think that ev simulates? Do you think that ev accurately simulates random point mutations and natural selection?

[Dr Adequate]

It seems to me that what remains to be done is for both sides of the debate to try to agree on a set of parameters that reasonably models some known biological organism, and then run EV and see what happens. Well, the problem is that the time ev takes to run depends (linearly, I presume) on the population size. It's taking Paul long enough to simulate what happens with a population size of about 1000000.

By contrast, there are 100000000000000 bacteria in a single human gut. (Why am I counting bacteria? --- Because the simulation doesn't allow for sexual recombination.)

We can't get the population size parameter right, 'cos we'd all be long dead and buried while we were still waiting for the program to finish running.

So Dr Schneider has compensated for an unrealistically small population size by having an unrealistically high mutation rate.

Kleinman's dodge is to make the mutation rate realistic but not the population size, and then to claim that these parameters are realistic, even though this is a lie, and he knows it, and we know it.

So your suggestion, while correct in principle, is impossible to follow in practice.

Oh --- and welcome to the forums! Enjoy.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

See what I mean, you are much more careful with your statements about ev than you were just one year ago. Dr Schneider asserts that ev represents reality, do you want me to post his quotes again? Dr Schneider also asserts the ev represents punctuated equilibrium according to the definition hypothesized by Gould. This has been published in a prestigious peer reviewed journal. You never question these assertions last year but now that you have a better idea of the mathematics simulated by ev, you now can see some of the problems with Dr Schneider’s assertions.
I think that Schneider was pointing out the fast evolution of the binding sites followed by a period of stasis. If you want to argue that he was claiming that Ev precisely models "Gould's punctuated equilibrium," whatever that is, you'll have to take that up with him. I doubt he was claiming that, since no one agrees on the parameters of punctuated equilibrium anyway.

I agree that Ev represents reality accurately to the degree that it models it, which is only a limited degree. Again, if you think that Schneider is making claims about the actual number of generations to evolve binding sites in real life, you'll have to take that up with him. Again, I doubt it, since Ev's binding site model is quite simplistic.


Paul, you probably won’t believe me but I do care about what you think. What do you think that ev simulates? Do you think that ev accurately simulates random point mutations and natural selection?
I think it simulates an idealized model of chromosomes, binding sites, point mutations, populations, and natural selection.

~~ Paul

[Dr Adequate]

If not, which examples of chromosomal doubling represent speciation? Why don’t you expand on this line of thought? AFAIK, yes. Species can't interbreed if they have different chromosome numbers.

Again Adequate raises the pointer on the whino-meter. Are you genuinely too stupid to tell the difference between correcting your ignorance and "whining", or are you just addicted to lying?

I know you evolutionarians want to change the subject off of ev but I am trying not to ramble and stay on subject. Everyone reading this thread can see that you brought up the question about Gould and I answered you. There's no point in pretending that I wished to change the subject, because everyone reading this thread can see what a stupid snivelling little liar you are.

Your question about chromosome number is also not on the topic of ev. Nor your digression about primate evolution.

Now, do you have any new lies to tell about ev, or have you shot your bolt?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well, the problem is that the time ev takes to run depends (linearly, I presume) on the population size. It's taking Paul long enough to simulate what happens with a population size of about 1000000.
It doesn't seem to be linear in population size using the available parameters to Ev. However, Myriad has tried a different tie-breaking scheme which he thinks does produce linear behavior. We shall see.

So Dr Schneider has compensated for an unrealistically small population size by having an unrealistically high mutation rate.
My experiments with mutation rate indicates that generations are linear with respect to mutation rate. This should come as no surpise.

~~ Paul

[Dr Adequate]

It doesn't seem to be linear in population size using the available parameters to Ev. No, no, you misunderstand me. I meant that the computer time required to simulate one generation is linear w.r.t. population size.

Sorry, I should have made that clearer.

[delphi_ote]

Well, the problem is that the time ev takes to run depends (linearly, I presume) on the population size.
Actually, it's probably worse than linear on population size. There's a sort on the population for the selection stage. That's O(n*log(n)).

[Dr Adequate]

Actually, it's probably worse than linear on population size. There's a sort on the population for the selection stage. That's O(n*log(n)). Thanks. I sit corrected.

And then there's the restriction on memory to be considered...

[delphi_ote]

And then there's the restriction on memory to be considered...
Yea. I'm not sure what the data structures look like in Ev. RAM may be cheap, but this program isn't exactly designed for this type of demonstration. Java/Pascal are fantastic languages to quickly put together a program to demonstrate a concept, but they're not designed for large scale scientific simulation.

One can very easily design parallel versions of these types of algorithms and run them on a large group of networked computers (the computations for each member of the population are independent, and you can quicksort the portion of the population on each machine and then mergesort the sorted lists to speed up the sorting.) If we had the resources, it's conceivable we could run such a simulation using a parallel Ev.

