Annoying creationists

[kleinman]

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.
If the mutation does confer an immediate advantage it should select for that organism and will increase the likelihood that this mutation will be passed to future generations whether it improves function of the gene or improves control of the gene. The frequency of occurrence of a helpful mutation should increase in the population. If the mutation doesn’t offer an immediate selective advantage and neither helps nor harms the reproduction of that organism, the frequency of occurrence of that mutation should not be increasing in the population. If the mutation is harmful to the organism, the organism will be selected out of the population and the frequency of that mutation will decrease in the population. Neutral mutations by their very nature can not be acted on by natural selection. You don’t have selective pressure to increase their frequency in the population in order to make more complex genetic structures. Wasn’t it Richard Dawkins who said natural selection doesn’t have any long term plans?
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:
Paul, this is one of the reasons why I think the theory of evolution is nonsense. Living things have a tightly bound interaction between DNA and proteins. Both forms of molecules are required to form one another. Evolutionists are forced to take contorted positions like saying that RNA was the initial molecular form that formed the DNA and proteins.

If you think that the ancestor gene for hemoglobin was not formed by random point mutations and natural selection, how was this gene formed? If you think that ancestor protein for hemoglobin formed first, how was this protein formed? Then how was the gene for this protein that now exists formed from this protein?
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 was added by Paul. Ross Hardison is speculating on the function of Hemoglobin. Hemoglobin does much more than bind oxygen, it also binds carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide and perhaps other molecules as well. The binding of theses molecules is dependent on their respective partial pressures. If Hardison’s speculations have any reasonable basis, then how many amino acids are required in the primitive protein that caged the metal atom? And how do you select for the bases to form this first gene to make this primitive protein?

Paul, are you ever going to post your data that shows the generations for convergence increases linearly with genome length when you use a mutation rate fixed to a given number of bases?

Would somebody give that whimpering crybaby Adequate a bottle, maybe that will calm him down? (Not you Delphi)

[Dr Adequate]

Incidentally, is there a technical term for it? We've had a few of these on the forums. I'm thinking Peter "Failed Dowser" Morris, Mark "Available For Children's Parties" Lewis, that sort of thing?

[delphi_ote]

Delphi
Delphi
Go ahead... make my millenium.

[joobz]

Go ahead... make my millenium.
DAYYY Oh!

[T'ai Chi]

Uh, why would you assume this is how hemoglobin evolved?


Could you give this thread an extremely detailed evolution of hemoglobin?

[thaiboxerken]

T'ai.. why do you insist on playing such a stupid game? Is this where your god lives, in ignorance? Do you worship the god of the gaps?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, this is one of the reasons why I think the theory of evolution is nonsense. Living things have a tightly bound interaction between DNA and proteins. Both forms of molecules are required to form one another. Evolutionists are forced to take contorted positions like saying that RNA was the initial molecular form that formed the DNA and proteins.
Nature has no obligation to behave in a way that you don't find contorted.


If you think that the ancestor gene for hemoglobin was not formed by random point mutations and natural selection, how was this gene formed? If you think that ancestor protein for hemoglobin formed first, how was this protein formed? Then how was the gene for this protein that now exists formed from this protein?
I have no idea.


Could you give this thread an extremely detailed evolution of hemoglobin?
Nope.

~~ Paul

[delphi_ote]

Could you give this thread an extremely detailed evolution of hemoglobin?
Step 1: Type "www.google.com" into your browser.
Step 2: Type "hemoglobin evolution"
Step 3: Read

It's (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7473&dopt=Abstract) not (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/15637) hard (http://www.springerlink.com/content/k5n113684237135l/) to find (http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1999/B/199901204.html) information (http://bioquest.org/summer2006/The_Evolution_of_Hemoglobin.pdf).

[joobz]

Step 1: Type "www.google.com" into your browser.
Step 2: Type "hemoglobin evolution"
Step 3: Read

It's (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7473&dopt=Abstract) not (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/15637) hard (http://www.springerlink.com/content/k5n113684237135l/) to find (http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1999/B/199901204.html) information (http://bioquest.org/summer2006/The_Evolution_of_Hemoglobin.pdf).
Those sources can't be accurate. I can't find "god did it" anywhere in the text.

[kleinman]

DelphiDelphiGo ahead... make my millenium.
Now stop that Delphi! You are not to get any joy from what I post, you are only to be annoyed. By the way, ev shows that the theory of evolution is not Y2K compliant.
Paul, this is one of the reasons why I think the theory of evolution is nonsense. Living things have a tightly bound interaction between DNA and proteins. Both forms of molecules are required to form one another. Evolutionists are forced to take contorted positions like saying that RNA was the initial molecular form that formed the DNA and proteins.Nature has no obligation to behave in a way that you don't find contorted.
It is not nature that I find contorted; it is your interpretation of nature that I find contorted.
If you think that the ancestor gene for hemoglobin was not formed by random point mutations and natural selection, how was this gene formed? If you think that ancestor protein for hemoglobin formed first, how was this protein formed? Then how was the gene for this protein that now exists formed from this protein? I have no idea.
That is a response that evolutionists should use more often.
Could you give this thread an extremely detailed evolution of hemoglobin? Nope.
T’ai, you need to understand that the evolutionarian belief system is based in superficiality. Evolutionarians do not attend to the details.

By the way Paul, since you won’t post your data for the generations for convergence for a series with constant mutation rate per number of bases, I am doing a series. I am using the baseline model except with a mutation rate of 1 per 10,000 bases per generation. I will post the data in a few days. What will happen when we reach Rcapacity?

[Dr Adequate]

Wow, a post entirely without content.

You know there's a quicker way to achieve the same effect?

[Dr Adequate]

T’ai, you need to understand that the evolutionarian belief system is based in superficiality. Evolutionarians do not attend to the details. Kleinman, could you give this thread an extremely detailed description of how God made hemoglobin?

No?

Oh well.

How about matching the level of detail given in the papers cited?

No?

No.

No details? None? None at all?

If courtesy were not my very watchword, I might stoop to call that "superficial".

:dl:

[kleinman]

Wow, a post entirely without content.

You know there's a quicker way to achieve the same effect?
My first impulse was to ask you to show me how but then I decided any post I that make that annoys an evolutionist I consider a successful post. As long as you follow this thread, I’m assured success.

T’ai, you need to understand that the evolutionarian belief system is based in superficiality. Evolutionarians do not attend to the details.Kleinman, could you give this thread an extremely detailed description of how God made hemoglobin?
Stop trying to change the subject. We are discussing ev.

[thaiboxerken]

The creationists think they have a clever tactic in asking questions about evolution until someone says "well, I don't know." at which point they say "Ah HA!! Therefore god did it!!."

Little do they realize that they are simply appealing to ignorance and not being clever at all.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

By the way, ev shows that the theory of evolution is not Y2K compliant.
Like my company, Windfall Software, it was Y2K complacent.

~~ Paul

[delphi_ote]

Delphi
That's my name! Now, come on, give me two more!
Delphi
Yeah!
Delphi!
It's SHOWTIME!

ETA Sorry. I really like that movie.

[articulett]

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.)

I think it is wise not to give out your name to people who invest their beliefs in faith-based notions. The faith based believers are not a lot you can reason with. Read Dawkin's hatemail (at his good/bad/ugly link) at his website to get a glimpse of such people...your fellow believers--

I don't think it's wise to make yourself a target of the delusional, frankly. I feel sorry for those people who actually believe that evolution has been proven false. If you knew a smattering of the evidence and understood the astronomical information in support of evolution that only grows more every day, then you would understand that the site Paul linked to start this thread is spreading misinformation and lies. There isn't a respected scientist in the world that doesn't accept evolution. Some might be religious--but they just say that god is "outside science". And their numbers are decreasing. I know you believe very much in your god and your theory about intelligent design--but if you want someone else to take it seriously you'd have to offer evidence in support of whatever it was you are claiming--and your math example where you use a mathematical concept that doesn't even figure in known facts about evolution and how information changes into an equation which leads you to believe that humans couldn't have evolved without design is not proof of anything at all except maybe a need on your part to believe that goddidit.

Your beliefs are useless outside your own head. Do you have any facts? Your mathematical problem fails as a model of evolution on so many fronts (though you seem to be unable to comprehend the many people carefully explaining that to you.) Moreover, I think you have a need to believe in your god, but why would you think we should care. Why would any honest person promote the notion that evolution is a dying theory when every scientific institution of integrity across the world accepts it as obvious. If we didn't, we wouldn't have made the great strides we have-- there'd be no paternity testing or test tube babies or prenatal test or forensic tests...National Geographic and Scientific American would be sued for lying or half their content would disappear.

Shame on you for trying to pass off your misinformation here. Why don't you actually read a book on evolution--read Darwin even--and at least get a clue as to what the hell you are talking about. I dislike the dishonesty of religion--the way it proffers unsubstantiated claims as "higher truths" and tells people it's wrong to ask questions and that it's presumptuous to even think they can understand--and if that wasn't enough, they tell you that believing a certain way will make you live happily ever after and those that try to sway your beliefs are "evil" and could make you suffer for eternity.

Science is far more useful than any religion, and the facts aren't afraid of being probed--science welcomes questions--it's how we figure out the truth, hone our knowledge, and build a world that would be a true miracle to people who lived a mere hundred years ago.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

T’ai, you need to understand that the evolutionarian belief system is based in superficiality. Evolutionarians do not attend to the details.
Unlike creatonarians, who confuse attending to details with knowing all the details. This is not surprising, since they have no details at all.


By the way Paul, since you won’t post your data for the generations for convergence for a series with constant mutation rate per number of bases, I am doing a series. I am using the baseline model except with a mutation rate of 1 per 10,000 bases per generation. I will post the data in a few days. What will happen when we reach Rcapacity?
Here is my data for a genome size of 1000 and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per million bases:

population, generations
2, 29037000
4, 72555000
8, 44261000
16, 32561000
32, 14806000
64, 12845000
128, 8005000
256, 9388000
512, 10319000
1024, 4040000
2048, 3300000
4096, 3400000
8192, 2231000
16384, 2004000
32768, (running now)

Rcapacity has nothing to do with this experiment.

~~ Paul

[delphi_ote]

I think it is wise not to give out your name to people who invest their beliefs in faith-based notions. The faith based believers are not a lot you can reason with. Read Dawkin's hatemail (at his good/bad/ugly link) at his website to get a glimpse of such people...your fellow believers--
I can understand being cautious about privacy on the internet, especially regarding a topic like this. I didn't reveal my identity because I thought it proved anything. My name is so common, you're better off trying to track me down by my web alias anyway. I was just proud to be a part of the paper I linked. Then Kleinman started this crusade about names.

[Dr Adequate]

My first impulse was to ask you to show me how but then I decided any post I that make that annoys an evolutionist I consider a successful post. As long as you follow this thread, I’m assured success. But what about posts that make us laugh? I love playing poke-the-creationist-with-a-stick, when the creationist has a character as deformed as yours.

--

I notice that once again you tried to change the subject, I answered you, and now you're trying to pretend that it was I who changed the subject, when everyone on this thread can see that you're a snivelling little liar.

What is sad is that you wish to be a liar, just as you wish to insult people. And you come off as a pathetic stupid braggart telling ridiculous fibs to bolster your little temper tantrum. You are a failed lying little ****.

---

If you're too scared to talk about ev, then let's talk about hemoglobin. If you're too scared to talk about hemoglobin, then let's talk about ev. If you run away when asked for details on any particular point, then we can draw our own conclusions.

[kleinman]

Little do they realize that they are simply appealing to ignorance and not being clever at all.
Who is trying to be clever? I am trying to be annoying, it’s not much of challenge when you are discussing evolution with evolutionarians.
By the way, ev shows that the theory of evolution is not Y2K compliant. Like my company, Windfall Software, it was Y2K complacent.
Paul, you have successfully annoyed me for the first time.
Delphi That's my name! Now, come on, give me two more!
This is a discussion on the ev computer program so in order to satisfy Delphi’s request and maintain consistency with our discussion topic,

Delphi^G
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.)I think it is wise not to give out your name to people who invest their beliefs in faith-based notions.
You never know how I’ll abuse your computer programs.
T’ai, you need to understand that the evolutionarian belief system is based in superficiality. Evolutionarians do not attend to the details.Unlike creatonarians, who confuse attending to details with knowing all the details. This is not surprising, since they have no details at all.
But I do have google!
By the way Paul, since you won’t post your data for the generations for convergence for a series with constant mutation rate per number of bases, I am doing a series. I am using the baseline model except with a mutation rate of 1 per 10,000 bases per generation. I will post the data in a few days. What will happen when we reach Rcapacity? Here is my data for a genome size of 1000 and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per million bases:

population, generations
2, 29037000
4, 72555000
8, 44261000
16, 32561000
32, 14806000
64, 12845000
128, 8005000
256, 9388000
512, 10319000
1024, 4040000
2048, 3300000
4096, 3400000
8192, 2231000
16384, 2004000
32768, (running now)

Rcapacity has nothing to do with this experiment.
It also has nothing to do with a mutation rate fixed to a number of bases but I still like the data.

Paul, do you think that kjkent1 is serious about getting access to a super computer to do some larger cases or do you think he was blowing smoke? Even if we had access to a system 1000 times larger than the fastest desktop pc, you still need an operating system and language that could make use of the resources. Are you willing to put that type of effort in on this?

[Dr Adequate]

Who is trying to be clever? I am trying to be annoying, it’s not much of challenge when you are discussing evolution with evolutionarians.

Paul, you have successfully annoyed me for the first time.

This is a discussion on the ev computer program so in order to satisfy Delphi’s request and maintain consistency with our discussion topic,

Delphi^G

You never know how I’ll abuse your computer programs.

But I do have google!

It also has nothing to do with a mutation rate fixed to a number of bases but I still like the data.

Paul, do you think that kjkent1 is serious about getting access to a super computer to do some larger cases or do you think he was blowing smoke? Even if we had access to a system 1000 times larger than the fastest desktop pc, you still need an operating system and language that could make use of the resources. Are you willing to put that type of effort in on this?

Oh, that was informative.

Run out of lies, eh?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, you have successfully annoyed me for the first time.
Because I wasn't worried about Y2K!?


Paul, do you think that kjkent1 is serious about getting access to a super computer to do some larger cases or do you think he was blowing smoke? Even if we had access to a system 1000 times larger than the fastest desktop pc, you still need an operating system and language that could make use of the resources. Are you willing to put that type of effort in on this?
Nah, it's your turn.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

If the answer doesn't matter to you, why ask the question?
Some find increased self-knowledge interesting and useful.

With whom are you agreeing? The voices in your head?
In terms of content you usually seem to be rational. In terms of presentation, much less so.


Since speciation can occur in one generation (polyploid speciation, chromosome doubling, et cetera) I should say almost certainly.
What does that have to do with the ev program that from time to time is under discussion here? Let me help: nothing.


... 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.
And others who are not "creationists" note that moving from intraspecies mutations, point and otherwise, to a leap across the chasm that provides a fossil record speciation event, or better yet a laboratory example, of something that demonstrates the ill-defined term "speciation" is yet to be found.


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.
Depending on the definition of those terms, it is true that lack of transitional forms remains a problem.


Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
And now we all await the math models. I believe we agree ev isn't it.


LOL. Is modern evolutionary theory even at the stage of rolling balls down inclined planes? I'd say we have a long way to go before approaching newtonian accuracy.

Bur cheer up; you're probably farther along than the other soft "sciences", human behavior being what it is. ;)



joobz: Re hammegk & background ....

In response to a comment about god & dice (Thread R&P: Are free will & determinism compatible)

Originally Posted by hammegk
Bell-Aspect-DCQE-etc say the dice are loaded ...


A composite of your posts shows an interference pattern emerging, hammegk. Not thought about they revert to behaving like waves. ;)

PS. Search isn't working for me at the moment ... sorry.

[Dr Adequate]

Tell me again about these "closet dualists".

Can I recognise them by the way they walk?

[articulett]

I can understand being cautious about privacy on the internet, especially regarding a topic like this. I didn't reveal my identity because I thought it proved anything. My name is so common, you're better off trying to track me down by my web alias anyway. I was just proud to be a part of the paper I linked. Then Kleinman started this crusade about names.

Yes, I don't think it's likely to matter, but fervent believers can do some pretty scary things, so I would never try to shame someone into revealing their identity on a forum. I speak a little freer knowing that the people I piss off can't throw things at me.

I remember Penn Jillette at a TAM2 (?)talking about how he's not afraid to ire magicians by revealing secrets or to piss off people of faith-- but he's 6'5" and 300 pounds. It's not like he needs to cross to the other side of the street when someone sinister is in his path--in fact, he's probably the one that others cross the street because of.

I spoke out, because I think it was a silly attack on Dr. Adequate, but I guess he's got to use whatever he has in his arsenal because there sure isn't evidence in support of whatever it is he believes.

Kleinman, you aren't one of those YEC's are you. I mean, you can knock evolution all you want, but have you brought any evidence to the table for Intelligent Design--and could the Intelligent Designer be Allah? Zeus? The Hebrew God? An alien? It's just hard to take you seriously. You don't understand some of the basics of evolution and the known way genomes change. You seem to think it couldn't have happened it whatever given time frame you believe in and therefore, someone must have done some tinkering along the way to speed things up a bit--something supernatural. Right?

But we have 0 evidence that anything supernatural exists--none--no measurable evidence. All the things we've learned about our world have not come from divine texts--but through evolving and refining our knowledge via testing, measurement, replication, and evidence. The truths we discover are the same for everyone no matter what they believe. DNA is in everyone's blood and always was even if no human ever found that out. No divine text mentioned it. Darwin didn't even know it existed...he could only hypothesize about what was in gametes that was passed on. Do you understand the significance of what we now know--we've mapped the whole human genome--and the chimpanzee genome too--we can see the changes that took place since we shared a common ancestor. We share approximately 98% of our genes with them. You'd think an omniscient, all loving designer would have mentioned it, wouldn't you? --Or at least clued people in to things like germ theory--just to save some suffering and not look like he favored bacteria over humans. No matter where you look for your claims--none of it makes any sense--there's nothing measurable...life forms look cobbled together and there are failures on an astronomical scales when you think of all the possible people that could have existed per one sex act--and multiply that by the trillions of life forms on this planet. How is that waste intelligent?

Francis Collins helped map the human genome and he accepts evolution (because it's undeniable)--he is also an Evangelical Christian for reasons most other scientists can't fathom. Mostly, because Science can't dissprove a god outside of time and place--and some personal revelations that mean no more than any other personal revelations from a scientific perspective. People have revelations all the time. They're untestable, don't agree with eachother, can be influences by electrical stimulation or drugs, and aren't useful for anyone but the believer. Despite your shared faith, he doesn't really have any problems with evolution--he thinks maybe god set it all up but he doesn't give much evidence in support (except the goldilocks universe kind of thinking which is backwards)--he'd have a lot to tell you about your miscalculations if you wanted to actually understand why no scientist would take you seriously.
And he wouldn't threaten your favorite belief...you could learn the facts without fear of eternal damnation. Really, you should try. Your conviction of your rightness is making you seem dotty-- and you are missing some of the most interesting information humans have ever been able to know. Check it out for yourself. You have no-one buy your BS here. No-one. The only ones who support you are people who have been embedded in similar beliefs since they joined this forum. Like you, their beliefs are based on faith, and so reason goes nowhere with them. But you actually sound like you could learn the facts. Read Darwin. Read Dawkins. Read Scientific American or National Geographic. Read Sagan. You are deluding yourself; don't you want to know the facts? People like you never even seem to read the people they claim to despise.

[delphi_ote]

kjkent1 is serious about getting access to a super computer to do some larger cases or do you think he was blowing smoke? Even if we had access to a system 1000 times larger than the fastest desktop pc, you still need an operating system and language that could make use of the resources. Are you willing to put that type of effort in on this?
There's no reason we couldn't just build on the Java version. You don't need a specialized OS to run a Beowulf cluster. That's the whole point. It's cheap.

It's fun to talk about, but it's a lot of effort for nothing. The smaller scale simulations already show all that really needed to be proven. I might take a stab at it at some point over my break, but don't hold your breath.

[thaiboxerken]

Who is trying to be clever? I am trying to be annoying, it’s not much of challenge when you are discussing evolution with evolutionarians.

If by annoying you mean a complete drooling moron, then you're overkilling it.

[UnrepentantSinner]

You know, here's the thing I don't understand about Creationists - they think some arcane, always bogus mathmatical calculation will make things like fossils, biogeography, and the genetic evidence disappear. It's the same thing with abiogenesis "calculations." Guess what guys, life exists, therefore the odds of it existing is 1:1. We've had 150 years of increasingly sophisticated studies to disprove common ancestry and there are plenty of maverick scientists who would love to upend evolution and win that elusive Nobel.

Where are they, and why haven't they published papers that survive scrutiny?

[articulett]

You know, here's the thing I don't understand about Creationists - they think some arcane, always bogus mathmatical calculation will make things like fossils, biogeography, and the genetic evidence disappear. It's the same thing with abiogenesis "calculations." Guess what guys, life exists, therefore the odds of it existing is 1:1. We've had 150 years of increasingly sophisticated studies to disprove common ancestry and there are plenty of maverick scientists who would love to upend evolution and win that elusive Nobel.

Where are they, and why haven't they published papers that survive scrutiny?

Indeed. Not a one. Their whole "we can't see macroevolution" is idiotic too. The truth is, no proof will ever be enough...they never state what it is that will convince them. And all we ask for is a bit of evidence in support of something else. We can't see macroevolution, because it takes eons to speciate--but we can see it in process. All breeds of dogs are still in the wolf family--subspecies...and all the forms have been formed through human selection which is a lot faster then letting nature due the culling--and more varied as well. But dogs can still produce fertile offspring with wolf, and until they can't, they're still part of the same species.

Zebras and Donkeys are speciating. They can still mate and some of the offspring can be mated to donkeys but not to other mixes, I think. http://www.messybeast.com/genetics/hybrid-mammals.html

Horses and donkeys have speciated and their offspring are sterile (mules) and are considered hybrids. Speciation doesn't happen quickly--it usually starts as a divergence in in breeding populations or a separation due to rivers, tectonic plate movement, migration, mountains, etc. At the beginning of speciation animals may start to look different, but they can still produce fertile offspring with eachother if they have the opportunity to mate. The longer time between mating generations the less fertile such chance offspring are likely to be--and then they will be sterile (hybrids unable to mate successfully with any of the members of the parental species or even with others like themselves). And finally no offspring can be produced at all even when the animals get together. We see all of these stages in many animals right now.

We see exactly what is going on in the DNA. That is evidence no matter how much creationists want to scream and say it doesn't count. Wanting macroevolution not to have been demonstrated doesn't mean it hasn't been demonstrated sufficiently in many forms to the satisfaction of most scientists and even in a court of law-- no matter how much creationarians say it doesn't count.

The fact is, nothing will count to a person whose self importance and eternal bliss rests on them believing a particular unbelievable story. Kleinman can't let the facts penetrate, because he thinks it might be the devil tempting him to bite from the tree of knowledge. Religion is the most ignorant promoting institution I can imagine. I am glad it's fading as rapidly as creationists pretend evolution is. If only they knew the truth.

[UnrepentantSinner]

To expound further on articulette's and my own earlier posts, I have to wonder why Creationists would think the "Hitler was an 'evolutionist'" argument would make the fossil and genetic evidence go away as well. Similarly I recently encountered the "evolution says humans are just animals" argument, which makes me ask first why bee colonies function then why I'm not sitting naked in my own filth replying to said assinine assertion when my view that I'm "merely an animal" should have me running around stealing what I can and raping any woman I come in close contact with.

I'm sorry anti-evolutionists, but the fossils exist, the genetic evidence exists, and no matter how many appeals to how mathmatical and metaphysical arguments you present, those things aren't going away.

[kleinman]

Oh, that was informative. Run out of lies, eh?
I have to admit that I have been very unfair with Adequate. In order for Adequate to know where the goal posts are, he first needs to make it to the ballpark. So, I will inform Adequate on how to get to the ev ball park. First, since Adequate is an imaginary superhero, we have to get him from Krypton to earth. So Adequate, be a good little boy and get into your spaceship for a fun little ride to earth. Once you get to earth, you need to take a tour of Dr Schneider’s web site and learn a little about what Dr Schneider is mathematically modeling. Once you have done that, you need to run more than a single case like Dr Schneider has done and then you will find yourself in the ballpark. At this point, perhaps you will see the goalposts, that is if your seat isn’t too far up in the bleachers.

Someone must have given Adequate a bottle, he doesn’t seem to be whining as much as previous. Now if someone would just change his diapers. When he grows up we can make him a brown cape from them to go with his imaginary superhero outfit.
Paul, you have successfully annoyed me for the first time.Because I wasn't worried about Y2K!?
No, it was your very bad compliant/complacent pun. Perhaps I erred and that wasn’t a pun but what you really had done was taken English lessons from joozb?
Paul, do you think that kjkent1 is serious about getting access to a super computer to do some larger cases or do you think he was blowing smoke? Even if we had access to a system 1000 times larger than the fastest desktop pc, you still need an operating system and language that could make use of the resources. Are you willing to put that type of effort in on this? Nah, it's your turn.
What’s the matter? Are you afraid that running larger cases with ev will show how ridiculous the theory of evolution is? I think it is smart for evolutionarians to say away from mathematics, it really messes up their stories.
Since speciation can occur in one generation (polyploid speciation, chromosome doubling, et cetera) I should say almost certainly.What does that have to do with the ev program that from time to time is under discussion here? Let me help: nothing.
Hammegk, if you would just pay attention to Adequate, you would see new species popping up on a regular basis. Joozb says the likelihood of abiogensis occurring is equal to winning a single superlotto, that’s why we see new life originating on a weekly basis.
kjkent1 is serious about getting access to a super computer to do some larger cases or do you think he was blowing smoke? Even if we had access to a system 1000 times larger than the fastest desktop pc, you still need an operating system and language that could make use of the resources. Are you willing to put that type of effort in on this? There's no reason we couldn't just build on the Java version. You don't need a specialized OS to run a Beowulf cluster. That's the whole point. It's cheap. It's fun to talk about, but it's a lot of effort for nothing. The smaller scale simulations already show all that really needed to be proven. I might take a stab at it at some point over my break, but don't hold your breath.
Paul’s Java version of ev has greater memory limitations than Dr Schneider’s original Pascal version of the program. If you want to run populations greater than 10^9, you will need an operating system and language that can address arrays of this size or larger.

I agree with you that the smaller scale cases prove most of the mathematical behavior of ev. The one point that is not completely clear is whether the population cases are showing an approach to an asymptote or whether there is a small slope to the curve to Adequate’s proposed point of 1 generation for an infinite population. Even a number like 10^20 is a long way from infinity, it is also a long way from 4^1,000,000. There is so much noise in this stochastic process that I am not sure which is happening with the population series. Paul likes to do curve fits to this data but I think these are useless; you need to generate the points with ev.
You know, here's the thing I don't understand about Creationists - they think some arcane, always bogus mathmatical calculation will make things like fossils, biogeography, and the genetic evidence disappear.
I don’t think ev is a bogus mathematical calculation, I think it is a mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection written by an evolutionist who heads the computational molecular biology group at the National Cancer Institute, which was peer reviewed and published in the Oxford University Press journal, Nucleic Acids Research.