[joobz]

Yea. I'm not sure what the data structures look like in Ev. RAM may be cheap, but this program isn't exactly designed for this type of demonstration. Java/Pascal are fantastic languages to quickly put together a program to demonstrate a concept, but they're not designed for large scale scientific simulation.

One can very easily design parallel versions of these types of algorithms and run them on a large group of networked computers (the computations for each member of the population are independent, and you can quicksort the portion of the population on each machine and then mergesort the sorted lists to speed up the sorting.) If we had the resources, it's conceivable we could run such a simulation using a parallel Ev.
What'd be the limit on the number of parallel cpus that you'd can get from this? I mean, how efficient is quick sorting? Could you get a linear speed increase with respect to the number of processors? would this kind of programming be better served with distributed memory?

[cyborg]

Could you get a linear speed increase with respect to the number of processors?

Depends on the task - mostly no.

[delphi_ote]

What'd be the limit on the number of parallel cpus that you'd can get from this?
Theoretically? None. In real life, it would depend a lot on the actual implementation.
Could you get a linear speed increase with respect to the number of processors?
If we were sufficiently clever, I suspect we could get very very close to a linear increase.
would this kind of programming be better served with distributed memory?
I'm imagining a Beowulf-like cluster, so yes.

ETA I have experience with parallel evolutionary computation, so this isn't all idle speculation on my part.

[kjkent1]

My employer can likely provide as much horsepower as may be reasonably required for any conceivable computer model (we make the chips that make the world go round).

Obviously, I will need some well-reasoned estimate of the exact nature of the computing platform required, and it is preferable that you choose a platform or network of platforms which actually exists or is reasonably easy to put together, because a cost-effective research request will be far more easily received, vis-à-vis a request for an exotic computing system.

If you put together a formal proposal for the proposed research, specifying the parameters and time required to conduct the experiment (and it would help if Dr. Schneider or some equally credible researcher(s) would sign on to the proposal), then I can ask our Marketing Department and see if they will be interested in providing a computing forum for the challenge. It seems like this would make pretty good press ("ev vs. id"), which would justify the project's cost.

I make no promises, but what you are all alluding to as desirable is definitely possible to accomplish -- assuming that there is "some" reasonable amount of computing horsepower that can resolve the dispute.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No, no, you misunderstand me. I meant that the computer time required to simulate one generation is linear w.r.t. population size.

Sorry, I should have made that clearer.
Oh, right, of course.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What'd be the limit on the number of parallel cpus that you'd can get from this? I mean, how efficient is quick sorting? Could you get a linear speed increase with respect to the number of processors? would this kind of programming be better served with distributed memory?
We could easily parallelize: the reproduction of the best half of the bugs; the mutation of the bugs; the scoring of the bugs. The tie-breaking and sorting phases would be harder.

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

So, based on your response here, it appears that Dr. Schneider has established at least the mathematical possibility of evolving information from randomness. and, what remains to be established is that such evolution could occur within the time available since the creation of this universe.
Correct.
Assuming that I've successfully characterized the issue, then, how do you know that the parameters which you are using to confirm your hypothesis that evolution could not have occured withing the available time constraints, are realistic?
Mutation rates are commonly measured. You can start with any introductory biochemistry text and get some values for the parameter. You can also do a literature search on this topic and get some idea on the range of known measured mutation rates. You can google “mutation rate” and “bacteria” and you will find many universities that post data like this on their web sites. Genome lengths are also a well documented topic. Bacteria like Mycoplasma which are the smallest free living life forms have a genome length of about 900,000 bases. There are symbiont bacteria that have genome lengths of about 500,000 bases but are dependent on their hosts for crucial metabolic processes. Thus far, neither Paul nor I have been able to get a genome length of greater 100,000 bases to converge but the trends obtained from smaller genomes cases show how rapidly the generations for convergence increase as you increase genome length in the model. The limitations for getting these large genomes to run in ev is in part due to the huge memory requirements for these more realistic cases and the huge amounts of computer time required to run these types of cases. I ran one case with a genome length of 1000 bases, a population of 1 million and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 1000 bases per generation. This case required over 300 megabytes of RAM and took 100 hours of cpu time on a 2.8gHz processor. If I tried to run this case with a realistic mutation rate, the cpu time would be measured in years.
I doubt that Dr. Schneider would dispute the claim that the original parameters of EV are not a realistic model of a known biological organism. But, in the real world, there are a myriad of ways under which evolution does not occur. That is, extinction "happens." So, the fact that you may be able to defeat EV with a particular set of conditions should be no surprise.
We don’t have to speculate about what Dr Schneider claims. He said the following on his FAQ page for ev:
Isn't the standard Ev mutation rate of one base change per genome per generation excessive? No. If you think about it (or try it yourself) you will see that if you slow it down you get the same results: Rsequence still will evolve towards Rfrequency. Of course it will take longer to get the results.
I am not defeating ev with a particular set of conditions, I am only demonstrating the behavior of this model with realistic parameters. Dr Schneider is the one who chooses a particular set of conditions in order to support his assertions that a human genome can evolve in a billion years.
It should be equally unsurprising that other sets of parameters cause EV to work as advertised.
I know of no realistic parameters which give results from ev that would predict the evolution of a human genome in a billion years. Paul and Myriad have run many cases and I don’t think they would make this claim anymore. The position evolutionists who have investigated the mathematical behavior of ev is that it doesn’t represent all the possible evolutionary mechanisms and I think this is the only reasonable fall back position to take if you still believe the theory of evolution to be true.
It seems to me that what remains to be done is for both sides of the debate to try to agree on a set of parameters that reasonably models some known biological organism, and then run EV and see what happens.
That is the simple straight forward approach but the computational requirement for such a computer run would require a super computer. Even the largest super computers would be taxed by this model. The only way to get an idea of the mathematical behavior of ev is by doing parametric studies. I don’t know of anyone with the computer resources available to do a 1,000,000 base genome with a 10^12 population and a 10^-6 mutation rate in a reasonable length of cpu time. It would be interesting to do such a run though.
Then, if the outcome does not produce a realistic evolutionary outcome, tweek the paramaters until one appears. Then check the parameters to ensure that they continue to reasonably model the original biological organism.
Do you know somebody with the computer?
Eventually, by repeating the above, I would think that you would come upon a set of parameters that will successfully evolve the target organism within the time required.
I don’t think you will be able tweak the parameters to do it. Dr Schneider has already used a close to mathematical optimum mutation rate. If you increase the mutation rate from his value, ev will not converge. Increasing the genome length only causes ever increasing generations for convergence. Increasing populations does help decrease the generations for convergence somewhat, but not to the degree that increasing the genome length causes the generations for convergence to increase. Binding site width does not appear to have much of an effect on the generations for convergence. You simply do not have any parameter that can overcome the effect of the increasing generations for convergence with increasing genome length.
If not, then I'd say you have a reasonable proof that current evolutionary theory has a timing problem. This doesn't necessarily rule out evolution, but it may call for some additional research into the underlying mechanisms of evolutionary change.

Conversely, if the organism evolves within the time available, then I'd say that your ID hypothesis is falsified.
That’s the challenge.
At the moment, it seems to me that EV has demonstrated that evolution is possible, within some limit of measurement, although the limit is questioned as being too great. It further seems to me that engaging in a flame war is a non-productive use of time, unless everyone enjoys casting insults at each other.

So, why not just get together and try to do the research and then offer the results for publication?
Ev only demonstrates evolution is possible with Dr Schneider’s superficial analysis of his program using unrealistic parameters. I don’t mind the flame war, actually, I haven’t seen any sparks from this debate from the evolutionists willing to talk about this topic. Just think of this debate as mud wrestling.

If someone wants to publish these findings based on the use of realistic parameters in ev, feel free. Any type of publication would take years to put together and get peer reviewed. I would rather get this out in the open now.
I'm not a scientist, but I thought that getting published is the "money zone" for a researcher, and I would think that trying to get published would be a more interesting pursuit than merely arguing amongst each other for free.

But, then, I really like money, so maybe that's just my personal prejudice sneeking into this post.
My employer can likely provide as much horsepower as may be reasonably required for any conceivable computer model (we make the chips that make the world go round).
As the program is written now, population affects the memory requirements linearly. The 1000 base genome and 1024k population case I ran took 300 megabytes of ram. The memory requirements are also proportional to genome length. So if you want to run a genome length of a million and a population of a million, you are talking about 1000*300 megabytes of RAM. You are also confronted with lots of cpu clock cycles. You might be able to distribute these clock cycles over multiple processors, if you can’t, these runs will take years.
Well, the problem is that the time ev takes to run depends (linearly, I presume) on the population size. It's taking Paul long enough to simulate what happens with a population size of about 1000000.

By contrast, there are 100000000000000 bacteria in a single human gut. (Why am I counting bacteria? --- Because the simulation doesn't allow for sexual recombination.)
Adequate, population is the only parameter that gives ev a chance of supporting the theory of evolution. Every population series I have run show a rapid approach to what appears to be an asymptote so the preliminary data does not look good for the evolutionist viewpoint, but I will let you cling to this last hope until the computing power becomes available to settle this issue.

Adequate, how does recombination increase the information in the gene pool?
So Dr Schneider has compensated for an unrealistically small population size by having an unrealistically high mutation rate.