I know this following question is off topic, but what makes you so proud to be an UnrepentantSinner? Never mind, don’t bother answering, better to know you are an UnrepentantSinner than be self righteous, unless you figured out a way to do both.

[Dr Adequate]

So, no new lies then?

[Yahzi]

Your knowing Adequate’s name doesn’t make him any less of a crybaby or coward. If my arguments are so weak,
Delicious. :D

why do you waste your time reading this thread
I can explain that for you. The problem is that your moniker is somewhat misleading.

While a handful of people here might indeed find you annoying, the rest of us find you amusing.

We aren't wasting our time reading this thread; we're mining comedy gold. Irony is the rarest of the comic substances, and you are a source of such purity and depth as to amaze, astound, and above all, endlessly entertain.

For example, I point you to the comment, above.

:D

[Yahzi]

We can't see macroevolution,
I don't understand the macroevolution argument.

Creationoids define species by inter-fertility: if they can mate, they're the same species.

They define macroevolution as creation of new species; that is, animals that can't mate with their parent's species.

They accept microevolution as a fact; genes can change over time.

So: why do they think most genes on the DNA strand can change over time, but some - the ones that control fertility - cannot? What mechanism selects those particular genes for perfect copy, while allowing others to be corrupted?

Do they think God put a plastic change-guard over that stretch of DNA, but not the rest?

I just don't get the mechanism by which they think this happens. At the DNA copying level, it's all genes. The copy machine doesn't know what its copying. How could it gaurantee fidelity for some pages and not others?

Maybe they think it's like the Holy Bible; if you sit down to copy a book, then you might make scribing errors; but if you sit down to copy the Book, then God will guide your pen and make sure it comes out perfect.

No wonder God never puts in a personal appearence - if he's personally watching over every transcription of a reproductive gene for every creature on Earth, he's going to be awfully busy.

:D

[delphi_ote]

Paul’s Java version of ev has greater memory limitations than Dr Schneider’s original Pascal version of the program. If you want to run populations greater than 10^9, you will need an operating system and language that can address arrays of this size or larger.
Are you actually running out of memory? You can bump up the amount of memory available to a Java program with a command line option. For example, "java -Xmx 500M myProgram" (that would give you 500M of heap space.)

Computer scientists don't always store data in a single contiguous block in RAM on one machine. We could handle these problems if we needed to run such a distributed simulation. Current climate simulations require a lot more data and calculation, and some of them are being run on personal computers.

I just did a Google search for an example of this kind of thing. Here's a BBC article about a climate simulation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/473856.stm). Also, here's a paper about a a parallel implementation of a genetic (http://climate.ornl.gov/~forrest/hpc2000/hpc2000.pdf) algorithm (oddly, I used to work in that department, but I never even heard about this project.) Ev has a lot in common with GAs.

[John Hewitt]

I don't understand the macroevolution argument.

Creationoids define species by inter-fertility: if they can mate, they're the same species.

They define macroevolution as creation of new species; that is, animals that can't mate with their parent's species.

They accept microevolution as a fact; genes can change over time.

So: why do they think most genes on the DNA strand can change over time, but some - the ones that control fertility - cannot? What mechanism selects those particular genes for perfect copy, while allowing others to be corrupted?

Do they think God put a plastic change-guard over that stretch of DNA, but not the rest?

I just don't get the mechanism by which they think this happens. At the DNA copying level, it's all genes. The copy machine doesn't know what its copying. How could it gaurantee fidelity for some pages and not others?

Maybe they think it's like the Holy Bible; if you sit down to copy a book, then you might make scribing errors; but if you sit down to copy the Book, then God will guide your pen and make sure it comes out perfect.

No wonder God never puts in a personal appearence - if he's personally watching over every transcription of a reproductive gene for every creature on Earth, he's going to be awfully busy.

:D

I am a bit puzzled about the title of this thread. Is the word "annoying" used as an adjective to indicate that members of the creationists community are in some way annoying as people; alternatively, is the objective of these postings to annoy those people?

[delphi_ote]

I am a bit puzzled about the title of this thread. Is the word "annoying" used as an adjective to indicate that members of the creationists community are in some way annoying as people; alternatively, is the objective of these postings to annoy those people?
Paul was using it as an adjective. Read his first post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2050448#post2050448).

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What’s the matter? Are you afraid that running larger cases with ev will show how ridiculous the theory of evolution is? I think it is smart for evolutionarians to say away from mathematics, it really messes up their stories.
Yes, that's the problem. It has nothing to do with the work involved. The work involved is trivial. Say, why don't you do it and show us up for the fools we are?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't understand the macroevolution argument.

Creationoids define species by inter-fertility: if they can mate, they're the same species.
Well, that's how they define macroevolution sometimes. Have you noticed that we've never managed to get Kleinman to give us his definition of macroevolution? He refers us to Wikipedia, which recently had a change in its definition. The definition now includes:

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.

I be laughing right out loud.
:big:

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Are you actually running out of memory? You can bump up the amount of memory available to a Java program with a command line option. For example, "java -Xmx 500M myProgram" (that would give you 500M of heap space.)
At this point my limitations are RAM (1 gig) and time.

~~ Paul

[delphi_ote]

At this point my limitations are RAM (1 gig) and time.

~~ Paul
Since he's such a great scientist, I naturally assumed kleinman was trying to reproduce your "controversial" results. He seems to enjoy giving me computer science advice so much, I thought I'd return the favor.

[articulett]

I don't understand the macroevolution argument.

Creationoids define species by inter-fertility: if they can mate, they're the same species.

They define macroevolution as creation of new species; that is, animals that can't mate with their parent's species.

They accept microevolution as a fact; genes can change over time.

So: why do they think most genes on the DNA strand can change over time, but some - the ones that control fertility - cannot? What mechanism selects those particular genes for perfect copy, while allowing others to be corrupted?

Do they think God put a plastic change-guard over that stretch of DNA, but not the rest?

I just don't get the mechanism by which they think this happens. At the DNA copying level, it's all genes. The copy machine doesn't know what its copying. How could it gaurantee fidelity for some pages and not others?

Maybe they think it's like the Holy Bible; if you sit down to copy a book, then you might make scribing errors; but if you sit down to copy the Book, then God will guide your pen and make sure it comes out perfect.

No wonder God never puts in a personal appearence - if he's personally watching over every transcription of a reproductive gene for every creature on Earth, he's going to be awfully busy.

:D

Indeed. Macro-evolution is a term used strictly by creationists. As though separate species were made in a poof. I doubt any separating of species happened in one moment. Much of the mutations involving speciation are on the X chromosome--I'm not trying to imply god is a pervert or anything...but if he's the one in charge, why the fondness for X?

The problem with intelligent design (as if there were only one) is that it is useless. It has no facts in support of it; it goes nowhere; it doesn't tell us anything or how to take the next steps to discovery. Nothing in science is discovered with the assumption that god must have played a hand in it. Intelligent Design just says, "god did it; humans will never understand how". Such thinking is designed to keep people giving praise, allegiance, and money to their clergy and the politicians who endorse god. Invisible immeasurable entities (and forces) have always been invoked by humans to explain that which they don't understand. And as science discovers more, these entities fade or lose their powers or are defined more loosely. It all boils down to--"how dare you question the Mighty Oz?" Doesn't it? Hammy and Thai and kleinman never present evidence for a competing theory in their many thousands of posts and always resort to ad hominen attacks and eye rolling emoticons (or platitudes of self-aggrandizement that they seem to think are deep followed by a wink in hammy's case) because what else is there?

And I always wonder why. Why do they keep hammering at this notion to an audience that repeatedly fines them ignorant and unwilling to absorb even the most careful and detailed explanations asked for. Why don't they understand that "gaps" in understanding are not answered by "magic", god, or anything supernatural because positing such, pretty much puts a stop to all discovery and potential understanding on a topic.

Haven't most of those who accept evolution also believed in god and souls at some time. It's not like we are unfamiliar with the thinking. And it's not like gods, demons, and the like haven't been used throughout mankind and in every religion to give people at least the impression that they understood something and then could control it by sacrificing virgins, doing rain dances etc.

Why is logic so impenetrable...they read everything mentally erasing all that challenges their view and then play semantic games when they think they have a notion that implies a gap where they can insert god. How is it that they can see eons of people who believed in false invisible entities (Scientology, Zeus, Muslim extremists, etc.) and stil not question themselves?
Is it an ego thing? Believing they're in on a "higher truth" makes them feel superior and makes them feel like they have a blissful eternity guaranteed? Or is it fear that facts might be the tool of the devil? And why do they keep at it here...if they convince a skeptic, does they think that gives their claims more credibility or gives them heaven bonus points or something.

I mean, I'm glad they come. They do amuse. Sometimes I'm really in the mood to eviscerate hubris and those who promote the idea that faith is good for something. And it isn't polite to do that in real life. But when one posts tripe at a skeptic's forum with self important garbage and continued assaults on people he might actually learn something from--then lambasting is warranted.

I never cease to be amazed that such people are surprised that their wisdom is not welcomed and they take offense when asked for evidence. Religion sure does a number on some people. But they always fall for the bait (Paul's thread title in this case)--

Intelligent design IS good for something afterall. Amusing skeptics. And the strange tenacity with which some people will cling to some beliefs.

[John Hewitt]

I am a bit puzzled about the title of this thread. Is the word "annoying" used as an adjective to indicate that members of the creationists community are in some way annoying as people; alternatively, is the objective of these postings to annoy those people?
Paul was using it as an adjective. Read his first post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2050448#post2050448).

Yes, I did actually look at the first post but the incidence of sarcasm suggests that "annoying" has often been used as an active verb during the subsequent thread.

It seems to me that evolutionary theorists might try being a little more humble - they too preach and, like preachers everywhere, expect rewards in the form of payment and acknowledged status in return.

[thaiboxerken]

Feel free to give examples of evolutionary theorists preaching. There is a difference between clarifying actual scientific theory, teaching the theory and preaching.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yes, I did actually look at the first post but the incidence of sarcasm suggests that "annoying" has often been used as an active verb during the subsequent thread.
Yes, Kleinman uses it as a gerund quite often, as in "I enjoy annoying evolutionarians."


It seems to me that evolutionary theorists might try being a little more humble - they too preach and, like preachers everywhere, expect rewards in the form of payment and acknowledged status in return.
Whatever. All we want is for Kleinman to present his case in a bit more depth.

~~ Paul

[delphi_ote]

It seems to me that evolutionary theorists might try being a little more humble - they too preach and, like preachers everywhere, expect rewards in the form of payment and acknowledged status in return.
You seem to be the only preaching right now.

[joobz]

Yes, I did actually look at the first post but the incidence of sarcasm suggests that "annoying" has often been used as an active verb during the subsequent thread.

It seems to me that evolutionary theorists might try being a little more humble - they too preach and, like preachers everywhere, expect rewards in the form of payment and acknowledged status in return.

The only thing preachy here has been our crazy insistence on using facts and truth. That can get a little irritating to those who wish to avoid reality.

Kleinman, any luck figuring out your thermodynamic model of a kinetic problem?

[articulett]

Feel free to give examples of evolutionary theorists preaching. There is a difference between clarifying actual scientific theory, teaching the theory and preaching.

Agreed. I think they bend over backwards to explain every little detail again and again to people who are dishonestly ask questions that they really do not what the answer too. They have a vested interest in not understanding the answer...because, then, in their mind, "intelligent design" must be true. In science you don't really concede points that aren't valid to avoid hurting peoples' feelings. There isn't a middle ground between fact and conjecture. You don't forward a claim by merely pointing to murky areas in another claim and calling it evidence that some unexplainable immeasurable invisible entity must be at the heart of the conundrum.

What is the good of "intelligent design" belief. Do believers feel it makes them more moral? That god is testing them? Can they use it to illuminate anything else. Do they want scientists to go looking for "evidence" of god in the genome? Does the theory make them feel more special? Does it explain anything or can it be used to predict anything or to determine anything of importance. Can we tell what the common ancestor of certain life forms are--and how far back that common ancestor lived? Because we can do that with evolution--

What is kleinman's theory good for. We can say, well since we'll never live long enough to see one large species turn into another in our lifetime, we are going to have to accept that god did it and start trying to kiss his invisible ass?

It's a go-nowhere theory that explains nothing and useful for nothing except making some people feel morally superior I suppose--or maybe it just is a security blanket so they can keep their favorite pet delusion safe from the facts.

But it just seems so ignorant. The god thing is one thing--but to make yourself incapable of learning one of the most profound if not the most profound scientific discoveries of all time is sad. Science will never disprove your gods--though it is true, that there is less and less belief of god in the scientific community--but to lie to yourself and others and say that evolution is a theory in trouble is crazy and absolutely at odds with all the evidence.

Evolution is not only undoubtedly true, but it is the tool that has swung the doors of biology wide open leading to vast amounts of understanding including the mapping of multiple genomes. That is a miracle no "intelligent designer" ever helped with or mentioned in any writing attributed to him. If nothing else, this oversight should cause some of you anti-evolutionists a momentary pause.

Not all sides of an issue have equal merit.

[kleinman]

Paul’s Java version of ev has greater memory limitations than Dr Schneider’s original Pascal version of the program. If you want to run populations greater than 10^9, you will need an operating system and language that can address arrays of this size or larger. Are you actually running out of memory? You can bump up the amount of memory available to a Java program with a command line option. For example, "java -Xmx 500M myProgram" (that would give you 500M of heap space.)
The java console reports a memory error when you either increase G or population to much. The pascal version of ev also allows for cases to be done in a series of steps which the java version doesn’t allow which enables me to run the larger cases.

Paul can answer your questions about the memory issues and I am sure they can be overcome if you have sufficient hardware and operating system and language that can use the hardware.
I am a bit puzzled about the title of this thread. Is the word "annoying" used as an adjective to indicate that members of the creationists community are in some way annoying as people; alternatively, is the objective of these postings to annoy those people?
You have to ask Paul why he chose this as the title of the thread. I think what is annoying these evolutionists is that I am using an evolutionist mathematical model to argue against their own theory. Adequate thinks I am an abuser of computer models.
What’s the matter? Are you afraid that running larger cases with ev will show how ridiculous the theory of evolution is? I think it is smart for evolutionarians to say away from mathematics, it really messes up their stories.Yes, that's the problem. It has nothing to do with the work involved. The work involved is trivial. Say, why don't you do it and show us up for the fools we are?
You evolutionarians have a way of contradicting yourselves from one sentence to the next. This has nothing to do with you now having some understanding of what the model predicts and what these larger cases will show. You are probably wondering why you got involved with the ev project in the first place.
At this point my limitations are RAM (1 gig) and time.Since he's such a great scientist, I naturally assumed kleinman was trying to reproduce your "controversial" results. He seems to enjoy giving me computer science advice so much, I thought I'd return the favor.
Lay off the sterno Delphi, there are no "controversial" results that Paul has generated that I haven’t. There are results from the Pascal version of ev that I have obtained which Paul can not duplicate with his Java version of ev. There is one case that Paul can run using the Pascal executable that I sent him which has a population of 2 meg. He hasn’t shown interest in running the case.
Yes, I did actually look at the first post but the incidence of sarcasm suggests that "annoying" has often been used as an active verb during the subsequent thread. Yes, Kleinman uses it as a gerund quite often, as in "I enjoy annoying evolutionarians."
If you were scientists, you would consider the data that I am presenting from your own model that contradicts your own theory. Instead, you get annoyed. I enjoy annoying evolutionarians with data from their own computer models. They deserve it when they push off this superficial and sloppy mathematical analysis and try to call it science.
It seems to me that evolutionary theorists might try being a little more humble - they too preach and, like preachers everywhere, expect rewards in the form of payment and acknowledged status in return.Whatever. All we want is for Kleinman to present his case in a bit more depth.
Paul, where do you want me to start? I’ve set the goal posts and they haven’t changed since my first post on the Evolutionisdead forum. You have some idea what happens in the ev model when you use known, measured mutation rates. Consider what happens to Dr Schneider’s computation of the evolution of a human genome in a billion years when you simply use a realistic mutation rate. Consider all the cases you have run with increasing genome lengths. You have finally gotten extrapolated values for realistic genome lengths that are close to the original values I posted months ago on the Evolutionisdead forum. Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium takes away two important parameters for convergence in ev, time and population size. The only issue of the three I have raised about the mathematical behavior of ev where there is still some question is the effects of population. Every population series I have run appear to be approaching an asymptote at less than 100,000 population. If these series are not approaching an asymptote then the slope of the curve is becoming very small. Your curve fit extrapolations are useless for predicting the behavior of the model with populations of 10^15. These points need to be computed by ev to see if there is anything that can be salvaged from this computer model that would support the theory of evolution.

What is it that I have done with your computer model that you are having difficulty understanding? I have only done what Dr Schneider suggested in his publication:
Variations of the program could be used to investigate how population size, genome length, number of sites, size of recognition regions, mutation rate, selective pressure, overlapping sites and other factors affect the evolution.
I followed Dr Schneider’s suggestion and have managed to annoy a lot of evolutionists with the results from his program.

[thaiboxerken]

You've annoyed people about evolution the same way 4yr old kids annoy adults with plea ansd whines about how Santa Clause is real. There is no substance to your posts, just sniveling garbage that is the same as a child says "I know Santa is real, my mommy told me so."

[delphi_ote]

The java console reports a memory error when you either increase G or population to much.
Let me guess. It tells you it's out of heap space, and you didn't even bother to read the post to which you were replying, right?
Paul can answer your questions about the memory issues and I am sure they can be overcome if you have sufficient hardware and operating system and language that can use the hardware.[/SIZE][/FONT]
There aren't "memory issues" here. There's a practical upper bound on certain parameters dictated by hardware limitations, not flaws in the simulation software. The operating system and language have nothing to do with this, as I've already told you.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You evolutionarians have a way of contradicting yourselves from one sentence to the next. This has nothing to do with you now having some understanding of what the model predicts and what these larger cases will show. You are probably wondering why you got involved with the ev project in the first place.
Thanks for the armchair psychoanalysis. You did realize this was sarcastic, right?

Yes, that's the problem. It has nothing to do with the work involved. The work involved is trivial. Say, why don't you do it and show us up for the fools we are?


Lay off the sterno Delphi, there are no "controversial" results that Paul has generated that I haven’t. There are results from the Pascal version of ev that I have obtained which Paul can not duplicate with his Java version of ev. There is one case that Paul can run using the Pascal executable that I sent him which has a population of 2 meg. He hasn’t shown interest in running the case.
I believe I said I would run it when I had a week with nothing better to do.


Paul, where do you want me to start? I’ve set the goal posts and they haven’t changed since my first post on the Evolutionisdead forum.
For crying out loud! We want you to present the mathematical proof that macroevolution, whatever the hell that is, is impossible due to some constraint that you apparently feel you've gotten from Ev. You could start by defining macroevolution. If you want to use the one at Wikipedia, then we can stop this charade right now.


What is it that I have done with your computer model that you are having difficulty understanding? I have only done what Dr Schneider suggested in his publication:
You've done nothing!

Look, here's an idea. Why don't you write just the abstract for the paper that you would publish on this issue? We can critique it, under the assumption that, unlike here in this forum, you will actually take the critique to heart and improve the abstract accordingly.

~~ Paul

[joobz]

Look, here's an idea. Why don't you write just the abstract for the paper that you would publish on this issue? We can critique it, under the assumption that, unlike here in this forum, you will actually take the critique to heart and improve the abstract accordingly.

~~ Paul
I'll Write it for him:
Abstract: Thermodynamically, evolution and ev takes to long. So, god did it. The end. Stop asking questions. It's mathematical!!!!

[Dr Adequate]

The java console reports a memory error when you either increase G or population to much. The pascal version of ev also allows for cases to be done in a series of steps which the java version doesn’t allow which enables me to run the larger cases.

Paul can answer your questions about the memory issues and I am sure they can be overcome if you have sufficient hardware and operating system and language that can use the hardware.

You have to ask Paul why he chose this as the title of the thread. I think what is annoying these evolutionists is that I am using an evolutionist mathematical model to argue against their own theory. Adequate thinks I am an abuser of computer models.

You evolutionarians have a way of contradicting yourselves from one sentence to the next. This has nothing to do with you now having some understanding of what the model predicts and what these larger cases will show. You are probably wondering why you got involved with the ev project in the first place.

Lay off the sterno Delphi, there are no "controversial" results that Paul has generated that I haven’t. There are results from the Pascal version of ev that I have obtained which Paul can not duplicate with his Java version of ev. There is one case that Paul can run using the Pascal executable that I sent him which has a population of 2 meg. He hasn’t shown interest in running the case.

If you were scientists, you would consider the data that I am presenting from your own model that contradicts your own theory. Instead, you get annoyed. I enjoy annoying evolutionarians with data from their own computer models. They deserve it when they push off this superficial and sloppy mathematical analysis and try to call it science.

Paul, where do you want me to start? I’ve set the goal posts and they haven’t changed since my first post on the Evolutionisdead forum. You have some idea what happens in the ev model when you use known, measured mutation rates. Consider what happens to Dr Schneider’s computation of the evolution of a human genome in a billion years when you simply use a realistic mutation rate. Consider all the cases you have run with increasing genome lengths. You have finally gotten extrapolated values for realistic genome lengths that are close to the original values I posted months ago on the Evolutionisdead forum. Gould’s theory of punctuated equilibrium takes away two important parameters for convergence in ev, time and population size. The only issue of the three I have raised about the mathematical behavior of ev where there is still some question is the effects of population. Every population series I have run appear to be approaching an asymptote at less than 100,000 population. If these series are not approaching an asymptote then the slope of the curve is becoming very small. Your curve fit extrapolations are useless for predicting the behavior of the model with populations of 10^15. These points need to be computed by ev to see if there is anything that can be salvaged from this computer model that would support the theory of evolution.

What is it that I have done with your computer model that you are having difficulty understanding? I have only done what Dr Schneider suggested in his publication:

I followed Dr Schneider’s suggestion and have managed to annoy a lot of evolutionists with the results from his program. So, you don't have any new lies.

There's the lie about Gould, there's the denial, in the face of all the evidence, that population size is significant, there's the claim that the mathematical model that you can't understand is "sloppy" --- by the way, do learn what an asypmtote is --- and, above all, the idiotic claim that your irrelevant data contradict the theory of evolution.

We've already pointed out why this is all a steaming load of crap. You need some new lies.

[Dr Adequate]

Look, here's an idea. Why don't you write just the abstract for the paper that you would publish on this issue? We can critique it, under the assumption that, unlike here in this forum, you will actually take the critique to heart and improve the abstract accordingly. Why on earth would we assume that?

[T'ai Chi]

Macro-evolution is a term used strictly by creationists.


I've read that term in biology books as well as in popular evolutionist writings.


Much of the mutations involving speciation are on the X chromosome--I'm not trying to imply god is a pervert or anything...but if he's the one in charge, why the fondness for X?


'Much of the mutations involving speciation are on the X chromosome--I'm not trying to evolution is a perversion or anything...but if it is in charge, why the fondness for X?'


It has no facts in support of it;


Except logic- that we know complicated things are often designed by intelligences.


Nothing in science is discovered with the assumption that god must have played a hand in it.


Except people like Newton, who used their belief in God as motivation for studying His design.


Intelligent Design just says, "god did it; humans will never understand how".


"Articulett"-strawman Intelligent Design just says: "god did it; humans will never understand how". Real Intelligent Design just says 'can we infer real design or not?'. It is about 'if design', and not necessarily about god(s) as the designer(s).


Hammy and Thai and kleinman never present evidence for a competing theory in their many thousands of posts and always resort to ad hominen attacks


I'm just asking questions here, exploring philosophy. You are free to present your evidence, of course. You can start by giving a complete detailed Darwinian pathway of anything.


Why don't they understand that "gaps" in understanding are not answered by "magic", god, or anything supernatural because positing such, pretty much puts a stop to all discovery and potential understanding on a topic.


Except in Newton's case, and in many others', who used their belief as motivation to explore their god's design.


But when one posts tripe at a skeptic's forum with self important garbage and continued assaults on people he might actually learn something from--then lambasting is warranted.


So I take it you'll look forward to getting lambasted?


But they always fall for the bait (Paul's thread title in this case)--


Actually, that was quite obvious, and obviously dishonest, as it sets up from the start that anyone who has any questions, even scientific ones, about Darwinian evolutoion = Creationist, which is false.

Paul could be the one to be said to be arguing an ID stance, since one can say that his intelligently designed program apparently created information. ;)


Intelligent design IS good for something afterall. Amusing skeptics.


All 'skeptic' means is that there one has doubt in at least one area, not some homogeneous club as you'd like it to be. For example, Antony Flew, who is a skeptic, and a leading atheist for many, many years, has reportedly shifted to the design view.

[Dr Adequate]

I've read that term in biology books as well as in popular evolutionist writings. Where the distinction between macro and microevolution is just the time it takes.

Except logic- that we know complicated things are often designed by intelligences. We know that complicated things are often made plastic.

Some of us also know some logic, as well.

"Articulett"-strawman Intelligent Design just says: "god did it; humans will never understand how". Real Intelligent Design just says 'can we infer real design or not?'. No, Intelligent Design consists of pretending that the answer to that question is "yes".

Paul could be the one to be said to be arguing an ID stance But only by someone who was lying, stupid, or insane.

since one can say that his intelligently designed program apparently created information. And one cannot say that the information was intelligently designed.

All 'skeptic' means is that there one has doubt in at least one area, not some homogeneous club as you'd like it to be. For example, Antony Flew, who is a skeptic, and a leading atheist for many, many years, has reportedly shifted to the design view. ... by throwing critical thinking out of the window. Hence, he is not a skeptic.

[joobz]

Except logic- that we know complicated things are often designed by intelligences.



Except people like Newton, who used their belief in God as motivation for studying His design.


You seem to be recycling your arguments (or refining, depending on your view point). Allow me to reiterate my last comment made on another thread.

On one end, you are claiming indirect evidence for god by claiming there are natural laws that would require a law maker. You state that this is a logical conclusion.

Then you state that these "Natural laws" are only our simple human understandings and approximations of reality. This is true.

But then how can you claim that your initial argument isn't just a semantic game when you acknowledge that our use of the term "Natural laws" is purely a human construction to aide our understanding?

You invoke scientists with faith as a defense. But these scientists never used god to avoid a hard question. their discoveries had no direct relationship with their faith.

Your actions are to define god and or find god through science. And all anyone has said is that god isn't needed for any of these theories. I'm not against a faith in god. I just think trying to work him into any theory of the world is forced and unnatural.

[Dr Adequate]

If all Newton came up with was: "I don't know what keeps the planets in their orbits, therefore God is pushing them. We know that things that move are often being pushed, so that's logic" --- then his name would have been justly forgotten by now.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why on earth would we assume that?
Well, I thought I give him the benefit of the doubt, at least for a few minutes. Is that foolish of me?

~~ Paul

[fishbob]

On macro vs micro evolution:
I've read that term in biology books as well as in popular evolutionist writings.

A prevalent example of creationist dishonesty - the weasels pirated and misrepresented what were at one time useful descriptive terms.

[Myriad]

Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of ~4 * 10^9 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. However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution.
(emphasis added)

"This rate" refers to the rate of information increase per generation shown by the ev model with the low-valued parameters that Kleinman is complaining about.

I just wanted to point out that not only did Dr. Schneider not claim that the ev model simulates all important factors in evolution, he explicitly stated the contrary. Kleinman usually leaves out the boldfaced sentence when he quotes this passage.

Myriad, I went back and looked at where I have quoted the above text written by Dr Schneider. I have quoted this text 11 times on the Evolutionisdead forum and 2 times on this forum and in all cases I have included the boldfaced sentence. So stop being a jackass. If you are going to attribute something to me, post the quote.

For the record, just in case some correspondents have any lingering doubt about Kleinman's credibility...

In the relevant thread in the EvolutionIsDead forum, he did indeed directly quote (by "directly" I mean he was not requoting the text as part of quoting another post) the text in question 11 times. Two of those cases he quoted the entire Discussion section from Dr. Schneider's paper; the other nine were more specifcally focused on the paragraph in question. In six of those nine cases (or, if you prefer, six of the eleven cases total), he did not include the boldfaced portion. Those six cases occurred on pages 2, 12, 15, 18, 21, and 29 of that thread. (The quotes that did include the boldfaced sentence are on pages 1, 3, 14, 17, and 21.)

In this forum, in this thread, of the three times he quoted this Schneider passage prior to when I raised the issue, twice it was without the boldfaced sentence. And in the A Simple Argument Against Intelligent Design thread, he quoted it once, again without the boldfaced sentence.

And then later, in this thread (on pages 8 and 11, using default posts-per-page), he did it again, twice, both times mentioning me and explicitly stating that he was quoting Dr. Schneider's whole statement in full.

Total score:
With the boldfaced text: 6 times
Without the boldfaced text: 11 times

But as to more important matters... I don't think I could ever be a closet duelist. It's too dark to aim your pistol and there's not enough room for fencing.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[kleinman]

You evolutionarians have a way of contradicting yourselves from one sentence to the next. This has nothing to do with you now having some understanding of what the model predicts and what these larger cases will show. You are probably wondering why you got involved with the ev project in the first place.Thanks for the armchair psychoanalysis. You did realize this was sarcastic, right?
I can’t tell whether your complacent/compliant line was a pun. I told you to put a smiley face next to your jokes so we all can tell that’s what they are. Are you going to put a smiley face next to the theory of evolution because it really looks like a joke to me.
Yes, that's the problem. It has nothing to do with the work involved. The work involved is trivial. Say, why don't you do it and show us up for the fools we are? Lay off the sterno Delphi, there are no "controversial" results that Paul has generated that I haven’t. There are results from the Pascal version of ev that I have obtained which Paul can not duplicate with his Java version of ev. There is one case that Paul can run using the Pascal executable that I sent him which has a population of 2 meg. He hasn’t shown interest in running the case.I believe I said I would run it when I had a week with nothing better to do.
Unless you are using your computer 24 hours a day, you can run the pascal version of ev in pieces unlike the java version when your system would otherwise be sitting idle. I don’t mind if you drag this out, I’m having fun.
Paul, where do you want me to start? I’ve set the goal posts and they haven’t changed since my first post on the Evolutionisdead forum.For crying out loud! We want you to present the mathematical proof that macroevolution, whatever the hell that is, is impossible due to some constraint that you apparently feel you've gotten from Ev. You could start by defining macroevolution. If you want to use the one at Wikipedia, then we can stop this charade right now.
Let’s see, I said use the wikipedia definition, that doesn’t make you happy, when you asked me if the evolution of binding sites was an example of macroevolution, I said yes. Crying out loud is something evolutionarians are doing a lot of these days.
What is it that I have done with your computer model that you are having difficulty understanding? I have only done what Dr Schneider suggested in his publication: You've done nothing! Look, here's an idea. Why don't you write just the abstract for the paper that you would publish on this issue? We can critique it, under the assumption that, unlike here in this forum, you will actually take the critique to heart and improve the abstract accordingly.
Sure I’ve done something, I have gotten you to stop saying the ev represents reality and Dr Schneider has stopped advertising his model. You peer review my work, that’s a laugh, you don’t even peer review your own evolutionarian writings. The peer review Dr Schneider obtained from the editors at Nucleic Acids Research qualifies that journal to be sold at supermarket checkout stands, right next to the alien abduction tabloids.
Look, here's an idea. Why don't you write just the abstract for the paper that you would publish on this issue? We can critique it, under the assumption that, unlike here in this forum, you will actually take the critique to heart and improve the abstract accordingly.I'll Write it for him:
Abstract: Thermodynamically, evolution and ev takes to long. So, god did it. The end. Stop asking questions. It's mathematical!!!!
Joozb, you have to be able to write above the 1st grade level.
For the record, just in case some correspondents have any lingering doubt about Kleinman's credibility...Total score:
With the boldfaced text: 6 times
Without the boldfaced text: 11 times
Myriad, do any jiggling of the threshold in ev? It will make us giggle.

[Yahzi]

Why do they keep hammering at this notion to an audience
One fact will make it all clear.

We are not their audience.

They are their audience: the performance that HammThaiKlein puts on is for their own benefit. Hammy repeats "closet dualist" like a mantra, his own secret words of power that keep him on the straight and narrow whenever a stray thought threatens to blow apart his house of cards. Tai always asks; never answers; this allows him to continue thinking of himself as wise (aka Socrates) without actually facing the issues. Indeed, if Tai didn't come here and bait us, he might eventually have to answer his own questions - and then where would he be?

Klein resorts to name-calling, which frankly looks weak. I don't think he'll last much longer.

But the point is that the single most important concept in psychology is "projection." The creationiods are arguing against themselves; by externalizing their own doubts, they can shout them down, they can hate them, they can identify them as the other and thus dangerous, subversive, taboo. You can't taboo yourself; you can't use that handy biological machinery that keeps you from playing in manure on yourself. You have to externalize the target, so your innate hard-wired circutry can make avoiding it automatic and reflexive.

Of course, we skeptics are human, so we are just as guilty of projection as anyone else. For instance, I constantly assume that other people are honest (at least with themselves), aware that truth is the best way to get what you want, and thus interested in the truth. Because I cannot help but project these attitudes onto others, I am constantly being surprised.

[Dr Adequate]

Let’s see, I said use the wikipedia definition, that doesn’t make you happy... Oh, a new lie! Well done!

Paul's point is, of course, that if we use the wikipedia definition of macroevolution, then it's game, set and match to us, since speciation has been observed. This is why he said "If you want to use the one at Wikipedia, then we can stop this charade right now."

[John Hewitt]

Feel free to give examples of evolutionary theorists preaching. There is a difference between clarifying actual scientific theory, teaching the theory and preaching.
Well, I always find Dawkins very preachy and the recent meeting, reported in New Scientist, came across as similar to a convocation of Bishops.

The failings in religion, at least when Holy books are interpreted literally, are perfectly clear and seem to be acknowledged by the majority of religious believers who debate the issue - Answers in Genesis excepted.

The fact is that science can never answer or disprove every possible variation of religious faith but still it is quite clear that faith wil never just go away. It seems to me that Dawkins and his followers are dominated by efforts to reply to faith, rather than constructing evolutionary theory in a more sensible and compelling way. Thus they are not improving the theory of evolution just converting it into another branch of faith to which all members of the scientific community are expected to give obeisance. That is entirely wrong.

What they should be doing is recognizing some of the failings in evolutionary theory and using that recognition as a platform from which to improve it.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I can’t tell whether your complacent/compliant line was a pun. I told you to put a smiley face next to your jokes so we all can tell that’s what they are. Are you going to put a smiley face next to the theory of evolution because it really looks like a joke to me.
I wasn't refering to my pun, which is utterly irrelevant to this conversation anyway. I was referring to this, right here:

Yes, that's the problem. It has nothing to do with the work involved. The work involved is trivial. Say, why don't you do it and show us up for the fools we are?
That was sarcastic. Obviously.


Unless you are using your computer 24 hours a day, you can run the pascal version of ev in pieces unlike the java version when your system would otherwise be sitting idle. I don’t mind if you drag this out, I’m having fun.
I can run either of them any time, because I have multiple processors. I just don't feel like running the long simulation right now.


Let’s see, I said use the wikipedia definition [of macroevolution], that doesn’t make you happy, ...
Oh, it makes me happy. It makes me laugh right out loud.

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.


Sure I’ve done something, I have gotten you to stop saying the ev represents reality and Dr Schneider has stopped advertising his model.
What does this have to do with your proof that macroevolution is impossible? Are you retracting your claim that you have proved that macroevolution is impossible?

Here: Ev represents reality, just not in its entirety.

Here: Schneider still has pages about Ev: http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/


Joozb, you have to be able to write above the 1st grade level.
Only if you have something to say that requires more than a first grade edumacation.

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

Indeed. Keep on calling me names, calling me a liar, and demanding apologies for a comment I made on another forum that is clearly and proveably true. I'm sure it's building you credit in heaven. Or somewhere.
Myriad, I owe you an apology for not seeing the hair that you are splitting. I now realize what the point is that you are trying to make. Even though my initial post, 3rd and 5th posts included the notorius boldfaced text, you want this text to included every time I post Dr Schneider on this topic. Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of 4*10^9 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. However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution.
The minimum that I quote of Dr Schneider’s text on this topic is the following:
Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of 4*10^9 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.
On some occasions I have left off the following line.
However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution.
Perhaps Dr Schneider would be willing to explain how worldwide populations accelerate evolution when ev appears to approach an asymptote at much smaller populations. Or how worldwide populations contradict Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium. Or Dr Schneider can explain to us how sexual recombination increases information in the gene pool, or how interspecies gene transfers account for human evolution.

When I post this text from Dr Schneider’s publication without your boldfaced text, it is not because I am trying to artificially reinforce my case, I want to talk about this line from Dr Schneider’s text. Maybe you want to explain how these mechanisms account for human evolution.

You have no science or mathematics to defend against what ev shows about your theory of evolution so you have taken to parsing words to look for a defense to your theory. If this is the only way you can argue your case, it is apparent how weak your case for evolution really is.
Let’s see, I said use the wikipedia definition [of macroevolution], that doesn’t make you happy, ... Oh, it makes me happy. It makes me laugh right out loud.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.
A creationist has also co-opted ev as well, doesn’t that annoy you.
Sure I’ve done something, I have gotten you to stop saying the ev represents reality and Dr Schneider has stopped advertising his model.What does this have to do with your proof that macroevolution is impossible? Are you retracting your claim that you have proved that macroevolution is impossible?
Of course I am not retracting my assertion that macroevolution is impossible, ev shows this, but I also realize that I am dealing with 150 years worth of indoctrination and it takes time to reverse this. The theory of evolution is an old rusted theory that takes a lot of WD40 and some heat to disassemble but with patience, we will get there.
Here: Ev represents reality, just not in its entirety.

Here: Schneider still has pages about Ev: http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/ (http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/)
I know the page well; it is in my favorites list. Let talk about the reality that ev represents. Does it represent a realistic simulation of random point mutations and natural selection?

[joobz]

Joozb, you have to be able to write above the 1st grade level.
.
Have you presented anything that requires a higher reading level?

So far, your entire argument has been
1.) Takes to long-(it's thermodynamics!)
2.) Macroevolution doesn't exist (well, at least not how I define it)
3.) joobz can't write (it's joobz, btw....not joozb, which is probably some clever insult that I don't get)
4.) Delphi drinks sterno. (I'll just pretend that he didn't completely call me out on entropy and java programming)
5.) Paul is a crybaby (because he gets annoyed at me missrepresenting his program. jeez, what child.)
6.) Dr. inAdequate, since he irritatingly holds me to my lies
7.) Oh, and If I keep saying that EV is a perfect simulation of evolution and show how it couldn't work, then I disprove evolution! yeah, And if I wish really really hard, I can be a real boy.

Just remember Pinocchio, Your nose grows when you lie.

[Dr Adequate]

Myriad, I owe you an apology for not seeing the hair that you are splitting. I now realize what the point is that you are trying to make. Even though my initial post, 3rd and 5th posts included the notorius boldfaced text, you want this text to included every time I post Dr Schneider on this topic.
The minimum that I quote of Dr Schneider’s text on this topic is the following:

On some occasions I have left off the following line.

Perhaps Dr Schneider would be willing to explain how worldwide populations accelerate evolution when ev appears to approach an asymptote at much smaller populations. Or how worldwide populations contradict Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium. Or Dr Schneider can explain to us how sexual recombination increases information in the gene pool, or how interspecies gene transfers account for human evolution.

When I post this text from Dr Schneider’s publication without your boldfaced text, it is not because I am trying to artificially reinforce my case, I want to talk about this line from Dr Schneider’s text. Maybe you want to explain how these mechanisms account for human evolution.

You have no science or mathematics to defend against what ev shows about your theory of evolution so you have taken to parsing words to look for a defense to your theory. If this is the only way you can argue your case, it is apparent how weak your case for evolution really is.

A creationist has also co-opted ev as well, doesn’t that annoy you.

Of course I am not retracting my assertion that macroevolution is impossible, ev shows this, but I also realize that I am dealing with 150 years worth of indoctrination and it takes time to reverse this. The theory of evolution is an old rusted theory that takes a lot of WD40 and some heat to disassemble but with patience, we will get there.

I know the page well; it is in my favorites list. Let talk about the reality that ev represents. Does it represent a realistic simulation of random point mutations and natural selection? So, no new lies, then?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Of course I am not retracting my assertion that macroevolution is impossible, ev shows this, but I also realize that I am dealing with 150 years worth of indoctrination and it takes time to reverse this. The theory of evolution is an old rusted theory that takes a lot of WD40 and some heat to disassemble but with patience, we will get there.
So you plan on simply repeating your mantra until we all come around?


I know the page well; it is in my favorites list. Let talk about the reality that ev represents. Does it represent a realistic simulation of random point mutations and natural selection?
It is a simulation of the generic process of reproduction, mutation, and selection. It certainly doesn't simulate any specific real-life situation. To use it to disprove macroevolution, you must:

Define macroevolution.
Map the functions of Ev onto the process of real evolution, specifically the process of macroevolution.
Do the math on Ev that shows that the real-life process can't produce whatever macroevolution requires.

I recommend you start with the simplest case of macroevolution you can find. What would that be?

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

Of course I am not retracting my assertion that macroevolution is impossible, ev shows this, but I also realize that I am dealing with 150 years worth of indoctrination and it takes time to reverse this. The theory of evolution is an old rusted theory that takes a lot of WD40 and some heat to disassemble but with patience, we will get there. So you plan on simply repeating your mantra until we all come around?
My mantra “mathematically impossible, mathematically impossible” is better than your mantra “recombination, recombination” any day. Some nuts won’t come loose no matter how much WD40 and heat you use on them. My plan goes beyond just repeating “mathematically impossible”. As computing resources become available, I’ll do larger population cases to determine whether ev is approaching an asymptote or not and also do larger genome cases as well to see whether the generations for convergence increases at power greater than 2. As time goes on, we can see how things evolve.
I know the page well; it is in my favorites list. Let talk about the reality that ev represents. Does it represent a realistic simulation of random point mutations and natural selection? It is a simulation of the generic process of reproduction, mutation, and selection. It certainly doesn't simulate any specific real-life situation. To use it to disprove macroevolution, you must:

Define macroevolution.
Map the functions of Ev onto the process of real evolution, specifically the process of macroevolution.
Do the math on Ev that shows that the real-life process can't produce whatever macroevolution requires.I recommend you start with the simplest case of macroevolution you can find. What would that be?
1. We will have to live with the fact that you will not be satisfied with any definition of macroevolution I give. You aren’t going to take your ball and go home because of this, but wait, ev is public domain, you can’t take it home.
2. I already think that ev maps random point mutations and natural selection in a plausible manner to the real situation. The author of the program seems to think this as well with what he has posted on his web site. Perhaps he will restate his position if he ever will talk about his program publicly again.
3. I think that doing the math on random point mutations and natural selection is a good start. I agree with evolutionists that there are other mechanisms to vary a genome and we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it, but without random point mutations and natural selection, evolutionists are going to have a very difficult time explaining genetic evolution without this mechanism.

Per you recommendation that I start with the simplest case of macroevolution, I think Dr Schneider’s model using binding sites is reasonable. The binding site model represents only a small number of loci which have to evolve, Dr Schneider has already defined a selection mechanism that has been peer reviewed and published and these represent real, known sites on genomes. Even though I don’t believe Dr Schneider’s selection mechanism is realistic and gives a degree of precision to the selection process that does not exist in reality, I’m willing to live with this selection mechanism despite that I believe it allows the model to converge more quickly than would occur in reality. In addition, no gene is evolving with the binding site which again favors much faster convergence. If the model can not converge quickly enough with these unrealistic assumptions aiding the model, then how would it converge more quickly with a more stringent selection process and including gene evolution with the binding site evolution?

Ev is going to be hard pressed to evolve anything on a prokaryotic size megabase genome, how can you evolve any new base sequence on a gigabase genome with random point mutations and natural selection especially since organisms with gigabase genomes are going to have much smaller populations and much longer generation times than prokaryotes?

Paul, ev gives the theory of evolution a very bad accounting problem. The auditors are coming to check the books.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Per you recommendation that I start with the simplest case of macroevolution, I think Dr Schneider’s model using binding sites is reasonable.
No, sorry, you have to start with a real-life case of macroevolution. What would that be?


Ev is going to be hard pressed to evolve anything on a prokaryotic size megabase genome, how can you evolve any new base sequence on a gigabase genome with random point mutations and natural selection ...
And this has exactly what to do with real life?

~~ Paul

[thaiboxerken]

My mantra “mathematically impossible, mathematically impossible” is better...

Feel free to show us the peer-reviewed scientific article that supports your mantra.

[Dr Adequate]

My mantra “mathematically impossible, mathematically impossible” is better than your mantra “recombination, recombination” any day. Some nuts won’t come loose no matter how much WD40 and heat you use on them. My plan goes beyond just repeating “mathematically impossible”. As computing resources become available, I’ll do larger population cases to determine whether ev is approaching an asymptote or not and also do larger genome cases as well to see whether the generations for convergence increases at power greater than 2. As time goes on, we can see how things evolve.

1. We will have to live with the fact that you will not be satisfied with any definition of macroevolution I give. You aren’t going to take your ball and go home because of this, but wait, ev is public domain, you can’t take it home.
2. I already think that ev maps random point mutations and natural selection in a plausible manner to the real situation. The author of the program seems to think this as well with what he has posted on his web site. Perhaps he will restate his position if he ever will talk about his program publicly again.
3. I think that doing the math on random point mutations and natural selection is a good start. I agree with evolutionists that there are other mechanisms to vary a genome and we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it, but without random point mutations and natural selection, evolutionists are going to have a very difficult time explaining genetic evolution without this mechanism.

Per you recommendation that I start with the simplest case of macroevolution, I think Dr Schneider’s model using binding sites is reasonable. The binding site model represents only a small number of loci which have to evolve, Dr Schneider has already defined a selection mechanism that has been peer reviewed and published and these represent real, known sites on genomes. Even though I don’t believe Dr Schneider’s selection mechanism is realistic and gives a degree of precision to the selection process that does not exist in reality, I’m willing to live with this selection mechanism despite that I believe it allows the model to converge more quickly than would occur in reality. In addition, no gene is evolving with the binding site which again favors much faster convergence. If the model can not converge quickly enough with these unrealistic assumptions aiding the model, then how would it converge more quickly with a more stringent selection process and including gene evolution with the binding site evolution?

Ev is going to be hard pressed to evolve anything on a prokaryotic size megabase genome, how can you evolve any new base sequence on a gigabase genome with random point mutations and natural selection especially since organisms with gigabase genomes are going to have much smaller populations and much longer generation times than prokaryotes?

Paul, ev gives the theory of evolution a very bad accounting problem. The auditors are coming to check the books. Nothing new here.

[kleinman]

Per you recommendation that I start with the simplest case of macroevolution, I think Dr Schneider’s model using binding sites is reasonable.No, sorry, you have to start with a real-life case of macroevolution. What would that be?
Dr Schneider said the following about his model:
Actual biological materials were used to determine the original hypothesis. Read the literature: Schneider1986 (http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/schneider1986)
And
The simulation was of phenomena in the "real" world.And
Since the Ev simulation corresponds point-for-point to the natural situation, the Ev model shows how information can be gained in binding sites in nature by mutation and natural selection.
And
Mutations are not evolution, but are most of the basis for it.
And
Fred Williams complains that the "program is not real-world, not even close. New information was not created naturalistically." It is not clear what he means by 'real-world' or 'naturalistically'. If you read the Ev paper (http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/papers/ev/) carefully you will note that the model parallels the natural situation.
And
Why don't you do a real biological experiment instead of just a computer model?The primary reason is that we don't have infinite resources and time. If you have the resources (a molecular biology lab), are interested in doing an experiment, and would like to discuss it please contact me.
And

A good simulation does not attempt to simulate everything; only the essential components are modeled. For the issue at hand, the form of the genetic code is not relevant; information measured by Shannon's method is more general than that.
And for good measure:
This gauntlet was thrown on the ground on 2005 May 15. Notice that, since creatioinists stop complaining when defeated, the most extremely difficult part of the challenge above is "do a scientific test of your own ideas"!
Dr Schneider and all you other evolutionarians let it be known that the gauntlet is taken up officially on 2006 November 28. So Dr Schneider, come out from hiding under your blanket and stop making other evolutionarians defend your superficial analysis of ev.
Ev is going to be hard pressed to evolve anything on a prokaryotic size megabase genome, how can you evolve any new base sequence on a gigabase genome with random point mutations and natural selection ...And this has exactly what to do with real life?
Why Paul, this is mathematical proof from your own computer model that your soft theory of evolution is mathematically impossible, mathematically impossible.

[hammegk]

I don't understand the macroevolution argument.

Creationoids define species by inter-fertility: if they can mate, they're the same species.

They define macroevolution as creation of new species; that is, animals that can't mate with their parent's species.

You are wrong (overlooking the "creationoids" nastiness); that definition is more in line with one of several of the choices modern ev theory presents for "speciation".


They accept microevolution as a fact; genes can change over time.
That's one of the few actually factual statements Modern Theory can make with our current knowledge.

BTW, that does not translate to "Modern Evolutionary Theory is a Fact" although that's how many here want it presented in the educational process.


Unfortunately for all concerned macroevolution can as yet be demonstrated as a fact only in the fossil record (and the plethora of lifeforms we have). Modern Theorists say, why gee, just more micro-ev; others like myself wonder at the lack of catastrophism inherent in that concept.

The present is not necessarily the "key to the past". :)

[Timble]

Dr Schneider and all you other evolutionarians let it be known that the gauntlet is taken up officially on 2006 November 28. So Dr Schneider, come out from hiding under your blanket and stop making other evolutionarians defend your superficial analysis of ev.


He probably doesn't even know about your poncing around and posturing and it's all on "just another message board", so why should he care?

[kjkent1]

He probably doesn't even know about your pouncing around and posturing and it's all on "just another message board", so why should he care?

This really is the truth of it. The Internet is great for ad hoc arguments, but it is no substitute for real peer-review. Kleinmann should submit his findings and conclusions for publication as a rebuttal to Schneider's original EV work, and sink or swim with the rest of the scientific community.

Excuses such as "the ordinary publishing process is too slow," and "the system is rigged against evolution's opponents," are just excuses.

There is always room at the top.

[kleinman]

Dr Schneider and all you other evolutionarians let it be known that the gauntlet is taken up officially on 2006 November 28. So Dr Schneider, come out from hiding under your blanket and stop making other evolutionarians defend your superficial analysis of ev. He probably doesn't even know about your poncing around and posturing and it's all on "just another message board", so why should he care?
I’m sure Dr Schneider is aware of the arguments that I am making based on his model, since we discussed via email for a couple of months before I took these issues public but you are correct about my offer to take up the gauntlet, so I’ll email him the acceptance of his challenge.

I think now is a good time to respond to some of joozb’s kvetching. Joozb wants to talk about kinetics and thermodynamics. The kinetics portion of the ev model is demonstrated by the rate (the number of generations required) at which the model converges depending on input parameters. How does thermodynamics enter into this model other than the increase in information in the genome being mathematically equal to the negative change in the entropy of the genome? Let’s put a little hard science into the feather pillow soft theory of evolution.

Evolutionists like to talk about the “natural selection” as being the driving force for evolution. What is a hard scientific explanation for “natural selection”? Since I know how impatient evolutionarians are, I give you the answer to this question immediately. Natural selection is nothing more than a restatement of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Any energy available to an organism that has to used for the immediate survival of the organism can not be used for reproduction. The most efficient energy using organisms will have the most energy available to use for reproduction and will be selected for.

When one applies this concept of natural selection to genetic evolution, you have a spectrum of genetic events which can be acted on by this principle. At one end of the spectrum you have immediately fatal mutations. You can also have harmful mutations that don’t immediately kill the organism but put that organism at a reproductive disadvantage to other organisms of that species. You can have neutral mutations which don’t give an advantage or disadvantage for that organism with respects to other members of that species. At the other end of the spectrum you have the so called good random mutations. These mutations confer a selective advantage and make these organisms better reproducers because of these helpful mutations. Unlike immediately fatal mutations which are well known and many have been identified, there are very few examples of good mutations which immediately confer survival benefit. Those good mutations that do confer an immediate survival benefit do not involve the de novo evolution of a gene but usually involve a single base substitution to an already existing gene or the availability of an alternative less energy efficient metabolic pathway that gives a survival benefit.

The genetic evolutionary concept requires huge numbers of neutral mutations which offer no natural selective advantage to occur in order to form highly complex genes. Consider the Kreb cycle. Each step in the metabolism of glucose requires a complex protein enzyme catalyst. In order for each of these complex enzymes to be formed, every base change must obey the law of natural selection. If the base change reduces the energy efficiency of the organism, the organism is selected against and the frequency of that base change is reduced in the gene pool. If the base change has no change on the energy efficiency of the organism, the organism will be neither selected for nor selected against and the frequency of that base change will not change in the gene pool. If the base change improves the energy efficiency of the organism, the frequency of that base change will increase in the gene pool.

So, what are the observations that we have of random point mutations and natural selection? There are scores of genetic diseases which are attributed to single point mutations. There are few occurrences of survival benefit attributed to single point mutations. Natural selection is far more efficient selecting out harmful point mutations and selecting in beneficial point mutations. Natural selection does not have high enough resolution to select for or against the many neutral point mutations that would be necessary for the de novo formation of a gene.

[joobz]

Dr Schneider and all you other evolutionarians let it be known that the gauntlet is taken up officially on 2006 November 28. So Dr Schneider, come out from hiding under your blanket and stop making other evolutionarians defend your superficial analysis of ev.