Kleinman's dodge is to make the mutation rate realistic but not the population size, and then to claim that these parameters are realistic, even though this is a lie, and he knows it, and we know it.
Adequate, I have run the largest population series that my computer could handle. Dr Schneider published a single case with a population of 64, I did a population of 1024k so either post my lie or stop whimpering. Anyway, there weren’t 100000000000000 of our primate ancestors out there when human evolved. Would you evolutionarians make up your mind? Is it small sub-populations that rapidly evolve as Gould proposes with his punctuated equilibrium hypothesis or is it large populations that are required for evolution?
See what I mean, you are much more careful with your statements about ev than you were just one year ago. Dr Schneider asserts that ev represents reality, do you want me to post his quotes again? Dr Schneider also asserts the ev represents punctuated equilibrium according to the definition hypothesized by Gould. This has been published in a prestigious peer reviewed journal. You never question these assertions last year but now that you have a better idea of the mathematics simulated by ev, you now can see some of the problems with Dr Schneider’s assertions.I think that Schneider was pointing out the fast evolution of the binding sites followed by a period of stasis. If you want to argue that he was claiming that Ev precisely models "Gould's punctuated equilibrium," whatever that is, you'll have to take that up with him. I doubt he was claiming that, since no one agrees on the parameters of punctuated equilibrium anyway.

I agree that Ev represents reality accurately to the degree that it models it, which is only a limited degree. Again, if you think that Schneider is making claims about the actual number of generations to evolve binding sites in real life, you'll have to take that up with him. Again, I doubt it, since Ev's binding site model is quite simplistic.
I agree with you that Dr Schneider saw the sigmoid curve when plotting the convergence of ev and thought of punctuated equilibrium, however the references in his paper to specific page numbers in Gould’s work seem to indicate more. Regardless of Dr Schneider’s intended meaning of punctuated equilibrium, ev argues against Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium.

I agree with you that ev is limited to modeling random point mutations and natural selection and I think that Dr Schneider got the basic model essentially correct. Dr Schneider does not want to discuss these issues publicly, however he has posted on his web site that he wants to do laboratory experiments to verify the results of his model. I don’t think he has thought through his proposals.
Paul, you probably won’t believe me but I do care about what you think. What do you think that ev simulates? Do you think that ev accurately simulates random point mutations and natural selection? I think it simulates an idealized model of chromosomes, binding sites, point mutations, populations, and natural selection.
So do I, and that is why I think this model causes a mathematical problem for the theory of evolution.
If not, which examples of chromosomal doubling represent speciation? Why don’t you expand on this line of thought? AFAIK, yes. Species can't interbreed if they have different chromosome numbers.
What does AFAIK mean?

So unless two organisms have homologous chromosomes they can’t breed. So if a plant has say 4 identical copies of its chromosomes, it can only breed with another plant with 4 identical homologous chromosomes?
Again Adequate raises the pointer on the whino-meter. Are you genuinely too stupid to tell the difference between correcting your ignorance and "whining", or are you just addicted to lying?
Feel free to post my lies you whiner.
So Dr Schneider has compensated for an unrealistically small population size by having an unrealistically high mutation rate.My experiments with mutation rate indicates that generations are linear with respect to mutation rate. This should come as no surpise.
Paul, I told you google is watching. Why don’t you post your data and then you can explain this question you asked on the following thread:
http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showthread.php?t=67488 (http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showthread.php?t=67488)
Then, for some reason, I decided to run another series of experiments with a fixed population (64) and a fixed number of mutations per base (1/16,000). I'm varying the chromosome length from 512 bases by factors of 2. I would expect the number of generations to evolve a perfect creature to remain constant, because the probability of mutating any non-junk DNA base in the chromosome remains constant. However, I'm seeing what appears to be a factor of 2 increase in the number of generations required as the chromosome increases in length by a factor of 2.

Does anyone have any thoughts on why this should be the case?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Then, for some reason, I decided to run another series of experiments with a fixed population (64) and a fixed number of mutations per base (1/16,000). I'm varying the chromosome length from 512 bases by factors of 2. I would expect the number of generations to evolve a perfect creature to remain constant, because the probability of mutating any non-junk DNA base in the chromosome remains constant. However, I'm seeing what appears to be a factor of 2 increase in the number of generations required as the chromosome increases in length by a factor of 2.
I then responded to my own question:

I may have opened my big mouth too soon. Nothing to see here until I run more cases...

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So unless two organisms have homologous chromosomes they can’t breed. So if a plant has say 4 identical copies of its chromosomes, it can only breed with another plant with 4 identical homologous chromosomes?
Differences in chromosome number don't always prevent interbreeding. Horses and donkeys can interbreed. So can wild zebras and horses.