Fine, Let it be known on this date, November 28th, 2006, You're challenge has been met and dissmissed.

the following links represent clear flaws in your argument against ev and why you are wrong.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2088334#post2088334
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2095267#post2095267
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2096792#post2096792
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2097589#post2097589
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2097776#post2097776
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2098215#post2098215
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2098611#post2098611
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2101691#post2101691
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2110843#post2110843
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2117943#post2117943
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2123175#post2123175
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2123221#post2123221
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2123432#post2123432


Please try again, but with a new hypothesis.
Evolution takes to long cause ev said so has been disproven.

[delphi_ote]

:nope:




:slp:

[kleinman]

Dr Schneider and all you other evolutionarians let it be known that the gauntlet is taken up officially on 2006 November 28. So Dr Schneider, come out from hiding under your blanket and stop making other evolutionarians defend your superficial analysis of ev. Fine, Let it be known on this date, November 28th, 2006, You're challenge has been met and dissmissed.
Joozb, so now you are Dr Schneider’s second. Why didn’t you comment on the kinetics and thermodynamics I presented? I did this just for you.

Why don’t you show as much creativity as Adequate, at least he posts a gif with his URLs?

I have already received an email response from Dr Schneider to his offer to take up the gauntlet. He refuses privately and because this is a private message I am not free to post his reasons why. It doesn’t matter to the proof that ev shows that macroevolution is mathematically impossible by random point mutations and natural selection. It only remains to be shown definitively that ev shows that huge populations do not accelerate evolution sufficiently to make macroevolution possible.

Delphi, if you lay off the sterno, you wouldn’t sleep so much.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It doesn’t matter to the proof that ev shows that macroevolution is mathematically impossible by random point mutations and natural selection. It only remains to be shown definitively that ev shows that huge populations do not accelerate evolution sufficiently to make macroevolution possible.
Huh? In the first sentence you have a proof that macroevolution is impossible. In the second sentence you specify one of the steps that remains to prove that macroevolution is impossible.

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

It doesn’t matter to the proof that ev shows that macroevolution is mathematically impossible by random point mutations and natural selection. It only remains to be shown definitively that ev shows that huge populations do not accelerate evolution sufficiently to make macroevolution possible.Huh? In the first sentence you have a proof that macroevolution is impossible. In the second sentence you specify one of the steps that remains to prove that macroevolution is impossible.
Good, you are paying close attention. How is the population series you are running coming along? You know that with our desktop scale pc's this discussion will go on for years.

[joobz]

I think now is a good time to respond to some of joozb’s kvetching. Joozb wants to talk about kinetics and thermodynamics. The kinetics portion of the ev model is demonstrated by the rate (the number of generations required) at which the model converges depending on input parameters.
finally, you've said something correct. The number of generations required is determined by the kinetics of the system. This is exactly true. the only real rate constant you have here is the mutation rate, which has no real link to thermodynamics in this model. Your entire argument has been a kinetic one, not a thermodynamic one. This was my point.

How does thermodynamics enter into this model other than the increase in information in the genome being mathematically equal to the negative change in the entropy of the genome? Let’s put a little hard science into the feather pillow soft theory of evolution.

Evolutionists like to talk about the “natural selection” as being the driving force for evolution. What is a hard scientific explanation for “natural selection”? Since I know how impatient evolutionarians are, I give you the answer to this question immediately. Natural selection is nothing more than a restatement of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Any energy available to an organism that has to used for the immediate survival of the organism can not be used for reproduction. The most efficient energy using organisms will have the most energy available to use for reproduction and will be selected for.
Interesting view. I've heard the energy efficiency aspect of natural selection before and think it provides a framework for analysis of cellular processes and the evolutionary advantages they may possess. Although I do not see how this relates to you addressing the use of entropy in the ev model since the first law is not related to entropy at all. I'd ask for a clarification, but this is off topic. I understand why it relates to the generation of information.

When one applies this concept of natural selection to genetic evolution, you have a spectrum of genetic events which can be acted on by this principle. At one end of the spectrum you have immediately fatal mutations. You can also have harmful mutations that don’t immediately kill the organism but put that organism at a reproductive disadvantage to other organisms of that species. You can have neutral mutations which don’t give an advantage or disadvantage for that organism with respects to other members of that species. At the other end of the spectrum you have the so called good random mutations. These mutations confer a selective advantage and make these organisms better reproducers because of these helpful mutations. Unlike immediately fatal mutations which are well known and many have been identified, there are very few examples of good mutations which immediately confer survival benefit. Those good mutations that do confer an immediate survival benefit do not involve the de novo evolution of a gene but usually involve a single base substitution to an already existing gene or the availability of an alternative less energy efficient metabolic pathway that gives a survival benefit.

The genetic evolutionary concept requires huge numbers of neutral mutations which offer no natural selective advantage to occur in order to form highly complex genes. Consider the Kreb cycle. Each step in the metabolism of glucose requires a complex protein enzyme catalyst. In order for each of these complex enzymes to be formed, every base change must obey the law of natural selection. If the base change reduces the energy efficiency of the organism, the organism is selected against and the frequency of that base change is reduced in the gene pool. If the base change has no change on the energy efficiency of the organism, the organism will be neither selected for nor selected against and the frequency of that base change will not change in the gene pool. If the base change improves the energy efficiency of the organism, the frequency of that base change will increase in the gene pool.

So, what are the observations that we have of random point mutations and natural selection? There are scores of genetic diseases which are attributed to single point mutations. There are few occurrences of survival benefit attributed to single point mutations. Natural selection is far more efficient selecting out harmful point mutations and selecting in beneficial point mutations. Natural selection does not have high enough resolution to select for or against the many neutral point mutations that would be necessary for the de novo formation of a gene.
From this text you claim
1.) Point mutations can be fatal.
I agree, we have evidence of this.
2.) Point mutations can be "neutral"
I agree that a point mutation that results in no change in the peptide sequences of proteins can be deemed neutral. However, you seem to be lumping in changes that result in actual changes in peptide sequences as "neutral" and this is not really the case. This is the basis of protein polymorphisms. Many of these proteins may have only slight differences as to be negligible. But once an environmental stressor arrises that exploits this difference, a selection from a "neutral change" can be made.

This is most understandable when looking at xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes. different polymorphs have varing degrees of metabolizing potential. If these varied people are exposed to the right toxin, only those who metabolize it safely and effectively will live.

http://tinyurl.com/sbero
http://tinyurl.com/y3fh9r
http://tinyurl.com/y2y3kd
http://tinyurl.com/y73t5r
http://tinyurl.com/yyc7f4

3.) Point Mutations do not exist which are "good"
This is where I disagree. See above.

[joobz]

Joozb, so now you are Dr Schneider’s second. Why didn’t you comment on the kinetics and thermodynamics I presented? I did this just for you.
i did

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Good, you are paying close attention. How is the population series you are running coming along? You know that with our desktop scale pc's this discussion will go on for years.
So you admit there is no proof so far. Excellent. By the way, it's your proof, so why am I the one who has to run the experiments?

Here's what I have so far. Some of the generation counts are from one run, some are the average of 3--5 runs with different random seeds. The last three points are from your runs.

genome size 1024
binding sites 16
1 mutation per genome

population, generations to perfect creature

4, 95600
8, 43400
16, 22000
32, 14800
64, 18000
128, 4400
256, 4000
512, 3900
1024, 2700
2048, 1800
4096, 1770
8192, 1641
16384, 1253
23100, 1275
32768, 1288
46200, 1709
65536, 922
92680, 725
110000, 1177
262000, 702
524000, 642
1048000, 438

The points beginning with a population 1024 fit the curve $g = 12347p^{-.23}$. Extrapolating to 100 million creatures, we get 178 generations; to 1 billion creatures, 105 generations.

~~ Paul

[Dr Adequate]

Dr Schneider said the following about his model:

And
And

And

And

And

And


And for good measure:

Dr Schneider and all you other evolutionarians let it be known that the gauntlet is taken up officially on 2006 November 28. So Dr Schneider, come out from hiding under your blanket and stop making other evolutionarians defend your superficial analysis of ev.

Why Paul, this is mathematical proof from your own computer model that your soft theory of evolution is mathematically impossible, mathematically impossible. I'm afraid you haven't quite removed enough context from the quotes.

I draw your attention specifically, to where Schneider says:

The primary reason is that we don't have infinite resources and time. If you have the resources (a molecular biology lab), are interested in doing an experiment, and would like to discuss it please contact me. This challenge you have not, I think, met.

[kleinman]

Good, you are paying close attention. How is the population series you are running coming along? You know that with our desktop scale pc's this discussion will go on for years. So you admit there is no proof so far. Excellent. By the way, it's your proof, so why am I the one who has to run the experiments?

Here's what I have so far. Some of the generation counts are from one run, some are the average of 3--5 runs with different random seeds. The last three points are from your runs.

genome size 1024
binding sites 16
1 mutation per genome

population, generations to perfect creature

4, 95600
8, 43400
16, 22000
32, 14800
64, 18000
128, 4400
256, 4000
512, 3900
1024, 2700
2048, 1800
4096, 1770
8192, 1641
16384, 1253
23100, 1275
32768, 1288
46200, 1709
65536, 922
92680, 725
110000, 1177
262000, 702
524000, 642
1048000, 438

The points beginning with a population 1024 fit the curve g=12347p^-.23. Extrapolating to 100 million creatures, we get 178 generations; to 1 billion creatures, 105 generations.
What I admit to is that the proof is not complete. It is clear from your own extrapolation that it takes 200,000,000 million generations to evolve the 16 binding sites on a 100k genome with a population of 1,000,000. So your own estimate rules out the possibility of evolving 16 binding sites by random point mutations and natural selection on any life form with a eukaryotic size genome and population. The only thing that remains to be definitively put to rest is whether you can evolve 16 binding sites by random point mutations and natural selection on a prokaryotic size genome and population.

I thought you were doing a population series with a mutation rate of 10^-6. The data you posted is similar to the series I posted a while back.
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

I plugged some values into your curve fit g=12347p^-.23 to see what this equation estimates for populations greater than 1,000,000,000
p (population) /g (generations for convergence)
1E+9/105
1E+12/21
1E+15/4.4
1E+18/0.9
1E+21/0.2
You actually beat Adequate’s calculation of 1 generation when the population is infinite. At 10^18 population it takes less than 1 generation for ev to converge.

Paul, you don’t need to run any cases unless you want to. I just thought your scientific curiosity would want to know the answer to last question about ev question.

Adequate quotes Dr Schneider:
The primary reason is that we don't have infinite resources and time. If you have the resources (a molecular biology lab), are interested in doing an experiment, and would like to discuss it please contact me.
This challenge you have not, I think, met.
Only a tax-payer funded laboratory would be stupid enough to take up Dr Schneider’s challenge. Once you do a little analysis of what ev really shows, Dr Schneider’s offer is about as sensible as a Ponzi scheme.

Since now that Dr Schneider’s throwing down the gauntlet was only as Trimble terms this, “posturing”, how much more of what Dr Schneider has said about his ev model was “poncing” around and only an attempt on Dr Schneider’s part to artificially support the mathematically very weak theory of evolution. The question is, how much did Dr Schneider know and when did he know it?

In Dr Schneider’s paper Evolution of Biological Information he wrote the following:
To test the hypothesis that Rsequence can evolve to match Rfrequency, the evolutionary process was simulated by a simple computer program, ev, for which I will describe one evolutionary run. This paper demonstrates that a set of 16 binding sites in a genome size of 256 bases, which would theoretically be expected to have an average of Rfrequency = 4 bits of information per site, can evolve to this value given only these minimal numerical and size constraints. Although many parameter variations are possible, they give similar results as long as extremes are avoided (data not shown).
What does Dr Schneider mean by “as long as extremes are avoided (data not shown)”?

Dr Schneider said the following on his FAQ page on ev:
http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/faq-for-ev.html (http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/faq-for-ev.html)
If you had a reasonable sized genome would you find that there won't be an information gain? No. Don't be lazy, go try it yourself (http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/delila/ev.html)! But notice that it will take a lot more computation, and the runs may take some years unless you write a version that uses parallel processors.

Was Dr Schneider artificially inflating his estimate of the evolution of human genome in a billion years by purposely ignoring the rate of information gain on a reasonable sized genome? Why would he do this? Was it simply a blunder on Dr Schneider’s part or did Dr Schneider have other motives for saying “as long as extremes are avoided (data not shown)”? How much did Dr Schneider know and when did he know it? The plot thickens.

[Myriad]

Hi Paul,

Now that I'm back I'm going to be working a bit more on my experiments with a modified ev. I'd like to fill you in on some of the details.

Because I wanted to experiment with the selection model using various tie-breaking rules, I decided to change the sorting-by-mistakes procedure also. With the sort going on, the population-wide effects of any nonrandom tiebreaking rule would likely end up depending on the details of the sort algorithm, i.e. how the (usually large) portion of the population having equal mistakes gets sorted. If the same individuals tend to get sorted into the same positions each generation, then the effect of a nonrandom tiebreaker would be different than if those individuals get thoroughly shuffled. The quicksort algorithm doesn't offer any straightforward way to predict or control this, so I decided to remove the sort entirely.

In my version, the organisms are all positioned on an array (one or two dimensions, with or without wrap-around, depending on the parameters I set) and compete only against their adjacent neighbors. For each position, the mistakes and any tiebreaker measure are compared for the "resident" organism and its (up to) four neighbors. The best gets to reproduce its genome into that position on the next generation. In an unbroken tie including the current resident, the resident gets to survive. In an unbroken tie not including the current resident, one of the tied bugs chosen at random gets to reproduce into the location. The whole array is updated simultaneously after the decisions are made for every location, so there's no directional effect from the order in which the positions are tested, and it's possible for an organism to reproduce into one or more neighboring cells, and be replaced by a different neighbor, all in the same generation.

To make these changes I rewrote the model in Lingo (Shockwave) which gives me more flexibility. However, Lingo runs about 50-100x slower than Pascal or Java, so I can only test the small end of the parameter space this way. (That was no surprise.) My intention was, and is, to do a lot of tests of different possibilities with small parameters, find what looks interesting, and then either reproduce those modified versions in Pascal or convince you to do so in Java for more testing. First up is to continue testing with the best-worst mistake as the tiebreaker. I've also been getting interesting results with random threshold variations (most efficient seems to be environmental variation -- that is, a single random offset each generation that applies to the whole population). It turns out there's a pretty large parameter space to explore there. I'd also like to try cyclic instead of random threshold offsets. But that whole line of inquiry has now dropped to much lower priority.

There was a test you asked me to make; I believe it was something to do with the effects of pegging the threshold at zero. (I can go back in the thread and look it up.) Are you still interested in my doing that, knowing that I've altered the selection procedure as I have?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[joobz]

I plugged some values into your curve fit g=12347p^-.23 to see what this equation estimates for populations greater than 1,000,000,000
p (population) /g (generations for convergence)
1E+9/105
1E+12/21
1E+15/4.4
1E+18/0.9
1E+21/0.2
You actually beat Adequate’s calculation of 1 generation when the population is infinite. At 10^18 population it takes less than 1 generation for ev to converge.

:th:
I got to hand it to you. that's a whole new level of silly.
you called out the problem of using a continuous curve fit equation on discretized data.

Now, can you tell me where an engineer would find the logical violation? Is it in the curve fit Paul calculated, or is it in your use of it?

I'll give you a hint, your base assumption is wrong.

[kleinman]

I plugged some values into your curve fit g=12347p^-.23 to see what this equation estimates for populations greater than 1,000,000,000
p (population) /g (generations for convergence)
1E+9/105
1E+12/21
1E+15/4.4
1E+18/0.9
1E+21/0.2
You actually beat Adequate’s calculation of 1 generation when the population is infinite. At 10^18 population it takes less than 1 generation for ev to converge.I got to hand it to you. that's a whole new level of silly. you called out the problem of using a continuous curve fit equation on discretized data. Now, can you tell me where an engineer would find the logical violation? Is it in the curve fit Paul calculated, or is it in your use of it? I'll give you a hint, your base assumption is wrong.
Joozb, Paul has done extrapolations like this for months, and his curve fits have always been useless at extrapolating data points beyond the range of the data used for generating the curve. His curve fit for the above data gives generations for convergence of 509 for a population of 1048576 and an extrapolated generations for convergence of 434 for a population of 2097152. Paul has the program to run this case to see how accurate his curve fit is when doing extrapolations. In order to get an accurate representation of the population/generations for convergence curve, you have to compute the data points with ev. I have had this discussion with Paul several times, in the past, this is the first time you have heard it.

Paul has gotten himself involved with a computer model that has turned out to be a lemon for supporting the theory of evolution. He is looking for a way to extricate himself from this discussion. What he really needs to do is learn how to make lemonade.

Your posts are showing improvement with your use of a gif. Keep up the good work.

[thaiboxerken]

Funny how these "proofs" turn out in internet forums but never in any scientific media. I wonder why that is?

[joobz]

p (population) /g (generations for convergence)
1E+9/105
1E+12/21
1E+15/4.4
1E+18/0.9
1E+21/0.2

You actually beat Adequate’s calculation of 1 generation when the population is infinite. At 10^18 population it takes less than 1 generation for ev to converge.
I got to hand it to you. that's a whole new level of silly. you called out the problem of using a continuous curve fit equation on discretized data. Now, can you tell me where an engineer would find the logical violation? Is it in the curve fit Paul calculated, or is it in your use of it? I'll give you a hint, your base assumption is wrong.
Joozb, Paul has done extrapolations like this for months, and his curve fits have always been useless at extrapolating data points beyond the range of the data used for generating the curve. His curve fit for the above data gives generations for convergence of 509 for a population of 1048576 and an extrapolated generations for convergence of 434 for a population of 2097152. Paul has the program to run this case to see how accurate his curve fit is when doing extrapolations. In order to get an accurate representation of the population/generations for convergence curve, you have to compute the data points with ev. I have had this discussion with Paul several times, in the past, this is the first time you have heard it.

I'm sorry, wrong answer.
Thanks for playing.

The correct answer is, you are missusing/abusing the equation. Yes, see you are extrapolating beyond what the discrete data set can allow for.

Again, math only provides a framework to define and understand our surroundings. If we apply this math and do not properly limit ourselves to reality, the final result will be meaningless.

[Dr Adequate]

His errors are becoming increasingly trivial.

[Yahzi]

.
Hey!

Where's your avatar? The little panicking guys.

"OH NOES!"

I loved those guys!

[articulett]

Well, I always find Dawkins very preachy and the recent meeting, reported in New Scientist, came across as similar to a convocation of Bishops.

The failings in religion, at least when Holy books are interpreted literally, are perfectly clear and seem to be acknowledged by the majority of religious believers who debate the issue - Answers in Genesis excepted.

The fact is that science can never answer or disprove every possible variation of religious faith but still it is quite clear that faith wil never just go away. It seems to me that Dawkins and his followers are dominated by efforts to reply to faith, rather than constructing evolutionary theory in a more sensible and compelling way. Thus they are not improving the theory of evolution just converting it into another branch of faith to which all members of the scientific community are expected to give obeisance. That is entirely wrong.

What they should be doing is recognizing some of the failings in evolutionary theory and using that recognition as a platform from which to improve it.

I actually think religion will go away--I wouldn't call it faith...but I would call it hope...I have high hopes that religion will fad as more and more is described by Science. People like Kleinman and Hammy and Thai will believe whatever it is they believe to their dying day. And if we get ghostly visits that say "I told you so", then we'll know they are right. But I don't see them convincing anyone but themselves. And young people are as not as likely to be so thoroughly meme infected and so religion is likely to be seen as something crotchity old men and ladies do...and nerds...and some white trash...etc. What neurology is increasingly showing quite clearly, is the sense of self is reliant on a working brain...there isn't an afterlife. Don't spend your money time or allegiances supporting ideas that are supposed to be about living happily ever after. I mean, I can't prove the hijackers don't have their virgins...but all speculation about what exists beyond are equally likely from an evidentiary perspective.

If there are nebulous areas in evolution, creations jump insert their favorite invisible and immeasurable entity and say that it's the solution. But it's a solution that goes nowhere. And know matter how nicely you explain or how often, if someone believes their eternity depends on them believing some story or another then you words fall on deaf ears. Science is refining our understanding in evolution at amazing speed. Creationists are so far behind in what we know and so dishonest in the questions they ask that it shouldn't be up to Dawkins or anyone else to give their wacky beliefs the time of day. As yourself how you think we should treat the Amish and Muslims and Scientologists...all of whom have a different creation story. Should we make nice? For what. The truth shouldn't be watered down to make it more palatable. New information will survive because it works...it's true...it's fact based...and it can be taught to anyone no matter what god they pray to or what language they speak. Science doesn't need religion. And the more we push superstitious thinking out of the public, the better for us all.

I find it crazy that Dawkins is supposed to bend over backwards to people who are both delusionlal and who show NO respect for him. They are liars who pretend that science is taking them seriously (not) when one of them dares to entertain their delusion. Let other people play the peacemaker.

[tsig]

Could you give this thread an extremely detailed evolution of hemoglobin?

An extremly detailed anwer will start with high school biology and chemistry course thru senior year, then college up to the grad level, then working with those who are leaders in this field.

Are you game?

[tsig]

Dr Schneider said the following about his model:

And
And

And

And

And

And


And for good measure:

Dr Schneider and all you other evolutionarians let it be known that the gauntlet is taken up officially on 2006 November 28. So Dr Schneider, come out from hiding under your blanket and stop making other evolutionarians defend your superficial analysis of ev.

Why Paul, this is mathematical proof from your own computer model that your soft theory of evolution is mathematically impossible, mathematically impossible.



The only thing you have proved is that if you take a computer simulation and feed it unrealistic inputs you will get unrealistic outputs.

GIGO

[kleinman]

The only thing you have proved is that if you take a computer simulation and feed it unrealistic inputs you will get unrealistic outputs.

GIGO

DHR, you are correct. Dr Schneider used unrealistic inputs to his model and then took the unrealistic outputs to predict the amount of time to evolve a human genome using random point mutations and natural selection. This sentence is for Myriad: Dr Schneider qualified is calculation with the following, "even without the advantages of large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer. However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution." You better include intergalactic gene transfer if you are going to use realistic parameters in his model. His results are garbage out.

The question then becomes, does the model represent random point mutations and natural selection realistically when realistic parameters are used in the model? I say yes and that is why I say that the mathematics of ev contradicts the macroevolution portion of the theory of evolution.

If you wanted to perform a laboratory experiment to verify the results of ev, forget about the evolution of binding sites. Take the data available with HIV. Some of the specific mutations that confer drug resistance to this virus have been identified. Take the ev model, start with the initial wild strain HIV sequence for the population and then allow random point mutations at a known measured mutation rate for this virus and see how many generations it takes to get the appropriate drug resistant mutation. Then you can get something else useful out of ev other than it disproves the theory of evolution.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So your own estimate rules out the possibility of evolving 16 binding sites by random point mutations and natural selection on any life form with a eukaryotic size genome and population.
I'm willing to stipulate that it is unlikely that such a binding mechanism could evolve by point mutation starting with a large random genome. There are, however eukaryotes with genomes less than a megabase and populations much larger than 1 million.


I thought you were doing a population series with a mutation rate of 10^-6.
Since we know that generations varies linearly with mutation rate, there is no point in wasting time with slow mutation rates.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Joozb, Paul has done extrapolations like this for months, and his curve fits have always been useless at extrapolating data points beyond the range of the data used for generating the curve. His curve fit for the above data gives generations for convergence of 509 for a population of 1048576 and an extrapolated generations for convergence of 434 for a population of 2097152.
So what's the problem? Did you expect the extrapolation to produce the exact number you got for a population of 1 million?

~~ Paul

[Yahzi]

I have high hopes that religion will fad as more and more is described by Science.
This is the old view (the Modernist view). It's been replaced by a more sophisticated, and less hopeful, understanding of what role religion plays in people's lives.

Here's a paper I co-wrote opn the subject:

Religion and Public Policy (http://members.cox.net/mcplanck/essays/policy.html)

The summary is: religion is best considered similar to drugs and alcohol. Marx thought of religion as a tool to oppress the masses, the Modernists thought of it as a result of ignorance, but contemporary psychology recognizes there is an inherent human need to self-medicate our exposure to reality.

John Schumaker wrote a book on this, also: "The Corruption of Reality: a unified view of hypnosis, psychopathology, and religion."

[John Hewitt]

I actually think religion will go away--I wouldn't call it faith...but I would call it hope...I have high hopes that religion will fad as more and more is described by Science. People like Kleinman and Hammy and Thai will believe whatever it is they believe to their dying day. And if we get ghostly visits that say "I told you so", then we'll know they are right. But I don't see them convincing anyone but themselves. And young people are as not as likely to be so thoroughly meme infected and so religion is likely to be seen as something crotchity old men and ladies do...and nerds...and some white trash...etc. What neurology is increasingly showing quite clearly, is the sense of self is reliant on a working brain...there isn't an afterlife. Don't spend your money time or allegiances supporting ideas that are supposed to be about living happily ever after. I mean, I can't prove the hijackers don't have their virgins...but all speculation about what exists beyond are equally likely from an evidentiary perspective.

If there are nebulous areas in evolution, creations jump insert their favorite invisible and immeasurable entity and say that it's the solution. But it's a solution that goes nowhere. And know matter how nicely you explain or how often, if someone believes their eternity depends on them believing some story or another then you words fall on deaf ears. Science is refining our understanding in evolution at amazing speed. Creationists are so far behind in what we know and so dishonest in the questions they ask that it shouldn't be up to Dawkins or anyone else to give their wacky beliefs the time of day. As yourself how you think we should treat the Amish and Muslims and Scientologists...all of whom have a different creation story. Should we make nice? For what. The truth shouldn't be watered down to make it more palatable. New information will survive because it works...it's true...it's fact based...and it can be taught to anyone no matter what god they pray to or what language they speak. Science doesn't need religion. And the more we push superstitious thinking out of the public, the better for us all.

I find it crazy that Dawkins is supposed to bend over backwards to people who are both delusionlal and who show NO respect for him. They are liars who pretend that science is taking them seriously (not) when one of them dares to entertain their delusion. Let other people play the peacemaker.

You may be right about religion disappearing, though I think it would depend on the survival of what we now call civilization. I, myself, lost religious faith as a teenager but, rather hypocritically, I had my son attend Sunday school and, really, that hypocrisy speaks to my current views on religion.

I do feel that religion has had a very important historical place for our species and, Dawkins notwithstanding, it has an important current, social role. Religious ideas can become excessively dogmatic, but so can those of science - and Dawkins. I do not think that the achievements of religion or its current social roles should be demeaned by some nouveau dogmatism dressed up as science.

So far as evolution is concerned, the evidence for evolution as a historic fact is clearly overwhelming, at least when set against the lack of evidence for any of the religious ideas. Nonetheless, evolutionary theory, here distinguished from evolution, does have weaknesses, it is in need of improvement and more rational reconstruction. Only criticism of that theory will guide its improvement and those criticisms are coming more from the ID movement than from anywhere else; they are the only people who reject the dogmatism of evolution and are willing to find and point out the holes in evolutionary theory.

That is, so it seems to me, a real service to evolutionary theory. However Dawkins, and indeed most evolutionists, do not respond to the valid critiques by saying "yes, there is a problem there. How can we resolve it?" They respond by attacking the critic and we are left with this sterile confrontation of dogmas.

Anyway, just my £0.02 worth.

[kleinman]

So your own estimate rules out the possibility of evolving 16 binding sites by random point mutations and natural selection on any life form with a eukaryotic size genome and population. I'm willing to stipulate that it is unlikely that such a binding mechanism could evolve by point mutation starting with a large random genome. There are, however eukaryotes with genomes less than a megabase and populations much larger than 1 million.
Fair enough. I think this topic gives a little interesting side bar discussion. What is the smallest eukaryotic genome that you know of? I did a little google search and found endosymbiont algae with genome lengths of about 660k but are not free living. For free living eukaryotes, the genome lengths appear to be over 10 million base pairs. Perhaps you know of some examples of free living eukaryotes with genome lengths less than 10,000,000 base pairs? So you don’t think I am trying to trick you, where I am trying to take you is what you mean by a “large random genome”. Again, I remind the readers that ev does not model the evolution of a random genome. Ev models the evolution of a small random portion of a genome while the rest of the genome remains random.
I thought you were doing a population series with a mutation rate of 10^-6. Since we know that generations varies linearly with mutation rate, there is no point in wasting time with slow mutation rates.
I don’t believe what you are saying is correct. I have done series where mutation rate was varied and the generations for convergence are not linear. Here is a typical series for G=1024, population=64, gamma=16 and site width=6:
mutations per generation/Generations
1/10108
2/6669
3/3432
4/2546
5/1268
6/1874
7/2147
8/3626
9/15351
10/81112
I haven’t done extensive series with realistic mutation rates but I do have the following values for Dr Schneider’s baseline G=256 case except using mutation rates of 10^-6, 10^-7, 1.7x10^-8 and got values of 3,993,646, 44,295,590, 948,952,092 generations for convergences respectively.
Joozb, Paul has done extrapolations like this for months, and his curve fits have always been useless at extrapolating data points beyond the range of the data used for generating the curve. His curve fit for the above data gives generations for convergence of 509 for a population of 1048576 and an extrapolated generations for convergence of 434 for a population of 2097152. So what's the problem? Did you expect the extrapolation to produce the exact number you got for a population of 1 million?
Small errors in the value of the slope in any curve fit will give large errors in the estimates for the generations for convergence when working with numbers that vary over 10 orders of magnitude. Both the estimate of the number of generations for convergence based on genome length and generations for convergence based on population size are affected. Your curve fits are only valid in the range of the data used to generate the curve. Your curves are useful only for interpolation, not extrapolation.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Fair enough. I think this topic gives a little interesting side bar discussion. What is the smallest eukaryotic genome that you know of? I did a little google search and found endosymbiont algae with genome lengths of about 660k but are not free living. For free living eukaryotes, the genome lengths appear to be over 10 million base pairs. Perhaps you know of some examples of free living eukaryotes with genome lengths less than 10,000,000 base pairs? So you don’t think I am trying to trick you, where I am trying to take you is what you mean by a “large random genome”. Again, I remind the readers that ev does not model the evolution of a random genome. Ev models the evolution of a small random portion of a genome while the rest of the genome remains random.
Except that the rest of the genome can cause bogus bindings, which count as mistakes. So the rest of the genome cannot mutate freely.

You're right, if you're talking free-living eukaryotes, then 10 million bases is the smallest I know of.


I don’t believe what you are saying is correct.
Here is my data:

population 64
genome size 1000

1 mutation per n bases, generations
1000000, 12845000
500000, 4678000
250000, 2161000
125000, 1501000
65000 853000
32000, 372000
16000, 273000
8000, 78000
4000, 58000
2000, 15000
1000, 8800
750, 7300
500, 7700
375, 2400
250, 2600
190, 1800


Small errors in the value of the slope in any curve fit will give large errors in the estimates for the generations for convergence when working with numbers that vary over 10 orders of magnitude. Both the estimate of the number of generations for convergence based on genome length and generations for convergence based on population size are affected. Your curve fits are only valid in the range of the data used to generate the curve.
Then why have you spent months claiming that Ev shows macroevolution is impossible, when you can't extrapolate from any data you've collected? What mechanism is it that you think will prevent larger populations from pushing down the number of generations required?

~~ Paul

[joobz]

Then why have you spent months claiming that Ev shows macroevolution is impossible, when you can't extrapolate from any data you've collected? What mechanism is it that you think will prevent larger populations from pushing down the number of generations required?

~~ Paul
:D :D :D
This has been one of the most confounding things in his entire argument. He seems to say over and over "Only I can make assumptions and extrapolation! "

Just more and more trivial.

[kleinman]

Fair enough. I think this topic gives a little interesting side bar discussion. What is the smallest eukaryotic genome that you know of? I did a little google search and found endosymbiont algae with genome lengths of about 660k but are not free living. For free living eukaryotes, the genome lengths appear to be over 10 million base pairs. Perhaps you know of some examples of free living eukaryotes with genome lengths less than 10,000,000 base pairs? So you don’t think I am trying to trick you, where I am trying to take you is what you mean by a “large random genome”. Again, I remind the readers that ev does not model the evolution of a random genome. Ev models the evolution of a small random portion of a genome while the rest of the genome remains random. Except that the rest of the genome can cause bogus bindings, which count as mistakes. So the rest of the genome cannot mutate freely.

You're right, if you're talking free-living eukaryotes, then 10 million bases is the smallest I know of.
That is correct, in a real organism, the non-binding site region (the evolved region of the genome) cannot mutate freely as is allowed in ev. This is a property of the ev model that is not realistic. A more realistic simulation would have an evolved genome in the non-binding site region and mutations in this portion that genome that cause fatal damage to a gene would cause that organism to be selected out no matter how evolved the binding site region is. This would give a more complex selection rule than used by Dr Schneider but would better simulate the real situation.

As for the smallest free-living eukaryotes having 10 million base pairs, this is 100 times larger than the genome length where we both have about the same estimates for the generations for convergence. That is your estimate of 200,000,000 generations to evolve the 16 binding sites on a 100k genome. If the generations for convergence is proportional to G^2, that would give over 50 billion generations to evolve the 16 binding sites. At one generation per day, that would take over 130 million years to evolve the 16 binding sites. Why don’t you check my arithmetic? How many billion years do you have to accomplish evolution to today’s life forms?
I don’t believe what you are saying is correct.Here is my data:

population 64
genome size 1000

1 mutation per n bases, generations
1000000, 12845000
500000, 4678000
250000, 2161000
125000, 1501000
65000 853000
32000, 372000
16000, 273000
8000, 78000
4000, 58000
2000, 15000
1000, 8800
750, 7300
500, 7700
375, 2400
250, 2600
190, 1800
I guess you could fit a straight line to this data but I am not sure it is linear. The difference in the generations for convergence between 2x10^-6 and 10^-6 is almost triple not double the number of generations for convergence. In addition, why don’t you try a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 100 bases per genome and I’ll make a wild guess that it will take about 80,000 generations to converge.
Small errors in the value of the slope in any curve fit will give large errors in the estimates for the generations for convergence when working with numbers that vary over 10 orders of magnitude. Both the estimate of the number of generations for convergence based on genome length and generations for convergence based on population size are affected. Your curve fits are only valid in the range of the data used to generate the curve. Then why have you spent months claiming that Ev shows macroevolution is impossible, when you can't extrapolate from any data you've collected? What mechanism is it that you think will prevent larger populations from pushing down the number of generations required?
Why Paul, I’m surprised you would ask such a question of why I would make such a claim about ev and macroevolution. You named this thread.

The mechanism that prevents larger populations from pushing down the number of generations required is the additive rule of probabilities. Increasing populations increases the probability of a good mutation at less than an additive rate. When I initially looked at this problem, I erroneously thought that doubling population would double the probability that a good mutation would hit a particular locus. Myriad and I had a very good discussion on this topic on the Evolutionisdead forum and he corrected my error. If population has an additive effect on the probability that a good mutation would occur at the proper locus, repetitive doubling of the population size would quickly give a probability of greater than one. The reason why increasing population has less than an additive affect on the probability of a good mutation occurring at a particular locus is that these are not mutually exclusive events. Perhaps Myriad would be willing to explain this, he is much better at probability theory than I am or I’ll go back to the Evolutionisdead forum and find the location in the thread for you to read this discussion.

[drkitten]

The mechanism that prevents larger populations from pushing down the number of generations required is the additive rule of probabilities. Increasing populations increases the probability of a good mutation at less than an additive rate. When I initially looked at this problem, I erroneously thought that doubling population would double the probability that a good mutation would hit a particular locus. Myriad and I had a very good discussion on this topic on the Evolutionisdead forum and he corrected my error. If population has an additive effect on the probability that a good mutation would occur at the proper locus, repetitive doubling of the population size would quickly give a probability of greater than one. The reason why increasing population has less than an additive affect on the probability of a good mutation occurring at a particular locus is that these are not mutually exclusive events. Perhaps Myriad would be willing to explain this, he is much better at probability theory than I am or I’ll go back to the Evolutionisdead forum and find the location in the thread for you to read this discussion.

You apparently misunderstood Myriad's discussion.

You're right that doubling the population size will not double the probability of a good mutation. But you're wrong if you think that it will not increase it.

Think of rolling dice. If I roll a single die, I have a 1/6 chance of getting an ace. if I roll two dice, I have 12/36 -- not 2/6 -- chance of getting at least one ace. But if I roll a hundred dice, I may not have a 100/6 probability of getting at least once ace, but I have as close to a dead cert as I can reasonably ask for -- and every additional die will make it that much closer to a dead cert.

You can think of it this way -- let's say that it takes X generations, on average, for a mutation to occur in a population of a given size. That's a stochastic result, and for any specific trial, it may take more or less than that.

If I have two identical populations, and I want to know how long it takes for the mutation to arise in either one, it will obviously happen at the time when the earlier mutation occurs. Think of two race cars -- the race is won when the first car crosses the line, which is faster than the average finish time. Each successive population doubling doubles the number of cars, which iwll make the winning time for the race that much faster.....

[kleinman]

Then why have you spent months claiming that Ev shows macroevolution is impossible, when you can't extrapolate from any data you've collected? What mechanism is it that you think will prevent larger populations from pushing down the number of generations required?This has been one of the most confounding things in his entire argument. He seems to say over and over "Only I can make assumptions and extrapolation! "

Just more and more trivial.
Joozb, I don’t say that “only I can make assumptions and extrapolations!” What I am saying is that you have to show that your extrapolations are realistic. What I have been doing is using more realistic parameters in ev to show that Dr Schneider’s extrapolations are unrealistic. I would like to see you plug in some values into ev to show that my extrapolations that macroevolution is impossible according to the results of ev are unrealistic, but I don’t think you will be able to do this. Paul has quite a bit of understanding of this model and hasn’t been able to contradict my extrapolations. If anything, Paul’s extrapolations have fallen into line with the initial extrapolations I made on the Evolutionisdead forum months ago when I first started writing about ev online.

Your smiley faces add a very nice touch to your post and show creativity that I didn’t know you had.
The mechanism that prevents larger populations from pushing down the number of generations required is the additive rule of probabilities. Increasing populations increases the probability of a good mutation at less than an additive rate. When I initially looked at this problem, I erroneously thought that doubling population would double the probability that a good mutation would hit a particular locus. Myriad and I had a very good discussion on this topic on the Evolutionisdead forum and he corrected my error. If population has an additive effect on the probability that a good mutation would occur at the proper locus, repetitive doubling of the population size would quickly give a probability of greater than one. The reason why increasing population has less than an additive affect on the probability of a good mutation occurring at a particular locus is that these are not mutually exclusive events. Perhaps Myriad would be willing to explain this, he is much better at probability theory than I am or I’ll go back to the Evolutionisdead forum and find the location in the thread for you to read this discussion.You apparently misunderstood Myriad's discussion.

You're right that doubling the population size will not double the probability of a good mutation. But you're wrong if you think that it will not increase it.
I understood Myriad’s discussion, which is why I acknowledged my error about the additive effect of probabilities with increasing population.

If you read my post carefully, what I said is increasing population increases the probability of a good mutation at the proper locus at a less than additive amount. With small populations, you can approximate the increased probability of a good mutation at the proper locus due to an increase in population with the additive rule. This is shown in the data from the population series from ev. However as population gets larger and larger, these increases are getting smaller and smaller very rapidly and the additive rule no longer gives a good approximation. If Adequate’s assertion that the asymptote is 1 at an infinite population is correct, than ev better approach 1 at much smaller populations than infinity for ev to give anything to support the theory of evolution. My computer can’t generate this data but when a system becomes available to me, I will generate the data if for no other reason than to annoy evolutionarians.

[drkitten]

If Adequate’s assertion that the asymptote is 1 at an infinite population is correct, than ev better approach 1 at much smaller populations than infinity for ev to give anything to support the theory of evolution.

Er, all finite populations are "much smaller populations than infinity," so this is an easy task to meet.

If you want to see how much easier, simply plot the data on semi-log paper and see what the slope is.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That is correct, in a real organism, the non-binding site region (the evolved region of the genome) cannot mutate freely as is allowed in ev. This is a property of the ev model that is not realistic.
It can't mutate freely in Ev either! Mutations in the "junk" portion of the genome can result in bindings that increase the mistakes.


A more realistic simulation would have an evolved genome in the non-binding site region and mutations in this portion that genome that cause fatal damage to a gene would cause that organism to be selected out no matter how evolved the binding site region is.
Yes, that is more or less what happens.


As for the smallest free-living eukaryotes having 10 million base pairs, this is 100 times larger than the genome length where we both have about the same estimates for the generations for convergence. That is your estimate of 200,000,000 generations to evolve the 16 binding sites on a 100k genome. If the generations for convergence is proportional to G^2, that would give over 50 billion generations to evolve the 16 binding sites. At one generation per day, that would take over 130 million years to evolve the 16 binding sites. Why don’t you check my arithmetic? How many billion years do you have to accomplish evolution to today’s life forms?
About 4 billion, right? Do you think that the fundamental binding mechanism evolved in eukaryotes with large genomes?


I guess you could fit a straight line to this data but I am not sure it is linear. The difference in the generations for convergence between 2x10^-6 and 10^-6 is almost triple not double the number of generations for convergence. In addition, why don’t you try a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 100 bases per genome and I’ll make a wild guess that it will take about 80,000 generations to converge.
I wouldn't be surprised if it never converged. There has to be a point where the mutation load is too heavy. But not to worry, because we would surely notice this problem if it occured in experiments where we use high mutation rates.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Joozb, I don’t say that “only I can make assumptions and extrapolations!” What I am saying is that you have to show that your extrapolations are realistic. What I have been doing is using more realistic parameters in ev to show that Dr Schneider’s extrapolations are unrealistic. I would like to see you plug in some values into ev to show that my extrapolations that macroevolution is impossible according to the results of ev are unrealistic, but I don’t think you will be able to do this. Paul has quite a bit of understanding of this model and hasn’t been able to contradict my extrapolations. If anything, Paul’s extrapolations have fallen into line with the initial extrapolations I made on the Evolutionisdead forum months ago when I first started writing about ev online.
What extrapolations are you talking about?

Regarding population, we have run experiments up to 1 million critters and the generations to perfection keep on dropping. You won't let me extrapolate past 1 million, so on what basis to you claim that increased populations won't result in lower generation counts?

Regarding genome size, I've run experiments up to 92K genomes with population 36 and 1 mutation per 512 bases. The generations to perfection fits $g = 7.8G^{.98}$. You won't let me extrapolate past the 100K genome, so on what basis do you claim that increased genome sizes would suddenly become exponential in generations?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

However as population gets larger and larger, these increases are getting smaller and smaller very rapidly and the additive rule no longer gives a good approximation.
Well, let's see. Using all my population vs. generations data (shown below), I get a fit to $12722p^{-.23}$. Using just the data from a population of 32K upward, it fits $32835p^{-.31}$. Using just the data from 92K upward, it fits $9387p^{-.21}$. And using just the data from 262K upward, it fits $51432p^{-.34}$. I'm not sure this is commensurate with the claim that the increases will get rapidly smaller.

~~ Paul

population, generations
1024, 2700
2048, 1800
4096, 1770
8192, 1641
16384, 1144
23100, 1275
32768, 1288
46200, 1709
65536, 922
92680, 718
110000, 856
262000, 702
524000, 642
1048000, 438

[joobz]

Joozb, I don’t say that “only I can make assumptions and extrapolations!” What I am saying is that you have to show that your extrapolations are realistic. What I have been doing is using more realistic parameters in ev to show that Dr Schneider’s extrapolations are unrealistic. I would like to see you plug in some values into ev to show that my extrapolations that macroevolution is impossible according to the results of ev are unrealistic, but I don’t think you will be able to do this. Paul has quite a bit of understanding of this model and hasn’t been able to contradict my extrapolations. If anything, Paul’s extrapolations have fallen into line with the initial extrapolations I made on the Evolutionisdead forum months ago when I first started writing about ev online.

Seems like Paul disagrees. As would anyone following the thread.

But please, continue. Your repetitious, incorrect explanations are fascinating.

[delphi_ote]

It would be awesome if kleinman had the academic honesty and motivation to specifically run the test he thinks would demonstrate Paul's line fitting is incorrect. We might have something to discuss.

Instead, he's here with more of his usual name calling and attention whoring.
:slp:

[Hawk one]

Think of rolling dice. If I roll a single die, I have a 1/6 chance of getting an ace. if I roll two dice, I have 12/36 -- not 2/6 -- chance of getting at least one ace. But if I roll a hundred dice, I may not have a 100/6 probability of getting at least once ace, but I have as close to a dead cert as I can reasonably ask for -- and every additional die will make it that much closer to a dead cert.

[pedantic sidetracking]
Actually, it's 11/36 chance of getting at least one ace when you throw two dice.

Why yes, I do like table-top roleplaying games with lots of dice, why do you ask? :D

[tsig]

It would be awesome if kleinman had the academic honesty and motivation to specifically run the test he thinks would demonstrate Paul's line fitting is incorrect. We might have something to discuss.

Instead, he's here with more of his usual name calling and attention whoring.
:slp:

What else is there for them.

Facts are hard.

Rolling in your sweeet baby's arms of your god is soft.

Kleinbottle will not understand this.

[tsig]

Joozb, I don’t say that “only I can make assumptions and extrapolations!” What I am saying is that you have to show that your extrapolations are realistic. What I have been doing is using more realistic parameters in ev to show that Dr Schneider’s extrapolations are unrealistic. I would like to see you plug in some values into ev to show that my extrapolations that macroevolution is impossible according to the results of ev are unrealistic, but I don’t think you will be able to do this. Paul has quite a bit of understanding of this model and hasn’t been able to contradict my extrapolations. If anything, Paul’s extrapolations have fallen into line with the initial extrapolations I made on the Evolutionisdead forum months ago when I first started writing about ev online.

Well, Well so you know the rate of mutation thruout all of the time since there was a genome, and you know the number of the original genomes and the original popultion.

Share.

Your smiley faces add a very nice touch to your post and show creativity that I didn’t know you had.

I understood Myriad’s discussion, which is why I acknowledged my error about the additive effect of probabilities with increasing population.

If you read my post carefully, what I said is increasing population increases the probability of a good mutation at the proper locus at a less than additive amount. With small populations, you can approximate the increased probability of a good mutation at the proper locus due to an increase in population with the additive rule. This is shown in the data from the population series from ev. However as population gets larger and larger, these increases are getting smaller and smaller very rapidly and the additive rule no longer gives a good approximation. If Adequate’s assertion that the asymptote is 1 at an infinite population is correct, than ev better approach 1 at much smaller populations than infinity for ev to give anything to support the theory of evolution. My computer can’t generate this data but when a system becomes available to me, I will generate the data if for no other reason than to annoy evolutionarians.

Well, Well, so you know the rate of mutation thruout all of the time since there was a genome, and you know the number of the original genomes and the original popultion.

How do you know this?

Share.

[Cuddles]

I do feel that religion has had a very important historical place for our species and, Dawkins notwithstanding, it has an important current, social role. Religious ideas can become excessively dogmatic, but so can those of science - and Dawkins. I do not think that the achievements of religion or its current social roles should be demeaned by some nouveau dogmatism dressed up as science.

What achievements?

So far as evolution is concerned, the evidence for evolution as a historic fact is clearly overwhelming, at least when set against the lack of evidence for any of the religious ideas. Nonetheless, evolutionary theory, here distinguished from evolution, does have weaknesses, it is in need of improvement and more rational reconstruction. Only criticism of that theory will guide its improvement and those criticisms are coming more from the ID movement than from anywhere else; they are the only people who reject the dogmatism of evolution and are willing to find and point out the holes in evolutionary theory.

Utter cow poo. Creationists (and yes, that does include ID) criticize evolution becaues it contradicts their beliefs. They have no alternative theory and all their arguments are of the level that 8 year olds can refute. There isn't a single argument the ID lobby has put forward that hasn't been shot down within seconds of them bringing it up, yet they are so scientifically illiterate that they fail to realise this. The scientists working on evolutionary biology are the ones that are testing it, and, like all scientists, they enjoy poking holes in established theories more than anything else.

[joobz]

Well, Well, so you know the rate of mutation thruout all of the time since there was a genome, and you know the number of the original genomes and the original popultion.

How do you know this?

Share.
I've asked this very question several times now. you won't get an answer. At best, you can hope for a not-so-clever insult (perhaps comparing you to a shipping company) or a intentional missquote of your position.
If he can't do either, then he'll just ignore your question and complain about your spelling errors.

[John Hewitt]

What achievements? (What are the achivements of religion.
What a bizarre question! Where do you think science comes from? The whole of the renaissance is an achievement of religion. The Greeks may have invented rationality but it was the Muslim philosophers who preserved it and Aquinas who identified reason with God's thought and so changed the face of Europe.
Alternatively, visit St. Peters in Rome, and see its achievements writ in stone.

Utter cow poo. Creationists (and yes, that does include ID) criticize evolution becaues it contradicts their beliefs. They have no alternative theory and all their arguments are of the level that 8 year olds can refute. There isn't a single argument the ID lobby has put forward that hasn't been shot down within seconds of them bringing it up, yet they are so scientifically illiterate that they fail to realise this. The scientists working on evolutionary biology are the ones that are testing it, and, like all scientists, they enjoy poking holes in established theories more than anything else.As so often, your comments are empty, bad-tempered claims devoid of any real argument. What you say is the creationist critique of evolution should be ignored because creationists don't believe in evolution.
Instead, you claim, it is Dawkins' critique of evolution we should take seriously - or that of some other member of the evolutionary faith. This really is complete nonsense and like saying that only christians should criticize the bible.

[wollery]

As so often, your comments are empty, bad-tempered claims devoid of any real argument. What you say is the creationist critique of evolution should be ignored because creationists don't believe in evolution.
Instead, you claim, it is Dawkins' critique of evolution we should take seriously - or that of some other member of the evolutionary faith. This really is complete nonsense and like saying that only christians should criticize the bible.No, he's saying that the creationist's critiques of evolution should be ignored because they are worthless, largely due to the fact that the vast majority of creationists quite clearly haven't got a clue what the theory of evolution says.

[Cuddles]

What a bizarre question! Where do you think science comes from? The whole of the renaissance is an achievement of religion. The Greeks may have invented rationality but it was the Muslim philosophers who preserved it and Aquinas who identified reason with God's thought and so changed the face of Europe.
Alternatively, visit St. Peters in Rome, and see its achievements writ in stone.

And which bits of any of this were produced by religion? Big buildings were built as churches, but they could just as easily been built for football matches, or, say, gladatorial combats. Science comes from the exact opposite of religion. Yes, many scientists were, and are, religious, but this does not mean they find things because of religion. The Greek philosophers basically invented science because they wanted to know things that their religion couldn't tell them. In fact, the very fact that science, as you say, has been transferred between people of so many different religions is testament that it has nothing to do with any religion at all.

As so often, your comments are empty, bad-tempered claims devoid of any real argument. What you say is the creationist critique of evolution should be ignored because creationists don't believe in evolution.
Instead, you claim, it is Dawkins' critique of evolution we should take seriously - or that of some other member of the evolutionary faith. This really is complete nonsense and like saying that only christians should criticize the bible.

Well, first of all the fact that you refer to evolution as a faith says an awful lot about your beliefs and your lack of understanding of science. Secondly, did you read my post? I never said only scientists should critisise evolution, I said that plenty of other people tried to and failed miserably because they don't understand what they are talking about. Do you really think that some random off the street is likely to spot flaws in a theory that someone who has spent half their life studying is not? Of course, if they spent some time learning about evolution, they may be able to come up with some good questions, and if those questions could not be answered they could do their own research to find the answers. But would they not then be a scientist? The fact is, creationists do not do this, they simply critises what they do not understand, and then refuse to listen to the answers when they are given them. And again, your poor understanding shows through when you compare Christians to scientists. Christians do not try to change the bible. Scientists are always trying to change their textbooks.

[drkitten]

[pedantic sidetracking]
Actually, it's 11/36 chance of getting at least one ace when you throw two dice.

Yeah. The missing 1/36 is the second ace in double ones.

I thought I typed 11/36, but obviously mistyped.

[joobz]

Hey!

Where's your avatar? The little panicking guys.

"OH NOES!"

I loved those guys!
you asked for it, you got it!:)

[kleinman]

If Adequate’s assertion that the asymptote is 1 at an infinite population is correct, than ev better approach 1 at much smaller populations than infinity for ev to give anything to support the theory of evolution.Er, all finite populations are "much smaller populations than infinity," so this is an easy task to meet.

If you want to see how much easier, simply plot the data on semi-log paper and see what the slope is.
Feel free to plot the data and tell us what you get.
That is correct, in a real organism, the non-binding site region (the evolved region of the genome) cannot mutate freely as is allowed in ev. This is a property of the ev model that is not realistic. It can't mutate freely in Ev either! Mutations in the "junk" portion of the genome can result in bindings that increase the mistakes.
Correct, it is the mutations in the non-binding site region that slows down the rate of convergence of ev as the perfect creature is approached. This is why I don’t make to big of a deal about the selection process that Dr Schneider uses. I am just point out where ev deviates from modeling reality.
As for the smallest free-living eukaryotes having 10 million base pairs, this is 100 times larger than the genome length where we both have about the same estimates for the generations for convergence. That is your estimate of 200,000,000 generations to evolve the 16 binding sites on a 100k genome. If the generations for convergence is proportional to G^2, that would give over 50 billion generations to evolve the 16 binding sites. At one generation per day, that would take over 130 million years to evolve the 16 binding sites. Why don’t you check my arithmetic? How many billion years do you have to accomplish evolution to today’s life forms?About 4 billion, right? Do you think that the fundamental binding mechanism evolved in eukaryotes with large genomes?
I don’t think any fundamental genetic mechanism evolved. Ev is forcing you take a position that every fundamental genetic mechanism that requires random point mutations and natural selection to evolve, has to evolve on a short genome (prokaryote length or less). You do realize that ev is forcing you to paint yourself into another corner.
I guess you could fit a straight line to this data but I am not sure it is linear. The difference in the generations for convergence between 2x10^-6 and 10^-6 is almost triple not double the number of generations for convergence. In addition, why don’t you try a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 100 bases per genome and I’ll make a wild guess that it will take about 80,000 generations to converge.I wouldn't be surprised if it never converged. There has to be a point where the mutation load is too heavy. But not to worry, because we would surely notice this problem if it occured in experiments where we use high mutation rates.
I have run series with ev that show that too high a mutation rate does not allow the program to converge. This point is far higher than the fatal mutation rates that kill living things. I believe this reflects the unrealistic selection process that Dr Schneider has used in the model. A more accurate simulation of the selection process should be able to model the real life situation, but even with Dr Schneider’s generous selection process, you still do not have enough time to accomplish macroevolution.
Joozb, I don’t say that “only I can make assumptions and extrapolations!” What I am saying is that you have to show that your extrapolations are realistic. What I have been doing is using more realistic parameters in ev to show that Dr Schneider’s extrapolations are unrealistic. I would like to see you plug in some values into ev to show that my extrapolations that macroevolution is impossible according to the results of ev are unrealistic, but I don’t think you will be able to do this. Paul has quite a bit of understanding of this model and hasn’t been able to contradict my extrapolations. If anything, Paul’s extrapolations have fallen into line with the initial extrapolations I made on the Evolutionisdead forum months ago when I first started writing about ev online.What extrapolations are you talking about?