On various methods of speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jun06.html

~~ Paul

[kjkent1]

Mutation rates are commonly measured. You can start with any introductory biochemistry text and get some values for the parameter. You can also do a literature search on this topic and get some idea on the range of known measured mutation rates. You can google “mutation rate” and “bacteria” and you will find many universities that post data like this on their web sites. Genome lengths are also a well documented topic. Bacteria like Mycoplasma which are the smallest free living life forms have a genome length of about 900,000 bases. There are symbiont bacteria that have genome lengths of about 500,000 bases but are dependent on their hosts for crucial metabolic processes. Thus far, neither Paul nor I have been able to get a genome length of greater 100,000 bases to converge but the trends obtained from smaller genomes cases show how rapidly the generations for convergence increase as you increase genome length in the model. The limitations for getting these large genomes to run in ev is in part due to the huge memory requirements for these more realistic cases and the huge amounts of computer time required to run these types of cases. I ran one case with a genome length of 1000 bases, a population of 1 million and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 1000 bases per generation. This case required over 300 megabytes of RAM and took 100 hours of cpu time on a 2.8gHz processor. If I tried to run this case with a realistic mutation rate, the cpu time would be measured in years.

This may have already been considered, but wasn't there a study just released showing a colony of lizards which have apparently rapidly mutated in response to rapid environmental stress?

See Science 17 November 2006:Vol. 314. no. 5802, p. 1111.

Doesn't this provide evidence for a substantially different/faster model of evolutionary change?

[kleinman]

I then responded to my own question:I may have opened my big mouth too soon. Nothing to see here until I run more cases...
Well then post your data.
So unless two organisms have homologous chromosomes they can’t breed. So if a plant has say 4 identical copies of its chromosomes, it can only breed with another plant with 4 identical homologous chromosomes?Differences in chromosome number don't always prevent interbreeding. Horses and donkeys can interbreed. So can wild zebras and horses.
Why don’t you explain that to Adequate?

[delphi_ote]

We could easily parallelize: the reproduction of the best half of the bugs; the mutation of the bugs; the scoring of the bugs. The tie-breaking and sorting phases would be harder.

~~ Paul
Is the sorting used for anything more than finding the best half of the bugs? If that were the case, we could simply replace the sort routine with the selection algorithm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_algorithm). If not, I suspect the selection algorithm would be useful in distributing the tie-breaking and sorting phases. If I looked more closely at the code (which I plan on doing once this semester ends) I could probably give a more accurate assessment.

Retooling the code to run in parallel just to simulate an insane population size seems to me like a lot of work for very little return. It is probably possible, though.

[Yahzi]

total pwonage of the Hammegiester
As incisive and witty as I find your commentary, Dr., I must confess that sheer, brute fact is the greatest slam-dunkage of all.

And that you presented these facts unadorned, let them stand in a post entirely by themselves, is proof that we are in the presence of artistic genius.

http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/figuren/a065.gif

[kleinman]

This may have already been considered, but wasn't there a study just released showing a colony of lizards which have apparently rapidly mutated in response to rapid environmental stress?

See Science 17 November 2006:Vol. 314. no. 5802, p. 1111.

Doesn't this provide evidence for a substantially different/faster model of evolutionary change?
I don’t believe this article is talking about random point mutations and natural selection. I believe these authors are talking about recombination and natural selection. This example that these authors are talking about of longer legged lizards having better survival would be analogous to breeding dogs for a particular quality whether it be long legs or better sense of smell. This process is much faster than creating a new gene from scratch. You are not making new genes with recombination. Ev is all about creating new binding sites (the region before the gene that enables the gene to be recognized) from scratch. Even this process is profoundly slow and you still have not evolved the gene that goes along with the binding site yet in Dr Schneider’s model. You are comparing apples and oranges here.

[joobz]

What does AFAIK mean?
As far as I know...
Feel free to post my lies you whiner.
This is the closest to the truth, you've come. You post almost only lies, and we "whine" that you are a liar.

Paul, I told you google is watching. Why don’t you post your data and then you can explain this question you asked on the following thread:
http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showthread.php?t=67488 (http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showthread.php?t=67488)
Google is watching kleinman. Figured out what thermodynamics is yet? Well, anyway, are you still insisting on miss quoting and intentially missreperesenting people's statements?


Originally Posted by Kleinman quoting me
Then, for some reason, I decided to run another series of experiments with a fixed population (64) and a fixed number of mutations per base (1/16,000). I'm varying the chromosome length from 512 bases by factors of 2. I would expect the number of generations to evolve a perfect creature to remain constant, because the probability of mutating any non-junk DNA base in the chromosome remains constant. However, I'm seeing what appears to be a factor of 2 increase in the number of generations required as the chromosome increases in length by a factor of 2.
I then responded to my own question:

Originally Posted by me
I may have opened my big mouth too soon. Nothing to see here until I run more cases...
~~ Paul
I guess you are. You can't use facts, so you must use deceitful tactics.

[Dr Adequate]

Differences in chromosome number don't always prevent interbreeding. Horses and donkeys can interbreed. So can wild zebras and horses. Mules, at least are infertile, so the difference in chromosome number still makes 'em different species.

On zorses or hebras I have no information.

[Dr Adequate]

Adequate, population is the only parameter that gives ev a chance of supporting the theory of evolution. Every population series I have run show a rapid approach to what appears to be an asymptote so the preliminary data does not look good for the evolutionist viewpoint, but I will let you cling to this last hope until the computing power becomes available to settle this issue. Yes, I think I will indeed "cling to the hope" that what is mathematically certain is also true.

You feel free to cling to the hope that what is certain must be false.

Adequate, how does recombination increase the information in the gene pool? It ... doesn't .. you ... bleedin' ... halfwit.

Don't you know ANYTHING about genetics?

It does, however, speed up the process of evolution.

Adequate, I have run the largest population series that my computer could handle. Dr Schneider published a single case with a population of 64, I did a population of 1024k so either post my lie or stop whimpering. Anyway, there weren’t 100000000000000 of our primate ancestors out there when human evolved. Of ... course ... there ... weren't ... you ... bleedin' ... halfwit.

Stop trying to change the subject. We are discussing ev.

Ev ... simulates ... bacterial ... reproduction ... you ... bleedin' ... halfwit.

Would you evolutionarians make up your mind? Is it small sub-populations that rapidly evolve as Gould proposes with his punctuated equilibrium hypothesis or is it large populations that are required for evolution?
Small ... populations ... often ... evolve ... rapidly ... you ... bleedin' ... halfwit.

Some ... evolution ... takes ... longer ... you ... bleedin' ... halfwit.

You ... have ... had ... all ... this ...explained ... to ... you ... you ... bleedin' ... halfwit.

FIND SOME NEW LIES, YOU BLEEDIN' HALFWIT.

---

And so kleinman's hopeless, futile quest for a clue continues.

[kleinman]

I sense some hostility in Adequate. We better have him go through the metal detector before he enters this forum.

[Mercutio]

I sense some hostility in Adequate. We better have him go through the metal detector before he enters this forum.
"We"? He is of no danger to people who use their brains.

[kleinman]

Adequate has no courage as well, like you he won’t use his real name in his posts. Not only are you evolutionists whimpering crybabies, you are cowards as well. (At least Delphi had the courage to reveal his real name.)

[Mercutio]

I know Dr. Adequate's name.

The strength of his arguments does not depend on his credentials. The weakness of yours is not remedied by knowledge of your name.

[bob_kark]

Adequate has no courage as well, like you he won’t use his real name in his posts. Not only are you evolutionists whimpering crybabies, you are cowards as well. (At least Delphi had the courage to reveal his real name.)
How is this at all relevant?

[kleinman]

I know Dr. Adequate's name.

The strength of his arguments does not depend on his credentials. The weakness of yours is not remedied by knowledge of your name.
Your knowing Adequate’s name doesn’t make him any less of a crybaby or coward. If my arguments are so weak, why do you waste your time reading this thread or are you another defender of crybaby evolutionists? The whino-meter just keeps going up.
Adequate has no courage as well, like you he won’t use his real name in his posts. Not only are you evolutionists whimpering crybabies, you are cowards as well. (At least Delphi had the courage to reveal his real name.)How is this at all relevant?
Not much, just gives us something to do while we wait for something to happen.

[bob_kark]

Not much, just gives us something to do while we wait for something to happen.
Well, you get credit for honesty.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

On zorses or hebras I have no information.
Hey, look at this: The Przewalski horse (66 chromosomes) can breed with the domestic horse (64 chromosomes) and obtain a fertile hybrid with 65 chromosomes.

http://www.kyhorsepark.com/imh/bw/prz.html

Here's more on these odd hyrids:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:K1y2xziacYIJ:www.fmv.ulg.ac.be/genmol/Department/Teaching/Seminar_2.pdf+fertile+zorse&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9

~~ Paul

[joobz]

How is this at all relevant?
It helps distract from his poor claims against ev. He can't refute a single item that Dr. A has clearly laid out. He can't refute Paul's calcuations on the scaling trends in the ev model. He can't accept his incorrect use of entropy that Delphi called him on. He can't refute his incorrect use of thermodynamics in the analysis of the model that I called him on.

No, He's all kinds of wrong. And when that happens, all you can do is resort to personal attacks and childish behavior.

[Dr Adequate]

I sense some hostility in Adequate. That is, I think, the first time in this thread that a fact has impinged upon your consciousness: I wonder the shock didn't kill you.

[Dr Adequate]

Hey, look at this: The Przewalski horse (66 chromosomes) can breed with the domestic horse (64 chromosomes) and obtain a fertile hybrid with 65 chromosomes.

http://www.kyhorsepark.com/imh/bw/prz.html

Here's more on these odd hyrids:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:K1y2xziacYIJ:www.fmv.ulg.ac.be/genmol/Department/Teaching/Seminar_2.pdf+fertile+zorse&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9

~~ Paul Thanks! Isn't Nature fun?