Regarding population, we have run experiments up to 1 million critters and the generations to perfection keep on dropping. You won't let me extrapolate past 1 million, so on what basis to you claim that increased populations won't result in lower generation counts?

Regarding genome size, I've run experiments up to 92K genomes with population 36 and 1 mutation per 512 bases. The generations to perfection fits g=7.8G^.98. You won't let me extrapolate past the 100K genome, so on what basis do you claim that increased genome sizes would suddenly become exponential in generations?
Feel free to extrapolate, but be prepared to verify your extrapolation. We both know that the reason why you won’t run a larger genome in this series is that you will encounter your Rcapacity problem. You can be such a sneak sometimes.
However as population gets larger and larger, these increases are getting smaller and smaller very rapidly and the additive rule no longer gives a good approximation. population, generations
1024, 2700
2048, 1800
4096, 1770
8192, 1641
16384, 1144
23100, 1275
32768, 1288
46200, 1709
65536, 922
92680, 718
110000, 856
262000, 702
524000, 642
1048000, 438
Run that population=2meg case I sent you and see whether the last point in this series is a variation due to the stochastic process or whether the last point is representative of the slope of the curves you are generating.
It would be awesome if kleinman had the academic honesty and motivation to specifically run the test he thinks would demonstrate Paul's line fitting is incorrect. We might have something to discuss.

Instead, he's here with more of his usual name calling and attention whoring.
Fear not Delphi, when the computer system becomes available, I will run the cases. I keep telling you to lay off the sterno; who wants to listen to a crying drunk evolutionarian.
Well, Well, so you know the rate of mutation thruout all of the time since there was a genome, and you know the number of the original genomes and the original popultion.

How do you know this?

Share. I've asked this very question several times now. you won't get an answer. At best, you can hope for a not-so-clever insult (perhaps comparing you to a shipping company) or a intentional missquote of your position.
If he can't do either, then he'll just ignore your question and complain about your spelling errors.
There are tons of data available on mutation rates. Google for this information you lazy evolutionarians. If you want to know the mutation rates at the beginning of the evolutionary process, set up your experiments in your laboratories to verify your own speculations. This is your theory and the best evidence you have for it is based on speculation. Are these the best arguments that the James Randi evolutionarian brain trust has to offer?

Paul, I feel so guilty co-opting macroevolution and ev from you evolutionarians that I thought I should give you something in return.

EVO:1:1 In the beginning Random Mutations created all living things.
EVO:1:2 And the earth was without free oxygen, and void; and light was upon the face of the primordial soup. And Natural Selection moved upon the face of the primordial soup.
EVO:1:3 And Random Mutations and Natural Selection said, Let there be life: and there was life.
EVO:1:4 And Natural Selection saw the life, that it was good: and Natural Selection divided the good mutations from the harmful mutations.
EVO:1:5 And Random Mutations and Natural Selection called the RNA ribozymes, and the proteins he called prions. And the mutation and the natural selection were the first generation.
EVO:1:6 And the Environment said, Let there be a niche in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the niches from the niches.
EVO:1:7 And the Environment made the niche, and divided the niches which were under the waters from those which were above the water: and it was so.
EVO:1:8 And the Environment called these niches. And the mutation and the natural selection were the second generation.
EVO:1:9 And the Environment said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
EVO:1:10 And the Environment called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the primordial soup called he Seas: and Random Mutations and Natural Selection saw that it was good.
EVO:1:11 And Random Mutation and Natural Selection said, Let the primordial soup bring forth green algae and it was so.
EVO:1:12 And the primordial soup brought forth green algae: but Random Mutation and Natural Selection saw that it was not good because the earth was no longer void of free oxygen.
EVO:1:13 And the mutation and the natural selection were the third generation.
EVO:1:14 And Random Mutation and Natural Selection said, Let there be hemoglobin because all this free oxygen was not good:
EVO:1:15 And there was hemoglobin because of all of this free oxygen: and it was so.
EVO:1:16 And Random Mutations and Natural Selection made two great molecules; the greater molecule to rule the nucleus, and the lesser molecule to rule the cytoplasm: he made other molecules also.
EVO:1:17 And Random Mutation and Natural Selection set them in the cell to give life upon the primordial soup,
EVO:1:18 And to respond to the environment, and to divide by mitosis or meiosis: and Random Mutation and Natural Selection saw that it was good.
EVO:1:19 And the mutation and the natural selection were the fourth generation.
EVO:1:20 And Random Mutations and Natural Selection said, Let the primordial soup evolve forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
EVO:1:21 And Random Mutations and Natural Selection evolved great whales from a cow like creature, and every living creature that moveth, which the primordial soup brought forth abundantly, after their kind evolved other kinds, and every winged fowl evolved after his creeping kind: and Random Mutation and Natural Selection saw that it was good.
EVO:1:22 And Random Mutation and Natural Selection blessed them, saying, It is the survival of the fittest, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
EVO:1:23 And the mutation and the natural selection were the fifth generation.
EVO:1:24 And Random Mutation and Natural Selection said, Let the environment evolve forth the living creature after other kinds, cattle from shrew like creatures, and creeping thing from swimming things, and beast of the earth from other kinds: and it was so.
EVO:1:25 And Random Mutation and Natural Selection evolved the beast of the earth after other kinds, and cattle after shrew like creatures, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth evolved from swimming kinds: and Random Mutation and Natural Selection saw that it was good.
EVO:1:26 And Random Mutation and Natural Selection said, Let us evolve man in the image of a primate precursor: and let them pollute the sea, and eat the fowl of the air, and eat the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth let him eat and pollute.
EVO:1:27 So Random Mutation and Natural Selection evolved man in the image of a primate precursor, in the image of the primate precursor Random Mutation and Natural Selection evolved he him; male and female evolved he them.
EVO:1:28 And Random Mutation and Natural Selection blessed them, and Random Mutation and Natural Selection said unto them, It is the survival of the fittest, Be fruitful, and multiply and evolve, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and eat the fish of the sea, and eat the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth, you shall eat. But watch your cholesterol.
EVO:1:29 And Random Mutation and Natural Selection said, Behold, I have evolved you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
EVO:1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, Random Mutation and Natural Selection has given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
EVO:1:31 And Random Mutation and Natural Selection saw every thing that he had evolved, and, behold, it was very good. And the mutation and the natural selection were the sixth generation.
EVO:1:32 Thus the heavens and the earth evolve, and all the host of them.
EVO:1:33 And on the seventh generation Random Mutation and Natural Selection paused his work which he had made; and he reached punctuated equilibrium on the seventh generation from all his work which he had made.

[delphi_ote]

I keep telling you to lay off the sterno...
Life Hint #249: Lame insults don't get more clever through repetition.
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/bigStupid.jpg

[John Hewitt]

Science comes from the exact opposite of religion. Yes, many scientists were, and are, religious, but this does not mean they find things because of religion. The Greek philosophers basically invented science because they wanted to know things that their religion couldn't tell them. In fact, the very fact that science, as you say, has been transferred between people of so many different religions is testament that it has nothing to do with any religion at all.
The Greeks did not invent observational science, they invented rationality - among other things. Rationality plus observation leads to science - or so the rationalist thread in scientific philosophy argues.


Well, first of all the fact that you refer to evolution as a faith says an awful lot about your beliefs and your lack of understanding of science. Secondly, did you read my post? I never said only scientists should critisise evolution, I said that plenty of other people tried to and failed miserably because they don't understand what they are talking about.
<snip>
The fact is, creationists do not do this, they simply critises what they do not understand, and then refuse to listen to the answers when they are given them. And again, your poor understanding shows through when you compare Christians to scientists. Christians do not try to change the bible. Scientists are always trying to change their textbooks.

I do find the behaviour of evolutionists rather similar to that of creationists, with dogmatism on both sides. I still find it a shame that Popper backtracked on his early claim that evolution was vacuous. There was more in that view than is currently acknowledged.

[joobz]

There are tons of data available on mutation rates. Google for this information you lazy evolutionarians.
rather than google, what if I do a cursory look at pubmed.
http://tinyurl.com/ydsknj (http://tinyurl.com/ydsknj)
http://tinyurl.com/yzgqrg (http://tinyurl.com/yzgqrg)
http://tinyurl.com/yz27cw (http://tinyurl.com/yz27cw)
Check that out, Point mutation rate is dynamic depending upon the environmental factors.

So we ask one more time: how do you know what environmental condition to use that would be reasonable?




If you want to know the mutation rates at the beginning of the evolutionary process, set up your experiments in your laboratories to verify your own speculations. people are conducting this area of research. I'll wait and see what they discover. For the time being though, be happy. God stills exist in this gap. This is your theory and the best evidence you have for it is based on speculation. Are these the best arguments that the James Randi evolutionarian brain trust has to offer?

Evidence based hypotheses and well documented research with conclusions based on fact and reason? Yes, I say that is the best we do. Thank you for noticing.

[thaiboxerken]

For some reason, I just don't think Kleinman is going to have his "proof" published in any peer-reviewed scientific medium.

[joobz]

I do find the behaviour of evolutionists rather similar to that of creationists, with dogmatism on both sides. I still find it a shame that Popper backtracked on his early claim that evolution was vacuous. There was more in that view than is currently acknowledged.
From a cursory and rather superficial comparison, I'd agree. However, the dogmatic views in evolution tend to arise from multiple interations of challenge, analysis, and review of the evidence. When a solid argument against a theory comes along in science, it may take some proof and effort, but it will change. So far, this has failed to happen. And the fact that molecular biology strengthens evolutionary theory means that the challenges must be well stated and very strong.

As of now, though, the case has been "nothing new here." So, of course it seems that evolutionists are dogmatic.

But I don't doubt that the science community at large would adopt a more accurate theory if one was to come along. Look at the historical view of the first law of Thermo and the destruction of the phlogiston hypothesis. It didn't go down easily, but it did go down.

But this comparison is a little inaccurate since we know now that pholigston doesn't fit at all. Evolution exists, we see it. the question is in the details over all of life.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Correct, it is the mutations in the non-binding site region that slows down the rate of convergence of ev as the perfect creature is approached. This is why I don’t make to big of a deal about the selection process that Dr Schneider uses. I am just point out where ev deviates from modeling reality.
Are you saying that spurious bindings aren't a potential problem in real organisms?


I don’t think any fundamental genetic mechanism evolved.
Wow, really? None of them?

Ev is forcing you take a position that every fundamental genetic mechanism that requires random point mutations and natural selection to evolve, has to evolve on a short genome (prokaryote length or less). You do realize that ev is forcing you to paint yourself into another corner.
So you don't believe that anything we're talking about actually evolved, yet you are willing to set the parameters for its evolution to values that no biologist would agree with.


I have run series with ev that show that too high a mutation rate does not allow the program to converge. This point is far higher than the fatal mutation rates that kill living things. I believe this reflects the unrealistic selection process that Dr Schneider has used in the model.
I think it reflects the fact that Ev does not model the entire evolutionary landscape, as we've said many times. However, you don't appear to notice that Ev kills lots of creatures, too.


Feel free to extrapolate, but be prepared to verify your extrapolation. We both know that the reason why you won’t run a larger genome in this series is that you will encounter your Rcapacity problem. You can be such a sneak sometimes.
All I have to do is make the binding site wide enough so that Rcapacity isn't a problem. For example, a site width of 10 bases would allow genome size up to about 2 megabases. As I've said countless times, the problem is time. You can be such a liar sometimes.


Run that population=2meg case I sent you and see whether the last point in this series is a variation due to the stochastic process or whether the last point is representative of the slope of the curves you are generating.
I'm working on it. I've run 3--5 experiments of each population from 4K to 110K to get a average generation count. Now I'll start running larger populations. Unfortunately, the Pascal version of Ev is slower than the Java version.


Paul, I feel so guilty co-opting macroevolution and ev from you evolutionarians that I thought I should give you something in return.
Sorry, unreadable font.

~~ Paul

[cyborg]

Paul, I feel so guilty co-opting macroevolution and ev from you evolutionarians that I thought I should give you something in return.

You know I find nothing more ironic than the 'your faith is bad' argument from people who are trying to push their faith.

I think you would be happier just having a fight about it frankly - a trial by combat adjudicated by the gods. I mean it is a waste of time to use any other method in matters of faith.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So we ask one more time: how do you know what environmental condition to use that would be reasonable?
Apparently he's extrapolating from Ev. Oh, wait a minute, that's not allowed.

~~ Paul

[drkitten]

But I don't doubt that the science community at large would adopt a more accurate theory if one was to come along. Look at the historical view of the first law of Thermo and the destruction of the phlogiston hypothesis. It didn't go down easily, but it did go down.

But this comparison is a little inaccurate since we know now that pholigston doesn't fit at all.

Well, almost by definition, we know (now) that any disproven theory doesn't fit at all; otherwise it wouldn't be disproven. I'm also not confident about the "at all" there; if you think of "phlogiston" as "negative oxygen," then the theory actually fits quite well. The only problem is that "negative oxygen" doesn't fit our other conventions for chemistry (such as the idea that substances can only be present or absent, but not "negative.")

But there are lots of other examples of more accurate theories replacing newer ones. Continental drift, for example, or the triumph of quantum theory over both the wave and particle views of light. More recently, the medical discovery that many ulcers are caused by bacteria (and can be treated by antibiotics). In each case, the "science community at large" has embraced the new findings only when enough evidence has been amassed to demonstrate the superiority of the new theory over the old.

Popper "backtracked on his early claim that evolution was vacuous" precisely because someone was able to show him that he didn't understand all the implications of evolution, and that there was content in there that made predictions and could be falsified.

If Hewitt really thinks that there's anything at all in the claim that evolution is vacuous, I invite him to show us the content. I am confident that it will be shown instead that his understanding of evolution is superficial and flawed.

[joobz]

Well, almost by definition, we know (now) that any disproven theory doesn't fit at all; otherwise it wouldn't be disproven. I'm also not confident about the "at all" there; if you think of "phlogiston" as "negative oxygen," then the theory actually fits quite well. The only problem is that "negative oxygen" doesn't fit our other conventions for chemistry (such as the idea that substances can only be present or absent, but not "negative.")


very true. you can see this same thing in electrical circuit analysis when looking at the motion of positive charge.

Anyway, I wrote this fast and made a mistake. I confused the phlogiston theory with the caloric theory. which wasn't fully wrong either, since we can say now that "caloric" wasn't a substance as much as the thermal energy of a system. The initial thought that it could only be transfered and not created was wrong. Which was proven by all the experiments showing frictional generation of heat.

[kleinman]

There are tons of data available on mutation rates. Google for this information you lazy evolutionarians. Check that out, Point mutation rate is dynamic depending upon the environmental factors.

So we ask one more time: how do you know what environmental condition to use that would be reasonable?
Joozb, in order to support your downy feather soft theory of evolution, you have to speculate on the existence of extremely high mutation rate at the early stages of life formation, some type of unique environmental conditions that no longer exist or are not reproducible in the laboratory and chemical reactions that are anything but likely to occur. Ev shows that when known measured values for mutation rates and known measured genome lengths are used, the number of generations required to evolve only 16 binding sites because huge, far too large to support the theory of macroevolution by random point mutations and natural selection. So joozb, feel free to dream of unknown tiny 256 base pair genomes that can reproduce even when subjected to unrealistically high mutation rates as they evolve to generate all the genes and genetic control systems in the cells in your brain that allow you to come up with these wacky ideas.
This is your theory and the best evidence you have for it is based on speculation. Are these the best arguments that the James Randi evolutionarian brain trust has to offer? Evidence based hypotheses and well documented research with conclusions based on fact and reason? Yes, I say that is the best we do. Thank you for noticing.
Joozb, I don’t think your anything is possible argument for abiogenesis and if it sounds good to you it must be true qualifies as well documented research.
For some reason, I just don't think Kleinman is going to have his "proof" published in any peer-reviewed scientific medium.
Scientific medium? That sound like you figured out some way to communicate with the dead.
Correct, it is the mutations in the non-binding site region that slows down the rate of convergence of ev as the perfect creature is approached. This is why I don’t make to big of a deal about the selection process that Dr Schneider uses. I am just point out where ev deviates from modeling reality. Are you saying that spurious bindings aren't a potential problem in real organisms?
No
I don’t think any fundamental genetic mechanism evolved.Wow, really? None of them?
None that have evolved de novo. Now you can fire up google and see if you can find any. Maybe you want to do the experiment that Dr Schneider is calling for.
Ev is forcing you take a position that every fundamental genetic mechanism that requires random point mutations and natural selection to evolve, has to evolve on a short genome (prokaryote length or less). You do realize that ev is forcing you to paint yourself into another corner. So you don't believe that anything we're talking about actually evolved, yet you are willing to set the parameters for its evolution to values that no biologist would agree with.
Which parameters am I setting that no biologist would agree with?
I have run series with ev that show that too high a mutation rate does not allow the program to converge. This point is far higher than the fatal mutation rates that kill living things. I believe this reflects the unrealistic selection process that Dr Schneider has used in the model. I think it reflects the fact that Ev does not model the entire evolutionary landscape, as we've said many times. However, you don't appear to notice that Ev kills lots of creatures, too.
I keep asking you, what in this evolutionary landscape would rescue the theory of evolution from what the mathematics of ev is showing? Sure I notice that ev kills lots of creatures, I have always thought of the theory of evolution as a very morbid idea.
Feel free to extrapolate, but be prepared to verify your extrapolation. We both know that the reason why you won’t run a larger genome in this series is that you will encounter your Rcapacity problem. You can be such a sneak sometimes.All I have to do is make the binding site wide enough so that Rcapacity isn't a problem. For example, a site width of 10 bases would allow genome size up to about 2 megabases. As I've said countless times, the problem is time. You can be such a liar sometimes.
Well why don’t you do this series and put yourself out of this misery and show my arguments to be wrong? Why is it that every time you call me a liar, you never post my quote where I’m lying? I have only lied once in all my posts and that’s when I told Delphi that his statements were not contradictory. I did this to get the URL for his publication and it worked. You evolutionarians are so confused about what is true and what a lie is.
Run that population=2meg case I sent you and see whether the last point in this series is a variation due to the stochastic process or whether the last point is representative of the slope of the curves you are generating.I'm working on it. I've run 3--5 experiments of each population from 4K to 110K to get a average generation count. Now I'll start running larger populations. Unfortunately, the Pascal version of Ev is slower than the Java version.
My estimate for the time to compute 1 generation for the 2 meg population case on my 2.8GHz computer was between 20-30 minutes using the Pascal version. Perhaps you can use Delphi’s suggestion to increase the memory for your Java version in order to run this case but the memory requirement is going to be about 600Mbytes.
Paul, I feel so guilty co-opting macroevolution and ev from you evolutionarians that I thought I should give you something in return.Sorry, unreadable font.
Cut an paste the text into your word processor and use a more readable font.
So we ask one more time: how do you know what environmental condition to use that would be reasonable? Apparently he's extrapolating from Ev. Oh, wait a minute, that's not allowed.
I didn’t say extrapolation was allowed, just be prepared to prove your extrapolations are accurate. For example, Dr Schneider’s extrapolation that a human genome could evolve in a billion years based on the rate of information acquisition on a 256 base genome and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation. Lest Myriad and other evolutionarians say that I do not include Dr Schneider’s full 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. . However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ev shows that when known measured values for mutation rates and known measured genome lengths are used, ...
But, of course, other parameters are not known.

... the number of generations required to evolve only 16 binding sites because huge, far too large to support the theory of macroevolution by random point mutations and natural selection.
There is no Theory of Macroevolution by Random Point Mutations and Natural Selection," except in your cache of imaginary theories.


Which parameters am I setting that no biologist would agree with?
The hell with parameters, you're making up a theory that no biologist would agree with.


Well why don’t you do this series and put yourself out of this misery and show my arguments to be wrong? Why is it that every time you call me a liar, you never post my quote where I’m lying?
I posted the entire quote:

Feel free to extrapolate, but be prepared to verify your extrapolation. We both know that the reason why you won’t run a larger genome in this series is that you will encounter your Rcapacity problem. You can be such a sneak sometimes.


My estimate for the time to compute 1 generation for the 2 meg population case on my 2.8GHz computer was between 20-30 minutes using the Pascal version. Perhaps you can use Delphi’s suggestion to increase the memory for your Java version in order to run this case but the memory requirement is going to be about 600Mbytes.
It's a lot higher than that. I'm repeating the 1 million population run now using the Pascal version.


I didn’t say extrapolation was allowed, just be prepared to prove your extrapolations are accurate. For example, Dr Schneider’s extrapolation that a human genome could evolve in a billion years based on the rate of information acquisition on a 256 base genome and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation.
Or your extrapolation that something prevents the generation count from decreasing as the population increases? Just be prepared to prove your extrapolations are accurate.

~~ Paul

[joobz]

Joozb, in order to support your downy feather soft theory of evolution, you have to speculate on the existence of extremely high mutation rate at the early stages of life formation, some type of unique environmental conditions that no longer exist or are not reproducible in the laboratory and chemical reactions that are anything but likely to occur.

Ev shows that when known measured values for mutation rates and known measured genome lengths are used, the number of generations required to evolve only 16 binding sites because huge, far too large to support the theory of macroevolution by random point mutations and natural selection. So joozb, feel free to dream of unknown tiny 256 base pair genomes that can reproduce even when subjected to unrealistically high mutation rates as they evolve to generate all the genes and genetic control systems in the cells in your brain that allow you to come up with these wacky ideas

Joozb, I don’t think your anything is possible argument for abiogenesis and if it sounds good to you it must be true qualifies as well documented research.
thank you for once again recylcing your missquoted claims. and allow me to state once again. I've never, nor have i ever, said anything goes. You wish to beat that strawman to death. feel free, but that has no effect on reality. Like most of your argument, you wish to ignore reality.

I am stating without any doubt what-so-ever that your use of mutation rate and genome lengths are artificial. Even if you get numbers from literature, the basis for assuming they are applicable are just wrong. You are simple wrong.

I was showing that even point mutation rate is dependant upon environmental conditions. We do not know what the precisely what the conditions were. If you can provide that information, you would strengthen your argument. But that isn't the case. Even at one moment of our modern environment, there exists locational differences in the enviornment that will change mutation rate. Again, your average is just wrong. Your populations are wrong. Your genome lengths are wrong.

[Yahzi]

.
Yay! Woohoo!

The little panicking guys are back!

:)

(Oh come on... it's as least as productive as half the posts in this thread. :D :D :D )

[John Hewitt]

From a cursory and rather superficial comparison, I'd agree. However, the dogmatic views in evolution tend to arise from multiple interations of challenge, analysis, and review of the evidence. When a solid argument against a theory comes along in science, it may take some proof and effort, but it will change. So far, this has failed to happen. And the fact that molecular biology strengthens evolutionary theory means that the challenges must be well stated and very strong.

Yes, in many ways I must agree with you. As judged across the domains of comparative anatomy and protein and nucleic acid sequence evolution is a fact.

However, there are other observational data sets and, as has been previously observed, one can spend a lifetime in biological research without using evolutionary theory at all. For example, most of my research was in molecular biology and I am not at all comfortable with Dawkins' claims. He is certainly a good writer, almost mesmerizing, but claiming that the gene is the foundation of evolutionary theory cannot be right.

Consider Popper's work, for example. He was less good as a writer but an excellent logician. At first he rejected evolutionary theory as vacuous because the given explanations were a posteriori rationalizations. In the end, he did accept that evolution made real predictions about relationships between species - sequence data is hard to argue with. Unfortunate, Popper stopped arguing the point but there are many other observational data sets in biology about which evolution still does not make any prediction. Despite evolution's supposed status as the foundation of all biological science, in those areas it really does seem vacuously consistent with any observation.

So, I regret that Popper did not stick to his guns. Interestingly, what Popper did do, when he accepted evolution, was to assert that his own epistemology was itself evolutionary. He had a point - one can make a good case but there are no genes in epistemology. Hence, even his later position remains a challenge to conventional evolutionary theory.

Such thinking is, in part, what leads to my own, "data" based approach to evolutionary theory, which you may wish to look at.

[drkitten]

Consider Popper's work, for example. He was less good as a writer but an excellent logician. At first he rejected evolutionary theory as vacuous because the given explanations were a posteriori rationalizations. In the end, he did accept that evolution made real predictions about relationships between species - sequence data is hard to argue with. Unfortunate, Popper stopped arguing the point but there are many other observational data sets in biology about which evolution still does not make any prediction. Despite evolution's supposed status as the foundation of all biological science, in those areas it really does seem vacuously consistent with any observation.

Of course. That's because many observations and experiments do not test evolutionary theory directly. In a similar way, if I travel to a far-off land to find interesting new species of beetles, I have high confidence that whatever beetle specimens I find will attract all other similarly-shaped beetles in the universe with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This attraction is consistent with any observation I as a biologist might make.

Is this because Newton's laws of gravity are vacuous? Of course not.

It is instead because I am working within such a restricted context, and the set of solutions that a sane scientist would consider is so small, that we do not expect a test of Newtonian gravity to arise from the differences between beetle species.

Similarly, I would expect that whatever beetle I find will remain at rest until acted upon by a force, at which point it would accelerate in the direction of the force at a rate given by the force divided by the mass of the beetle.

The reason that Popper stopped arguing the point is because he was intelligent enough to realize that he was wrong.

[John Hewitt]

Of course. That's because many observations and experiments do not test evolutionary theory directly. In a similar way, if I travel to a far-off land to find interesting new species of beetles, I have high confidence that whatever beetle specimens I find will attract all other similarly-shaped beetles in the universe with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This attraction is consistent with any observation I as a biologist might make.
Is this because Newton's laws of gravity are vacuous? Of course not.
It is instead because I am working within such a restricted context, and the set of solutions that a sane scientist would consider is so small, that we do not expect a test of Newtonian gravity to arise from the differences between beetle species.
Similarly, I would expect that whatever beetle I find will remain at rest until acted upon by a force, at which point it would accelerate in the direction of the force at a rate given by the force divided by the mass of the beetle.
The reason that Popper stopped arguing the point is because he was intelligent enough to realize that he was wrong.