[Dr Adequate]

Your knowing Adequate’s name doesn’t make him any less of a crybaby or coward. If my arguments are so weak, why do you waste your time reading this thread or are you another defender of crybaby evolutionists? The whino-meter just keeps going up.

Not much, just gives us something to do while we wait for something to happen. I suppose, technically, calling me a coward does count as a "new lie", but you are meant to be lying about ev, remember?

Have you got any new lies about ev?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Thanks! Isn't Nature fun?
It was news to me, for sure.

~~ Paul

[delphi_ote]

How is this at all relevant?
If you say my name three times, I'm banished to the model town in the attic.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Where would it be incorporated into the phylogenetic tree? I'm fascinated.

Which six-limbed tetrapod (er? ... yes, quite ...) would it be descended from?

Where are the intermediate forms?

I'm not sure. He's been rambling on about how it would be ex post facto said to be descended from the LCA therapsid and diapsid dinosaurs and to have convergently evoloved a beak, feathers, wings, fur, talons and claws, and a long sinuous tail.

We've been asking him where the wings would come from, but he claims we'd just find a way to make it fit. As yet, he hasn't drawn either a cladogram or a working phylogenetic tree to show where a Gryphon would fit.

What he doesn't seem to realize is that a Gryphon is more than just swapped modules, it's a true chimera and if you really look at how they're protrayed, they're an Eagle with it's butt chopped off, and a lions rear torso sewn on. That's why I asked him about the Centaurs.

15 Pages of every evolution advocate telling him lists of discoveries that would falsify evolution, and him insisting we'd just find room for them in the phylogenies somewhere.

[kleinman]

What do you think that ev simulates? I think it simulates an idealized model of chromosomes, binding sites, point mutations, populations, and natural selection.
Since I agree with Paul (and Paul is one of the very few evolutionists who has taken the time to do any cases with the model) on his description of what ev is simulating, I think this is a good place to continue the discussion on ev.

I now propose that Dr Schneider’s natural selection process is not so natural and gives an artificially fast (if you can call the rate of convergence of ev fast when using realistic parameters) rate of convergence. Dr Schneider has used a weight matrix that traverses the genome looking for matches between the weight matrix and portions of the genome. I don’t believe that this models natural selection realistically.

How could Dr Schneider’s concept of a weight matrix be applied to the evolution of a gene? Consider the case of the evolution of the hemoglobin gene. This gene is at least 400-500 bases long. You start with some creature that has “junk DNA” space available to evolve this new gene and random point mutations start occurring to this 400 base region. What would be the selection process that would determine which random point mutations would be selected for in this region before the gene becomes functional and offers selective advantage? I believe that natural selection is much better selecting out harmful point mutations than selecting in potentially useful point mutations that do not offer immediate selective advantage until combined with further point mutations which make the gene useful. Dr Schneider’s selection process in ev is an over generous approximation of natural selection.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Dr Schneider has used a weight matrix that traverses the genome looking for matches between the weight matrix and portions of the genome. I don’t believe that this models natural selection realistically.
The weight matrix is a simple equivalent of the complex chemistry that goes on when one molecule binds to another. The fact that the entire genome is searched isn't particularly strange, since molecules bump into other molecules at random.

How could Dr Schneider’s concept of a weight matrix be applied to the evolution of a gene? Consider the case of the evolution of the hemoglobin gene. This gene is at least 400-500 bases long. You start with some creature that has “junk DNA” space available to evolve this new gene and random point mutations start occurring to this 400 base region.
Uh, why would you assume this is how hemoglobin evolved?

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:sXBQUbCbOdoJ:bioquest.org/summer2006/The_Evolution_of_Hemoglobin.pdf+evolution+of+hemog lobin&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=14

~~ Paul

[joobz]

Dr Schneider’s selection process in ev is an over generous approximation of natural selection by point mutation.
There. Fixed it for you.

[Apathia]

Woe is me! My Internet Acess is now limited to the library till I can find a new home. So I'm missing this amazing ongoing debacle! Hammy is even at it!
I'll have to pick it up again later. Keep at it Dr. K. Whether you are right or wrong, this is an educational experience and entertaining as well.

[kleinman]

Dr Schneider has used a weight matrix that traverses the genome looking for matches between the weight matrix and portions of the genome. I don’t believe that this models natural selection realistically. The weight matrix is a simple equivalent of the complex chemistry that goes on when one molecule binds to another. The fact that the entire genome is searched isn't particularly strange, since molecules bump into other molecules at random.
So how does complex chemistry select for a particular random point mutation that doesn’t offer an immediate selective advantage?
How could Dr Schneider’s concept of a weight matrix be applied to the evolution of a gene? Consider the case of the evolution of the hemoglobin gene. This gene is at least 400-500 bases long. You start with some creature that has “junk DNA” space available to evolve this new gene and random point mutations start occurring to this 400 base region. Uh, why would you assume this is how hemoglobin evolved?