I did not discuss Newton, Newton's laws or the flight of beetles.

My point was that both the early and the later Popper represented, from their different viewpoints, legitimate challenges to conventional evolutionary theory.

[kleinman]

Ev shows that when known measured values for mutation rates and known measured genome lengths are used, ... But, of course, other parameters are not known.
Which parameters do you want to know on the evolutionary landscape?
... the number of generations required to evolve only 16 binding sites because huge, far too large to support the theory of macroevolution by random point mutations and natural selection. There is no Theory of Macroevolution by Random Point Mutations and Natural Selection," except in your cache of imaginary theories.
Oh no! I meant to say “becomes” huge not “because” huge. I think I’m reading too many of joozb posts. I am becoming grammatically challenged. Paul, I know that macroevolution is imaginary.
Which parameters am I setting that no biologist would agree with?The hell with parameters, you're making up a theory that no biologist would agree with.
I can’t help it if the entire field of biology has been overtaken by mass hysteria. In a few years, sociologist will be studying this phenomenon and wondering how such a thing could happen to so many people with so many letters after their names. I think this is all very interesting, a little strange but interesting none the less.
Well why don’t you do this series and put yourself out of this misery and show my arguments to be wrong? Why is it that every time you call me a liar, you never post my quote where I’m lying? I posted the entire quote:Feel free to extrapolate, but be prepared to verify your extrapolation. We both know that the reason why you won’t run a larger genome in this series is that you will encounter your Rcapacity problem. You can be such a sneak sometimes.
You think I would stoop so low to call you a sneak when you really aren’t? So why would you post one of your curve fits for a series of points when you know that the next point in the series would not even converge? So now you are a disingenuous sneak. I guess that makes me a dishonest liar. Hey joozb, does the grammatical rule of double negatives apply here?
My estimate for the time to compute 1 generation for the 2 meg population case on my 2.8GHz computer was between 20-30 minutes using the Pascal version. Perhaps you can use Delphi’s suggestion to increase the memory for your Java version in order to run this case but the memory requirement is going to be about 600Mbytes. It's a lot higher than that. I'm repeating the 1 million population run now using the Pascal version.
It doesn’t take very large populations and genome lengths to make the memory requirements and cpu times to become huge with ev. Remember the good old days when you had 256 base genomes and 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation mutation rates and when the run times were about 5 seconds? Those were the days when a superficial analysis of ev showed the theory of evolution was mathematically true.
I didn’t say extrapolation was allowed, just be prepared to prove your extrapolations are accurate. For example, Dr Schneider’s extrapolation that a human genome could evolve in a billion years based on the rate of information acquisition on a 256 base genome and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation.Or your extrapolation that something prevents the generation count from decreasing as the population increases? Just be prepared to prove your extrapolations are accurate.
You have thrown down the gauntlet and I accept your challenge. May I suggest super computers at 10 paces?

[I less than three logic]

Kleinman, is there a reason you continuously misspell joobz name as joozb? This is not intended to address your little quibble here. I've noticed that you've done the same misspelling constantly for the last few posts. I was just wondering if it is intentional or a very consistent typo. If intentional, is it meant to mean something, because I'm not seeing it. :confused:

[drkitten]

My point was that both the early and the later Popper represented, from their different viewpoints, legitimate challenges to conventional evolutionary theory.

And, as usual, your "point" is wrong -- both factually inaccurate and philosphically incoherent.

I suppose I should give you points for consistency, though. Even a blind squirrel can normally find a nut once in a while, just by chance.

[fishbob]

What a bizarre question! Where do you think science comes from? The whole of the renaissance is an achievement of religion. The Greeks may have invented rationality but it was the Muslim philosophers who preserved it and Aquinas who identified reason with God's thought and so changed the face of Europe.
Alternatively, visit St. Peters in Rome, and see its achievements writ in stone.


Don't take too much credit. Religion happened to have liesure time and facilities. These resources were available as a result of amassed wealth, and the impetus to develop reason appears to be selfish (more knowledge = greater glory, etc). Looks like the plan to follow where reason led did not end up where religion had expected .

Oops. Too bad. That geni is not going back into the bottle.

[fishbob]

What you say is the creationist critique of evolution should be ignored because creationists don't believe in evolution.


100% wrong.

Creationist critique of evolution is empty, vapid, and illogical. What the creationists believe is not relevant.

The Creationist critiques of evolution I have seen are based either on ignorance or deceit. Or sometimes a combination of the two.

[joobz]

You have thrown down the gauntlet and I accept your challenge. May I suggest super computers at 10 paces?
You repeat your challenge, and I'll repeat why you are wrong.

Fine, Let it be known on this date, November 28th, 2006, You're challenge has been met and dissmissed.

the following links represent clear flaws in your argument against ev and why you are wrong.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2088334#post2088334 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2088334#post2088334)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2095267#post2095267 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2095267#post2095267)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2096792#post2096792 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2096792#post2096792)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2097589#post2097589 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2097589#post2097589)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2097776#post2097776 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2097776#post2097776)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2098215#post2098215 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2098215#post2098215)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2098611#post2098611 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2098611#post2098611)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2101691#post2101691 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2101691#post2101691)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2110843#post2110843 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2110843#post2110843)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2117943#post2117943 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2117943#post2117943)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2123175#post2123175 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2123175#post2123175)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2123221#post2123221 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2123221#post2123221)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2123432#post2123432 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2123432#post2123432)


Please try again, but with a new hypothesis.
Evolution takes to long cause ev said so has been disproven.
You need a new argument.
Your's is broken, busted, destroyed, meaningless, useless, defunkt, ...

[kleinman]

Kleinman, is there a reason you continuously misspell joobz name as joozb? This is not intended to address your little quibble here. I've noticed that you've done the same misspelling constantly for the last few posts. I was just wondering if it is intentional or a very consistent typo. If intentional, is it meant to mean something, because I'm not seeing it
Nothing intentional meant here. I use macros and do a lot of cutting and pasting because the same points are raised over and over. I misspelled his name unintentionally in an earlier post and it just has been carried forward. Do I have you people so much on edge that you are looking for meaning in transposed letters? I am not trying to be that subtle. I see a striking contrast in the results from ev when you use the input parameters that Dr Schneider used in his published paper and the results you get when you use more realistic values in this model. If others including Paul did not see this, I don’t think this thread would still have any life in it. I don’t need to try to undermine joobz’s arguments about what were genome lengths and mutation rates 2 billion years ago by misspelling his name. If joobz wants to believe that there were life forms with genome lengths much small than exist today that could sustain mutation rates much higher than living things are able to now, he is free to believe this, however he has no scientific evidence to back this up. The mutation rates and genome lengths I have used in Dr Schneider’s model are far closer to the known, measured values. When those values are used in Dr Schneider’s model, the rate of information gain is millions of times slower than Dr Schneider’s case using an unrealistic genome length and mutation rate.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You think I would stoop so low to call you a sneak when you really aren’t? So why would you post one of your curve fits for a series of points when you know that the next point in the series would not even converge? So now you are a disingenuous sneak. I guess that makes me a dishonest liar. Hey joozb, does the grammatical rule of double negatives apply here?
I didn't post a curve fit for the mutation rate versus generations data, did I? Nor did I extrapolate in either direction, did I? I simply pointed out that, within a range that makes sense, the generations appear to be approximately linear in the mutation rate.

I guess you're not a liar. You just don't seem to pay attention.


It doesn’t take very large populations and genome lengths to make the memory requirements and cpu times to become huge with ev. Remember the good old days when you had 256 base genomes and 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation mutation rates and when the run times were about 5 seconds? Those were the days when a superficial analysis of ev showed the theory of evolution was mathematically true.
This is so convoluted I'm not sure what to call it. I guess it's "proof by enjoyment of fast simulations."


You have thrown down the gauntlet and I accept your challenge. May I suggest super computers at 10 paces?
I decline. You'll have to prove your extrapolations peacefully.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If joobz wants to believe that there were life forms with genome lengths much small than exist today that could sustain mutation rates much higher than living things are able to now, he is free to believe this, however he has no scientific evidence to back this up.
But, you see, if the genomes were a few orders of magnitude smaller, then the mutation rates didn't have to be higher. There is plenty of time for things to happen.

Now it seems obvious to me that early genomes were much smaller. Why? Because there is no way everything could evolve at once. First there had to be a few functions, then more, then a few more, and then duplications allowed the repertoire to expand significantly. I'd be willing to bet that there were no more than a couple hundred fundamental mechanisms from which the rest evolved by duplication and divergence.

You might as well accept this hypothesis, since you don't believe that anything important evolved anyway. So what the hell, why not?

I've run 92K genomes in 700K generations with a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 512 bases. If we slow the rate by a factor of 200, to 1 mutation per 100K bases, then the generations becomes about 140 million. Heck, let's say 300 million. No problem. And that was with an absurd population of 36.

~~ Paul

[I less than three logic]

Nothing intentional meant here. I use macros and do a lot of cutting and pasting because the same points are raised over and over. I misspelled his name unintentionally in an earlier post and it just has been carried forward. Do I have you people so much on edge that you are looking for meaning in transposed letters? I am not trying to be that subtle. I see a striking contrast in the results from ev when you use the input parameters that Dr Schneider used in his published paper and the results you get when you use more realistic values in this model. If others including Paul did not see this, I don’t think this thread would still have any life in it. I don’t need to try to undermine joobz’s arguments about what were genome lengths and mutation rates 2 billion years ago by misspelling his name. If joobz wants to believe that there were life forms with genome lengths much small than exist today that could sustain mutation rates much higher than living things are able to now, he is free to believe this, however he has no scientific evidence to back this up. The mutation rates and genome lengths I have used in Dr Schneider’s model are far closer to the known, measured values. When those values are used in Dr Schneider’s model, the rate of information gain is millions of times slower than Dr Schneider’s case using an unrealistic genome length and mutation rate.
No, as I said, my post had nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Your frequent use of insults in place of argument was blatantly obvious even as I quickly skimmed through this thread. Thus, I thought the constant misspelling was some kind of insult as well; one that I didn’t understand. I thought that perhaps I was missing the joke. Since I like to consider my wit pretty sharp, I asked to make sure. Thank you for clearing that up for me though.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

All hail the great Pelagibacter ubique. Free living. Only 1,354 genes. A mere 1,308,506 base pairs. And there are an estimated $10^{28}$ of them in the oceans. No pseudogenes, extrachromosomal elements, transposons, or introns. You gotta love this little fella.

http://www.mbari.org/seminars/2005/spring2005/april15_giovannoni.htm

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And just because it boggles the mind to look at it in this format, here is a list of every protein encoded by the P. ubique genome:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=genome&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Protein+Table&list_uids=18526

~~ Paul

[joobz]

Nothing intentional meant here. I use macros and do a lot of cutting and pasting because the same points are raised over and over.
I see now. Logical fallacy by macro.

[joobz]

All hail the great Pelagibacter ubique. Free living. Only 1,354 genes. A mere 1,308,506 base pairs. And there are an estimated http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php?$10^{28}$ of them in the oceans. No pseudogenes, extrachromosomal elements, transposons, or introns. You gotta love this little fella.

http://www.mbari.org/seminars/2005/spring2005/april15_giovannoni.htm

~~ Paul
that is amazing. Life is astounding. thanks Paul!

[kleinman]

You think I would stoop so low to call you a sneak when you really aren’t? So why would you post one of your curve fits for a series of points when you know that the next point in the series would not even converge? So now you are a disingenuous sneak. I guess that makes me a dishonest liar. Hey joozb, does the grammatical rule of double negatives apply here? I didn't post a curve fit for the mutation rate versus generations data, did I? Nor did I extrapolate in either direction, did I? I simply pointed out that, within a range that makes sense, the generations appear to be approximately linear in the mutation rate.

I guess you're not a liar. You just don't seem to pay attention.
No you didn’t post a curve fit for the mutation rate versus generation data however you were extrapolating by saying that you could run higher mutation rate cases and get linear proportional results for lower mutation rate cases but that is not reason I called you a sneak. It was over this quote that you made just previous to my calling you a sneak.
What extrapolations are you talking about?

Regarding population, we have run experiments up to 1 million critters and the generations to perfection keep on dropping. You won't let me extrapolate past 1 million, so on what basis to you claim that increased populations won't result in lower generation counts?

Regarding genome size, I've run experiments up to 92K genomes with population 36 and 1 mutation per 512 bases. The generations to perfection fits g=7.8G^.98. You won't let me extrapolate past the 100K genome, so on what basis do you claim that increased genome sizes would suddenly become exponential in generations?
The reason why I called you a sneak and why I won’t let you extrapolate this curve fit (g=7.8G^.98) beyond a genome length of 92k is that we both know you will not be able to get ev to converge a larger genome size for these input parameters because of your Rcapacity issues.

This debate we are having is not going to be settled with curve fits. It is going to require generating the data with ev.

I assure you, I do pay attention but I am addressing a lot of bloggers and might miss a point someone is trying to make. I don’t think this was one of those instances.
It doesn’t take very large populations and genome lengths to make the memory requirements and cpu times to become huge with ev. Remember the good old days when you had 256 base genomes and 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation mutation rates and when the run times were about 5 seconds? Those were the days when a superficial analysis of ev showed the theory of evolution was mathematically true.This is so convoluted I'm not sure what to call it. I guess it's "proof by enjoyment of fast simulations."
Let’s see if I can put this in simpler terms. CPU times for runs of ev are a reflection of the rate of information gain.
You have thrown down the gauntlet and I accept your challenge. May I suggest super computers at 10 paces? I decline. You'll have to prove your extrapolations peacefully.
Beleth thought I was throwing rocks through the windows of the half finished evolutionary mansion. I told him I was only throwing mathematical data. I’ll make sure the super computer is not connected to any nuclear warheads.
If joobz wants to believe that there were life forms with genome lengths much small than exist today that could sustain mutation rates much higher than living things are able to now, he is free to believe this, however he has no scientific evidence to back this up. But, you see, if the genomes were a few orders of magnitude smaller, then the mutation rates didn't have to be higher. There is plenty of time for things to happen.

Now it seems obvious to me that early genomes were much smaller. Why? Because there is no way everything could evolve at once. First there had to be a few functions, then more, then a few more, and then duplications allowed the repertoire to expand significantly. I'd be willing to bet that there were no more than a couple hundred fundamental mechanisms from which the rest evolved by duplication and divergence.

You might as well accept this hypothesis, since you don't believe that anything important evolved anyway. So what the hell, why not?

I've run 92K genomes in 700K generations with a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 512 bases. If we slow the rate by a factor of 200, to 1 mutation per 100K bases, then the generations becomes about 140 million. Heck, let's say 300 million. No problem. And that was with an absurd population of 36.
I don’t know how many fundamental mechanisms there are. What I do believe is that every base change is subject to natural selection and therefore the transformation of one fundamental mechanism to a different mechanism requires a path that always selects for that organism. Any harmful mutation in that path will select against that organism and any neutral mutation will not increase the frequency of that genetic sequence in the gene pool. I see a logical and mathematical problem with this concept.

I don’t object to you playing “what if” games with ev. That’s part of the value of a mathematical model. You can ask the question, what size genome would be needed in order to evolve your binding sites in a time consistent with evolutionary theory? You can also consider what would be the mutation rate necessary for ev to support the theory of evolution but this is a long way from what Dr Schneider has published with ev. Like I have said from the beginning of these discussions, I believe that ev is a plausible model for random point mutations and natural selection and I don’t object to your using the model in the way you have suggested. However, don’t object when I use the results from this model to argue against the theory of evolution when you have to explain the 35,000,000 base substitutions on a 3 gigabase genome in 500,000 generations.
All hail the great Pelagibacter ubique. Free living. Only 1,354 genes. A mere 1,308,506 base pairs. And there are an estimated of them in the oceans. No pseudogenes, extrachromosomal elements, transposons, or introns. You gotta love this little fella.
Good, there’s your target for ev.

[John Hewitt]

And, as usual, your "point" is wrong -- both factually inaccurate and philosphically incoherent.

I suppose I should give you points for consistency, though. Even a blind squirrel can normally find a nut once in a while, just by chance.

And, as usual, your comments are empty of real content. In what respects do you claim that my comments on Popper are wrong?

[John Hewitt]

100% wrong.

Creationist critique of evolution is empty, vapid, and illogical. What the creationists believe is not relevant.

The Creationist critiques of evolution I have seen are based either on ignorance or deceit. Or sometimes a combination of the two.

Since creationists represent significant social threads, especially in North America, what they believe is, in some respects, necessarily relevant. This is not the same as saying that it is correct but, still, I suggest that an answer should be given.

Edit, and in reference to you other post, I should make it clear that I claim no credit at all for the achievements of religion. Monopolising resources is not, in itself, an admirable achievement. When nothing constructive is done with those resources I agree that it is to be deplored - in both religion and in science.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No you didn’t post a curve fit for the mutation rate versus generation data however you were extrapolating by saying that you could run higher mutation rate cases and get linear proportional results for lower mutation rate cases but that is not reason I called you a sneak. It was over this quote that you made just previous to my calling you a sneak.
You called me a sneak because you think I'm using the Rcapacity problem as an excuse. But I addressed your comment by noting that I could adjust parameters so Rcapacity is not a problem. Then you started giving me trouble about the mutation rate. But I'm extrapolating from high rates to lower rates, so mutation overload isn't an issue.


The reason why I called you a sneak and why I won’t let you extrapolate this curve fit (g=7.8G^.98) beyond a genome length of 92k is that we both know you will not be able to get ev to converge a larger genome size for these input parameters because of your Rcapacity issues.
Actually, I can continue with that experiment, because I increased the binding site width precisely to handle the Rcapacity problem.


However, don’t object when I use the results from this model to argue against the theory of evolution when you have to explain the 35,000,000 base substitutions on a 3 gigabase genome in 500,000 generations.
I believe you'll find an explanation for that in this thread or one of the other ones.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Since creationists represent significant social threads, especially in North America, what they believe is, in some respects, necessarily relevant. This is not the same as saying that it is correct but, still, I suggest that an answer should be given.
An answer has been given to every creationist claim. The fact that creationists don't then drop their claims is one indication that creationists are not scientists.

Come on man, there is a political agenda at work. Political agendas are immune to logic.

~~ Paul

[joobz]

An answer has been given to every creationist claim. The fact that creationists don't then drop their claims is one indication that creationists are not scientists.

Come on man, there is a political agenda at work. Political agendas are immune to logic.

~~ Paul
They aren't immune to logic, they just use a different kind of logic: Cut and Paste Macros.

For a detailed account, see kleinman's ENTIRE debate.

[cyborg]

They aren't immune to logic, they just use a different kind of logic: Cut and Paste Macros.

Well of course. You evolutionists are obviously wrong so a prepared set of macros is perfectly sufficient without the waste of time of actually responding to what you are saying. There are more important things to be doing like preparing for the next life.

[Cuddles]

Joozb, in order to support your downy feather soft theory of evolution, you have to speculate on the existence of extremely high mutation rate at the early stages of life formation, some type of unique environmental conditions that no longer exist or are not reproducible in the laboratory and chemical reactions that are anything but likely to occur.

So what you're saying is that you don't think it's possible that a world practically without life could have a different environment from one that is absolutely stuffed with life and has evolved for billions of years. I declared it recipie time long ago, I think it's very nearly time for the cats.

[kleinman]

No you didn’t post a curve fit for the mutation rate versus generation data however you were extrapolating by saying that you could run higher mutation rate cases and get linear proportional results for lower mutation rate cases but that is not reason I called you a sneak. It was over this quote that you made just previous to my calling you a sneak. You called me a sneak because you think I'm using the Rcapacity problem as an excuse. But I addressed your comment by noting that I could adjust parameters so Rcapacity is not a problem. Then you started giving me trouble about the mutation rate. But I'm extrapolating from high rates to lower rates, so mutation overload isn't an issue.
Here’s what you can do. Start with a site width that you think will converge for P ubique size genome, choose whatever mutation rate and population you want and then start with G=256 and then start increasing G and see if you can get ev to converge for a 1.3meg genome. Once you get your case to converge, you can try a realistic mutation rate, like 10^-6 and I’ll make a wild guess that it will take between 2-20 billion generations to evolve the 96 loci if you choose a population around 64. At one generation per day, that would be between 5-50 million years to evolve the 96 loci. Then when the super computer becomes available, you can start increasing population and see whether a population of 10^28 will reduce the number of generations to evolve those 96 loci sufficiently to give anything from ev that would support the theory of evolution. If you don’t want to do this, it’s ok, I’ll do it. I just thought since it is your computer model, your theory of evolution and you are a moderator on the James Randi Science and Mathematics forum, I thought you might have some interest in this.
The reason why I called you a sneak and why I won’t let you extrapolate this curve fit (g=7.8G^.98) beyond a genome length of 92k is that we both know you will not be able to get ev to converge a larger genome size for these input parameters because of your Rcapacity issues. Actually, I can continue with that experiment, because I increased the binding site width precisely to handle the Rcapacity problem.
Why not start the series with the necessary site width? Aren’t there enough things to debate without changing parameters in the middle of a series?
However, don’t object when I use the results from this model to argue against the theory of evolution when you have to explain the 35,000,000 base substitutions on a 3 gigabase genome in 500,000 generations.I believe you'll find an explanation for that in this thread or one of the other ones.
There have been weak attempts to try to explain this away such as ev doesn’t include recombination. Are you trying to say that these 35,000,000 base substitutions are due to recombination?
Since creationists represent significant social threads, especially in North America, what they believe is, in some respects, necessarily relevant. This is not the same as saying that it is correct but, still, I suggest that an answer should be given.An answer has been given to every creationist claim. The fact that creationists don't then drop their claims is one indication that creationists are not scientists.

Come on man, there is a political agenda at work. Political agendas are immune to logic.
The answers presented to the claims I have made about ev would only satisfy a devout evolutionist. Paul, your argument that anyone who doesn’t believe the theory of evolution is not true, are not scientists is a worn out argument. You need some new plays in your playbook.

I assure you I have no political agenda. I got involved in this discussion for totally different reasons. I do think it is a waste of time to teach your stupid theory to grade school children who would be better served by learning how to read, write and do arithmetic but I never got politically involved in this issue. I could say the same about evolutionists that you say about creationists that you have a political agenda and are immune to logic. We will see what happens as I drag you kicking and screaming though the logic of your own computer model. There is so little that comes out of the theory of evolution that is worthy of being co-opted, macroevolution, ev and Adequate’s mutation rate of 1.7^-8.
Joozb, in order to support your downy feather soft theory of evolution, you have to speculate on the existence of extremely high mutation rate at the early stages of life formation, some type of unique environmental conditions that no longer exist or are not reproducible in the laboratory and chemical reactions that are anything but likely to occur. So what you're saying is that you don't think it's possible that a world practically without life could have a different environment from one that is absolutely stuffed with life and has evolved for billions of years. I declared it recipie time long ago, I think it's very nearly time for the cats.
Of course there are other types of environments that could exist. Consider the variety of different environments that exist in our solar system which have been investigated. It just seems strange that here we have an environment that is supportive of life yet spontaneous generation of life is never observed.

You aren’t going to give a recipe for cats are you?

[cyborg]

It just seems strange that here we have an environment that is supportive of life yet spontaneous generation of life is never observed.

It supports life. Does it support the CREATION of life?

You seem to have decided these environments should be the same for some reason - but that's about as sensible as saying I should be able to live in the ocean because it supports life.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Here’s what you can do. Start with a site width that you think will converge for P ubique size genome, choose whatever mutation rate and population you want and then start with G=256 and then start increasing G and see if you can get ev to converge for a 1.3meg genome. Once you get your case to converge, you can try a realistic mutation rate, like 10^-6 and I’ll make a wild guess that it will take between 2-20 billion generations to evolve the 96 loci if you choose a population around 64. At one generation per day, that would be between 5-50 million years to evolve the 96 loci. Then when the super computer becomes available, you can start increasing population and see whether a population of 10^28 will reduce the number of generations to evolve those 96 loci sufficiently to give anything from ev that would support the theory of evolution. If you don’t want to do this, it’s ok, I’ll do it. I just thought since it is your computer model, your theory of evolution and you are a moderator on the James Randi Science and Mathematics forum, I thought you might have some interest in this.
Yes, please, run this series of experiments. However, find out what the mutation rate for P. ubique was a couple of billion years ago. What's with 96 loci? Just pick a real mechanism and find out how many binding sites it has.

So let's use the figure of 10^-6 mutations per gene per generation. With about 1,000 genes, our little friend will have 10^-3 mutations per genome per generation. That's 1 mutation every 1,000 generations, or about 1 mutation every 4 years in the lineage of 1 critter. Let's keep it simple and say 1 mutation every 10 years. That's 10^27 mutations per year in the entire population. That means every gene is mutated 10^24 times per year (since there is hardly any junk). That's a lot of experiments.


Why not start the series with the necessary site width? Aren’t there enough things to debate without changing parameters in the middle of a series?
I increased it from the standard width when I started the series. Of course you can't increase it in the middle.


There have been weak attempts to try to explain this away such as ev doesn’t include recombination. Are you trying to say that these 35,000,000 base substitutions are due to recombination?
In some thread, Dr. Adequate did the math on this.

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

It just seems strange that here we have an environment that is supportive of life yet spontaneous generation of life is never observed.It supports life. Does it support the CREATION of life?

You seem to have decided these environments should be the same for some reason - but that's about as sensible as saying I should be able to live in the ocean because it supports life.
Apparently the environment we live in does not support the creations of life; this is why evolutionists are force to speculate on the existence of some other environment that would support life the creation of life.

I don’t think I said that all environments should be the same. How did you parse my words in order to get this interpretation?
Here’s what you can do. Start with a site width that you think will converge for P ubique size genome, choose whatever mutation rate and population you want and then start with G=256 and then start increasing G and see if you can get ev to converge for a 1.3meg genome. Once you get your case to converge, you can try a realistic mutation rate, like 10^-6 and I’ll make a wild guess that it will take between 2-20 billion generations to evolve the 96 loci if you choose a population around 64. At one generation per day, that would be between 5-50 million years to evolve the 96 loci. Then when the super computer becomes available, you can start increasing population and see whether a population of 10^28 will reduce the number of generations to evolve those 96 loci sufficiently to give anything from ev that would support the theory of evolution. If you don’t want to do this, it’s ok, I’ll do it. I just thought since it is your computer model, your theory of evolution and you are a moderator on the James Randi Science and Mathematics forum, I thought you might have some interest in this.Yes, please, run this series of experiments. However, find out what the mutation rate for P. ubique was a couple of billion years ago. What's with 96 loci? Just pick a real mechanism and find out how many binding sites it has.