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...&ct=clnk&cd=14 (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:sXBQUbCbOdoJ:bioquest.org/summer2006/The_Evolution_of_Hemoglobin.pdf+evolution+of+hemog lobin&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=14)
Ok, let’s run with what this author says and start with his first sentence in his abstract:
A comparative study of hemoglobin was conducted to explain how an ancestral single-function molecule gave rise to descending molecules with varied functions.
Then this author says later in his paper:
Such studies are carried out by comparing the genes that code for the hemoglobins and their chemical relatives in a range of organisms from bacteria to people to see how the genes have changed through time. Typically research in molecular evolution has focused on portions of the gene responsible for alterations in protein structure. So it came as a great surprise that the changes in hemoglobin have not been merely structural. In fact, the three-dimensional structure of hemoglobin - its shape, with folds, pockets and surfaces - has been fairly well conserved over the protein’s evolutionary history. Rather, some of the most rapid and dramatic changes in hemoglobin proteins have been in the ways these molecules are regulated - the when and how of their manufacture inside the cell. The hemoglobins and their relatives continue to evolve rapidly in subtle ways, and the changes continue to come in the genetic regulation of the proteins.
This author states that the hemoglobin molecule has changed little.

Dr Schneider has demonstrated how binding sites can be formed, albeit it occurs at a profoundly slow rate, how do you form the ancestral single-function molecule that gives rise to the descending molecule? What is the selection process that would allow random point mutations to generate such a gene? What form can natural selection take that would allow bases to be assembled to form this ancestral single-function molecule? In the early stages of the formation of this ancestral gene, what would select for the first 200 bases of this gene without there being a selective advantage for this sequence of bases?

Woe is me! My Internet Acess is now limited to the library till I can find a new home. So I'm missing this amazing ongoing debacle! Hammy is even at it! I'll have to pick it up again later. Keep at it Dr. K. Whether you are right or wrong, this is an educational experience and entertaining as well.
My aim is not to bore Paul, it is to annoy him. The fact that I can annoy a bunch of other evolutionists at the same time is icing on the cake. Just make sure to wear a raincoat to this party so you can easily clean up after these crybaby evolutionists throw their pabulum.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So how does complex chemistry select for a particular random point mutation that doesn’t offer an immediate selective advantage?
Perhaps it does offer an immediate advantage, if the binding controls some gene expression in a more optimal fashion. Or supresses some other molecule that in turn controls a function. Or, maybe it doesn't offer an immediate advantage, but doesn't cause any harm either.


Dr Schneider has demonstrated how binding sites can be formed, albeit it occurs at a profoundly slow rate, how do you form the ancestral single-function molecule that gives rise to the descending molecule? What is the selection process that would allow random point mutations to generate such a gene? What form can natural selection take that would allow bases to be assembled to form this ancestral single-function molecule? In the early stages of the formation of this ancestral gene, what would select for the first 200 bases of this gene without there being a selective advantage for this sequence of bases?
Why do random point mutations have to create the gene? How do you even know whether the gene or molecule came first? And why did you skip this part:

The compromise was a chemical one. It appears that the
apparatus that sequesters oxygen in cells, possibly to
protect them, is almost identical to the one that, in different
contexts, exploits oxygen for its energy-generating
potential. At first this apparatus was quite primitive,
probably limited to a caged metal atom capable of binding
oxygen or tearing away its electrons, which are used in
metabolism. But this basic chemical apparatus grew
increasingly complex through time and evolution. At some
point the metal atom was fixed inside a kind of flat
molecular cage called a porphyrin ring, and later that
porphyrin ring became embedded in larger organic
compounds called proteins. [bolding mine]

~~ Paul

[Dr Adequate]

My aim is not to bore Paul, it is to annoy him. The fact that I can annoy a bunch of other evolutionists at the same time is icing on the cake. Just make sure to wear a raincoat to this party so you can easily clean up after these crybaby evolutionists throw their pabulum. Hello? You've already convinced us that you have a grotesque personality disorder. We are already well aware that you comfort yourself for your failure and impotence with bizarre, childish wish-fulfillment fantasies. You don't need to keep reminding us.

Indeed, I would advise you to keep your humiliating psychiatric problems to yourself. Do you realise how funny it is to hear a grown man sob and sniffle and blubber out the word ... "crybaby"? It's not the least amusing thing to shriek when you're throwing a tantrum.

Anyway, do carry on. I believe you were constructing an argument from ignorance. Indeed, three, by my count. You don't know how evolution works, you don't know how ev works, and you don't know how haemoglobin evolved. What a lot of ignorance. Well done!