So let's use the figure of 10^-6 mutations per gene per generation. With about 1,000 genes, our little friend will have 10^-3 mutations per genome per generation. That's 1 mutation every 1,000 generations, or about 1 mutation every 4 years in the lineage of 1 critter. Let's keep it simple and say 1 mutation every 10 years. That's 10^27 mutations per year in the entire population. That means every gene is mutated 10^24 times per year (since there is hardly any junk). That's a lot of experiments.
I understand that this is a tough mathematical problem with many unknowns. That is why I suggest starting with a simple case. Even this simple organism P ubique has a huge amount of information in its relatively simple genome. So don’t try to evolve the entire genome, use the simple model that Dr Schneider has written and see what it takes to evolve the 16 binding sites on the 1.3Mbase genome.
Why not start the series with the necessary site width? Aren’t there enough things to debate without changing parameters in the middle of a series?I increased it from the standard width when I started the series. Of course you can't increase it in the middle.
But you didn’t increase the site width sufficiently to take this series to a 1.3Mbase genome. I don’t know why you are resistant to this idea. The site width series I have done don’t appear to have a strong affect on the generations for convergence. In fact, larger site widths may give a higher rate of information acquisition.
There have been weak attempts to try to explain this away such as ev doesn’t include recombination. Are you trying to say that these 35,000,000 base substitutions are due to recombination? In some thread, Dr. Adequate did the math on this.
Adequate’s arithmetic only shows that with a mutation rate of 1.7E-8 you can get enough mutations to obtain 35,000,000 base substitutions in the populations available but implicit in his calculation is that every one of these mutations are selected for and will appear in present day genomes. Many if not most mutations will be selected against or are neutral and Adequate did not include this in his arithmetic.

[cyborg]

Apparently the environment we live in does not support the creations of life; this is why evolutionists are force to speculate on the existence of some other environment that would support life the creation of life.

Right - but it's not just speculation because we can see how the action of life clearly affects the environment.

It is certain that life affects the environment. Assuming you agree the environment was quite different in the Earth's early life (of which I have no specific idea although I am assuming there is some 'faith based' thrust to your arguments) it is certain that life has transformed it. The question then becomes what that environment was, how it was possible for life to develop from it etc...

Otherwise your alternative speculation would be...?

I don’t think I said that all environments should be the same. How did you parse my words in order to get this interpretation?

It just seems strange that here we have an environment that is supportive of life yet spontaneous generation of life is never observed.

What conclusion would you like me to draw?

It hardly seems strange to me that proto-life would have a hard time trying to do anything in an environment full of modern lifeforms.

Why is it odd to you?

[hammegk]

... Political agendas are immune to logic.

~~ Paul
And thank Ed scientists are immune to political agendas, and have none of their own!

ROTFLMGDFAO.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Apparently the environment we live in does not support the creations of life; this is why evolutionists are force to speculate on the existence of some other environment that would support life the creation of life.
Well, at least not that we've noticed. Been down in any thermal vents recently? We're not forced to speculate on some other environment for the creation of life. It is absolutely clear that there was some other environment.


Even this simple organism P ubique has a huge amount of information in its relatively simple genome. So don’t try to evolve the entire genome, use the simple model that Dr Schneider has written and see what it takes to evolve the 16 binding sites on the 1.3Mbase genome.
But Ev starts with a random genome. No organism starts with a random 1.3 megabase genome. And what population do we use? Say we pick some parameters and come up with 1 billion generations. What possible conclusion could you draw from that?


But you didn’t increase the site width sufficiently to take this series to a 1.3Mbase genome. I don’t know why you are resistant to this idea. The site width series I have done don’t appear to have a strong affect on the generations for convergence. In fact, larger site widths may give a higher rate of information acquisition.
Of course I didn't. P. ubique just came up yesterday, for crying out loud!


Adequate’s arithmetic only shows that with a mutation rate of 1.7E-8 you can get enough mutations to obtain 35,000,000 base substitutions in the populations available but implicit in his calculation is that every one of these mutations are selected for and will appear in present day genomes.
I don't think that assumption was implicit in the calculation.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And thank Ed scientists are immune to political agendas, and have none of their own!

ROTFLMGDFAO.
Yes, of course some scientists have political agendas. The trick to science, though, is that not all scientists have the same agenda.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Wow, we agree on something, but unfortunately that's why scientists will always be nothing but cats-paws for some actual power structure.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Wow, we agree on something, but unfortunately that's why scientists will always be nothing but cats-paws for some actual power structure.
That's okay, because people are fickle enough that the power structure changes with time.

~~ Paul

[tsig]

Wow, we agree on something, but unfortunately that's why scientists will always be nothing but cats-paws for some actual power structure.

So whoever is runing the country is controlling reality?

Well with Bush you may have a point.

[kleinman]

Apparently the environment we live in does not support the creations of life; this is why evolutionists are force to speculate on the existence of some other environment that would support life the creation of life. Right - but it's not just speculation because we can see how the action of life clearly affects the environment.

It is certain that life affects the environment. Assuming you agree the environment was quite different in the Earth's early life (of which I have no specific idea although I am assuming there is some 'faith based' thrust to your arguments) it is certain that life has transformed it. The question then becomes what that environment was, how it was possible for life to develop from it etc...

Otherwise your alternative speculation would be...?
Ok cyborg, let’s follow your logic trail. What are the possibilities? The present day environment no longer supports the spontaneous generation because present day living things or other factors interfere with spontaneous generation of life, or as Paul speculates below that living things are being spontaneously generated today in thermal vents, which we can’t identify yet or there is no environment that would support the complex chemistry that would yield spontaneous generation of life. My speculation is the third option is the likely case because I have studied some organic and biochemistry. Now joobz thinks anything is possible especially with cooperative chemistry.
I don’t think I said that all environments should be the same. How did you parse my words in order to get this interpretation?

It just seems strange that here we have an environment that is supportive of life yet spontaneous generation of life is never observed. What conclusion would you like me to draw?

It hardly seems strange to me that proto-life would have a hard time trying to do anything in an environment full of modern lifeforms.

Why is it odd to you?
What is odd to me is that someone with any kind of background in organic and biochemistry could believe that the most complex chemical reactions known could spontaneously occur. Especially when virtually every one of these chemical reactions are catalyzed by a complex biologic enzyme. But then I think it is foolish to buy lottery tickets, yet millions of people do this every day.
Apparently the environment we live in does not support the creations of life; this is why evolutionists are force to speculate on the existence of some other environment that would support life the creation of life. Well, at least not that we've noticed. Been down in any thermal vents recently? We're not forced to speculate on some other environment for the creation of life. It is absolutely clear that there was some other environment.
Paul, put on your scuba gear and get your specimen bottles and make your case. Paul, there is an entire spectrum of environments in our solar system alone. You’ve got everything from million degree temperatures on the sun to temperatures hundreds of degrees below zero centigrade on Pluto. Is Pluto still a planet?
Even this simple organism P ubique has a huge amount of information in its relatively simple genome. So don’t try to evolve the entire genome, use the simple model that Dr Schneider has written and see what it takes to evolve the 16 binding sites on the 1.3Mbase genome. But Ev starts with a random genome. No organism starts with a random 1.3 megabase genome. And what population do we use? Say we pick some parameters and come up with 1 billion generations. What possible conclusion could you draw from that?
You keep talking about random megabase and gigabase genomes. Ev does not simulate the evolution of a random genome. Ev simulates the evolution of binding sites on a genome. So it matters little whether the non-binding site region is random or not. Here is a little experiment you can try. Instead of starting ev with a random genome, start with a genome of all one single base and see how that effects convergence of ev. With respects to the 1.3Mbase genome, use whatever population you want. Then we can do a population series and see whether huge populations will reduce the generations for convergence to give any support to the theory of evolution.
But you didn’t increase the site width sufficiently to take this series to a 1.3Mbase genome. I don’t know why you are resistant to this idea. The site width series I have done don’t appear to have a strong affect on the generations for convergence. In fact, larger site widths may give a higher rate of information acquisition.Of course I didn't. P. ubique just came up yesterday, for crying out loud!
Ok, so now you have a good reason to do a series with a wider site width and see whether you can even get a 1.3Mbase genome to converge.
Adequate’s arithmetic only shows that with a mutation rate of 1.7E-8 you can get enough mutations to obtain 35,000,000 base substitutions in the populations available but implicit in his calculation is that every one of these mutations are selected for and will appear in present day genomes. I don't think that assumption was implicit in the calculation.
Read his calculation carefully.

[cyborg]

The present day environment no longer supports the spontaneous generation because present day living things or other factors interfere with spontaneous generation of life

Is this unreasonable? Organic material tends to be harvested by living organisms does it not?

My speculation is the third option is the likely case because I have studied some organic and biochemistry.

And the third option is...?

What is odd to me is that someone with any kind of background in organic and biochemistry could believe that the most complex chemical reactions known could spontaneously occur.

I don't think anyone does believe this - so would you stop beating the strawman?

[kleinman]

My speculation is the third option is the likely case because I have studied some organic and biochemistry. And the third option is...?
Ok cyborg, let’s follow your logic trail. What are the possibilities? The 1. present day environment no longer supports the spontaneous generation because present day living things or other factors interfere with spontaneous generation of life, or as 2. Paul speculates below that living things are being spontaneously generated today in thermal vents, which we can’t identify yet or 3. there is no environment that would support the complex chemistry that would yield spontaneous generation of life.
What is odd to me is that someone with any kind of background in organic and biochemistry could believe that the most complex chemical reactions known could spontaneously occur. I don't think anyone does believe this - so would you stop beating the strawman?
Oh yea, I forgot natural selection.

[cyborg]

there is no environment that would support the complex chemistry that would yield spontaneous generation of life.

And if I choose option number 3 then what would you have me conclude about the origin of life?

Oh yea, I forgot natural selection.

I think you forgot that not all organic chemistry is complex.

[fishbob]

Apparently the environment we live in does not support the creations of life; this is why evolutionists are force to speculate on the existence of some other environment that would support life the creation of life.

The environment we live in is chocky jam full of life already. You wouldn't likely know if something new was created - it would be eaten or otherwise out-competed almost instantly. Why is speculating on the existence of an open niche a problem for you?

Remember: Things are more like they are now than they ever were before, and things are less like they used to be than they used to be.

[kleinman]

there is no environment that would support the complex chemistry that would yield spontaneous generation of life.And if I choose option number 3 then what would you have me conclude about the origin of life?
Cyborg, the title of this thread is _______ _______.

[cyborg]

Cyborg, the title of this thread is _______ _______.

So in other words what you're saying is that your speculation is good speculation whilst any other speculation is bad speculation.

You speculate that no environment exists for the chemistry to take place. You then use a computer simulation of evolution to show this. Except that you don't because you keep on telling us that it would take too long to actually run, but your speculation from the model is valid but other's aren't.

You talk of logic but all it really comes down to is shouting us down.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, put on your scuba gear and get your specimen bottles and make your case. Paul, there is an entire spectrum of environments in our solar system alone. You’ve got everything from million degree temperatures on the sun to temperatures hundreds of degrees below zero centigrade on Pluto. Is Pluto still a planet?
When life started there was not much free oxygen. The environment was different.


You keep talking about random megabase and gigabase genomes. Ev does not simulate the evolution of a random genome. Ev simulates the evolution of binding sites on a genome. So it matters little whether the non-binding site region is random or not. Here is a little experiment you can try. Instead of starting ev with a random genome, start with a genome of all one single base and see how that effects convergence of ev. With respects to the 1.3Mbase genome, use whatever population you want. Then we can do a population series and see whether huge populations will reduce the generations for convergence to give any support to the theory of evolution.
Are you arguing with me about whether Ev starts with a random genome or not? It does. The "junk" portion of the genome must change so that it does not cause spurious bindings, and it must stay that way. This is a constraint on its randomness. On the other hand, a real organism has an entirely different set of contraints on its genome, since there are working genes all over the place. You have no idea what sort of effects this difference has.

Why do we need to run a new set of experiments? Why can't we just keep running the one we've got with increasing populations? Can you give us any idea at all why you think it's going to run into a hitch that a 10^28 population wouldn't overcome?


Ok, so now you have a good reason to do a series with a wider site width and see whether you can even get a 1.3Mbase genome to converge.
What would stop it from converging, assuming that there was no Rcapacity issue? Can you give us even the vaguest of hints?


Read his calculation carefully.
I did.

~~ Paul

[Yahzi]

Well of course. You evolutionists are obviously wrong so a prepared set of macros is perfectly sufficient without the waste of time of actually responding to what you are saying.
Wait... hang on.

You guys are saying that creationist arguments are just a pre-canned set of ideas, that are repeated ad nausem by macros.

But we have seen in the "joobz-joozb" example that these macros introduce copying errors.

The selection mechanism - evolutionists - reject such modified arguments.

But just think: if we could observe some copying errors changing the meaning of the arguments, and if those new arguments were less relentlessly rejected by evolutionists, then we could observe "macro-evolution!"

Yes, folks... the creationist argument will EVOLVE to a satistfactory response to evolution, entirely by non-intelligent, non-designed mechanics.

Thus providing a rebuttal to evolution at the same time it provides an example of it.

:D

[fishbob]

Since creationists represent significant social threads, especially in North America, what they believe is, in some respects, necessarily relevant. This is not the same as saying that it is correct but, still, I suggest that an answer should be given.

OK. In science, beliefs are not relevant. What can be demonstrated and what can be supported by reason are the relevant bits. In creationism (and in politics, unfortunately) reality doesn't seem to matter, but belief - often in contradiction to those pesky darn facts - is what counts.

[John Hewitt]

An answer has been given to every creationist claim. The fact that creationists don't then drop their claims is one indication that creationists are not scientists.

Come on man, there is a political agenda at work. Political agendas are immune to logic.

~~ Paul
Oh, c'mon. Yes, of course creationists have political agendas but do you seriously believe scientists don't? Scientists are just as determined as creationists to arrive at the conclusion they want.
Moreover, it is not true that all creationist claims have been answered. As many people have pointed out, evolutionary explanations are often little more than "Just So" stories. Most explanations for the origin of life fall into exactly that category.

[cyborg]

Oh, c'mon. Yes, of course creationists have political agendas but do you seriously believe scientists don't? Scientists are just as determined as creationists to arrive at the conclusion they want.

Yes.

They're call "creation scientists".

(Man, you walked right into that one).

As many people have pointed out, evolutionary explanations are often little more than "Just So" stories. Most explanations for the origin of life fall into exactly that category.

And so the the logical thing to do would be to go with another "Just So" story right?

Spin the roulette of "Just So"!

[delphi_ote]

Scientists are just as determined as creationists to arrive at the conclusion they want.
There's only one possible conclusion for science, though: the observed outcome. You can't fake the melting point of water, the distances between stars, or genetics. If evidence is the ultimate measure, no matter how determined the someone might be, they don't necessarily reach the conclusion they want to.
Moreover, it is not true that all creationist claims have been answered.
It would've been more intellectually honest for you to provide an example rather than just proclaiming this.
As many people have pointed out, evolutionary explanations are often little more than "Just So" stories. Most explanations for the origin of life fall into exactly that category.
They're falsifiable hypotheses backed by experimentation and observation. That's better than anything the creationists have to offer.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Oh, c'mon. Yes, of course creationists have political agendas but do you seriously believe scientists don't? Scientists are just as determined as creationists to arrive at the conclusion they want.
Yes, but as I said above, all scientists don't have the same conclusion in mind. So there is a filtering of ideas. Creationists tend to have one overarching goal. Fortunately, I'm exaggerating somewhat, so we may be spared the concensus required to enact that goal into law.

Edited to add: Oh gosh, no, I was wrong. It has been enacted into law:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55807?utm_source=Distributed&utm_medium=Embedded%2BHTML&utm_campaign=Widgets



Moreover, it is not true that all creationist claims have been answered. As many people have pointed out, evolutionary explanations are often little more than "Just So" stories. Most explanations for the origin of life fall into exactly that category.
You're right. The creationist claim that "you haven't figured everything out yet" has not been answered.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But just think: if we could observe some copying errors changing the meaning of the arguments, and if those new arguments were less relentlessly rejected by evolutionists, then we could observe "macro-evolution!"
I love this guy!

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

Paul, put on your scuba gear and get your specimen bottles and make your case. Paul, there is an entire spectrum of environments in our solar system alone. You’ve got everything from million degree temperatures on the sun to temperatures hundreds of degrees below zero centigrade on Pluto. Is Pluto still a planet?When life started there was not much free oxygen. The environment was different.
The presence or absence of free oxygen is not the only problem for abiogenesis.
You keep talking about random megabase and gigabase genomes. Ev does not simulate the evolution of a random genome. Ev simulates the evolution of binding sites on a genome. So it matters little whether the non-binding site region is random or not. Here is a little experiment you can try. Instead of starting ev with a random genome, start with a genome of all one single base and see how that effects convergence of ev. With respects to the 1.3Mbase genome, use whatever population you want. Then we can do a population series and see whether huge populations will reduce the generations for convergence to give any support to the theory of evolution.Are you arguing with me about whether Ev starts with a random genome or not? It does. The "junk" portion of the genome must change so that it does not cause spurious bindings, and it must stay that way. This is a constraint on its randomness. On the other hand, a real organism has an entirely different set of contraints on its genome, since there are working genes all over the place. You have no idea what sort of effects this difference has.

Why do we need to run a new set of experiments? Why can't we just keep running the one we've got with increasing populations? Can you give us any idea at all why you think it's going to run into a hitch that a 10^28 population wouldn't overcome?
I am not arguing with you whether ev starts with a random genome or not, but every time you talk about binding sites evolving on random megabase or gigabase genomes, I don’t want people to think that ev simulates the evolution of a random genome. Ev only simulates the evolution of a small portion of the genome. The rest of the genome is not evolving. The constraints imposed by the evolution of binding sites for a real organism would be more stringent than those simulated in ev. Ev represents the best of all possible conditions for evolving binding sites. If you can’t evolve the binding sites quickly enough in the ev model, a more realistic simulation would only be slower. If you thought you could introduce some feature to ev to make the model converge more quickly, you would have done it months ago.

If you go back and read the discussion I had with drkitten, you would know why I don’t believe that huge populations will accelerate convergence very much. I will summarize it here. Increasing populations in the ev model increase the likelihood of a good mutation occurring at a particular locus at less than additive probability (this is because good mutations hitting a particular locus and increasing population are not mutually exclusive events). With small populations you can approximate the affects of increasing populations on the rate of convergence with the additive rule of probabilities and this is seen with the first few population doublings for the population series done with ev. However, the probability of a good mutation occurring at a particular locus very quickly approaches 1 and further increases in population no longer increase this probability by significant amounts. Myriad and I had a long discussion on this topic on the Evolutionisdead forum. Myriad showed that in order to compute the probability of a good mutation occurring at a particular locus, you must actually compute the probability of a good mutation not occurring at a particular locus and then take the complement of that number. Myriad did a very good job describing the application of probability theory to this situation. It is not as simple as it appears at first glance.
Ok, so now you have a good reason to do a series with a wider site width and see whether you can even get a 1.3Mbase genome to converge.What would stop it from converging, assuming that there was no Rcapacity issue? Can you give us even the vaguest of hints?
Oh, I think it will converge, but very slowly. The rate of convergence will be millions of times slower than Dr Schneider’s published case.
Read his calculation carefully. I did.
Then if you understood what he is computing, he is assuming every base substitution is selected for and retained. None of the base substitutions are selected against and are lost from the gene pool.

Paul, this is your computer model. You have written the online version to simulate evolution. Why is it that I have to drag you kicking and screaming as a moderator on the James Randi Science and Mathematics forum to do these cases? Do you have some type of agenda? Did Dr Schneider have some type of agenda when he published his unrealistic case when he knew that realistic parameters would take years worth of computer time and show much, much slower rates of acquisition of information? Why are you so selective on what you want shown from this model?

You all have a nice weekend.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Then if you understood what he is computing, he is assuming every base substitution is selected for and retained. None of the base substitutions are selected against and are lost from the gene pool.
Imagine two humans have a child with 100 mutations, and it survives. Imagine two other humans have a child with 100 mutations, and it survives. (There may certainly be other children with 100 mutations who do not survive.) Now imagine those two children have a child of their own with no new mutations. How many mutations does it inherit?


Paul, this is your computer model. You have written the online version to simulate evolution. Why is it that I have to drag you kicking and screaming as a moderator on the James Randi Science and Mathematics forum to do these cases? Do you have some type of agenda?
Who's kicking and screaming? It's just a matter of resources, as I've repeated to you 20 times. I'm running a Pascal Ev simulation right now.

But tell me: You're the one claiming there is some kind of problem. Why aren't you responsible for doing the work to substantiate your claim?

~~ Paul

[John Hewitt]

And so the the logical thing to do would be to go with another "Just So" story right?

Spin the roulette of "Just So"!
No, the logical thing to do would be to so construct evolutionary theory that it is capable of making predictions rather than just telling stories. It would also be intellectually honest, not to claim to have done things that were not done.

[John Hewitt]

1. There's only one possible conclusion for science, though: the observed outcome. You can't fake the melting point of water, the distances between stars, or genetics. If evidence is the ultimate measure, no matter how determined the someone might be, they don't necessarily reach the conclusion they want to.

2. It would've been more intellectually honest for you to provide an example (of an unanswered creationist claim) rather than just proclaiming this.

3. They're (evolutionary just so stories) just so falsifiable hypotheses backed by experimentation and observation. That's better than anything the creationists have to offer.

1. I was discussing evolution not the melting point of water or the distance to the stars.

2. You want an example. OK, Behe, in Darwin's Balck Box, points out that you can stroll around almost any biological system and find phenomena that have not been explained by evolution. Here's one, tell me where genes come from.

3. In general, I don't know whether one random story is better or worse than another. My problem with this debate is that so many people seem damn sure that they do. I do know that a lot of evolutionary stories are virtually unevidenced.

[John Hewitt]

Yes, but as I said above, all scientists don't have the same conclusion in mind. So there is a filtering of ideas. Creationists tend to have one overarching goal. Fortunately, I'm exaggerating somewhat, so we may be spared the concensus required to enact that goal into law.

Edited to add: Oh gosh, no, I was wrong. It has been enacted into law:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/55807?utm_source=Distributed&utm_medium=Embedded%2BHTML&utm_campaign=Widgets



You're right. The creationist claim that "you haven't figured everything out yet" has not been answered.

~~ Paul

Apart from the unnecessary Mickey taking I basically agree with the things you say but I think your slant is inappropriately kind to the evolutionary side. The point is that evolution is too good at accounting for observations - in other words, it has large elements of vacuity and can explain too many things - and it is not good enough at predicting them - in other words it is not tested because, across many observational domains, it does not make testable predictions.

[fishbob]

1. I was discussing evolution not the melting point of water or the distance to the stars.

2. You want an example. OK, Behe, in Darwin's Balck Box, points out that you can stroll around almost any biological system and find phenomena that have not been explained by evolution. Here's one, tell me where genes come from.

3. In general, I don't know whether one random story is better or worse than another. My problem with this debate is that so many people seem damn sure that they do. I do know that a lot of evolutionary stories are virtually unevidenced.

1 - You claimed that the beliefs of scientists have some kind of effect on their findings. You were given good examples showing this claim to be invalid. Don't try to move the goalposts.

2 - You stated that creationist claims were unanswered. You were asked to provide an example of an unanswered creationist claim. What you provided above is not a creationist claim - it is a question. Don't try to move the goalposts.

3 - Oh, look - another unsupported claim. What is an 'evolutionary story'?

PS. Behe thoroughly discredited himself with his testimony at the Dover trial. You might want to look elsewhere for reference material.

The point is that evolution is too good at accounting for observations - in other words, it has large elements of vacuity and can explain too many things - and it is not good enough at predicting them - in other words it is not tested because, across many observational domains, it does not make testable predictions.
Huh?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The point is that evolution is too good at accounting for observations - in other words, it has large elements of vacuity and can explain too many things - and it is not good enough at predicting them - in other words it is not tested because, across many observational domains, it does not make testable predictions.
Perhaps you're thinking of predictions as "predicting the future."

Evolutionary theory and predictions:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1276062

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-8248(197312)40%3A4%3C518%3AFPOET%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/fisinfo/fisinfo.html

http://wilstar.com/evolution/predictions.html

http://www.mbari.org/seminars/2000/Fall2000/oct18_reznick.html

And try a PubMed search, too.

~~ Paul

[joobz]

Apart from the unnecessary Mickey taking I basically agree with the things you say but I think your slant is inappropriately kind to the evolutionary side. The point is that evolution is too good at accounting for observations - in other words, it has large elements of vacuity and can explain too many things - and it is not good enough at predicting them - in other words it is not tested because, across many observational domains, it does not make testable predictions.
There are a lot theories that hold true, but are hard to use as a predictor.

Navier-stokes equation describes (We are nearly 100% certain) fluid flow in all systems. Yet prediction of turbulence is still not possible. Does this mean that the equation is wrong?

If that is the worst critique to leverage at evolution, then you really have no argument.

[delphi_ote]

1. I was discussing evolution not the melting point of water or the distance to the stars.
All of the above are scientific facts measured and observed time and time again. Ironically, I'd say there's probably a larger body of diverse types of corroborating evidence for evolution than the other two these days.
2. You want an example. OK, Behe, in Darwin's Balck Box, points out that you can stroll around almost any biological system and find phenomena that have not been explained by evolution.
You can look inside any complex system and find phenomena that have not been explained by gravity, too. This phrasing is intellectually bankrupt.
Here's one, tell me where genes come from.
Toledo? I have no idea what you're asking here. It's clear from the way you've phrased your question that you don't either. Are you asking how genes evolve, how protein structures form, what genes are composed of, what process creates them? Since you've asked with the vocabulary of a five year old demanding answers, your query is a mystery to me.

You need to have more respect for the very process of asking questions. If you are ignorant, challenging someone with your ignorance is worthless to both parties. If you think I'm being unfair, ask yourself exactly the same question about water and see if you can completely answer with the same amount of evidence and detail you'd expect here. Make sure you're pedantic about every single step in the process. I expect you'll have to work out Schrödinger wave equation at some point in the process.

You'll have to come down off your high horse if you want to discuss where genes "come from."
I do know that a lot of evolutionary stories are virtually unevidenced.
Point to the "many" that are.

[Myriad]

Again with the "evolution does not make testable predictions" argument?

Science uses observations, and theories based on those observations, to make predictions of future observations. Predictions of future observations need not be predictions of the observation of future events.

Let's repeat that in boldface: Predictions of future observations need not be predictions of the observation of future events.

For instance, astronomers predicted the obsevation of Neptune and then Pluto in certain orbits, based on observed deviations from the expected orbits of the already known planets. Those were predictions. Even though, obviously, the planets were there the whole time.

Similarly, the theory of evolution makes many predictions of future observations:

- That additional creatures with mosaics of features of already known species will be discovered in the fossil record, adding to the many already discovered.

- That further genetic discoveries will be made confirming common ancestry of species that are distinct species in the present day, such as more examples of common retroviral remnants and common nonfatal non-adaptive features.

- That occurrences of genetic "convergence" between species of differing genetic lineage will be found to be limited to what would be expected based on probability, the selective value of the convergent genes, and extraneous sources of interspecies gene transfer.

- That organisms associated with different geological eras (which were known long before the theory of evolution was proposed) will never be found sharing the same stratum, consistent with the organisms having lived during different time periods. A minnow will never be found in a fossil bed with a trilobyte.

- That future measurements of genetic homology between species will continue to show a hierarchical structure consistent with common descent (with the possible exception of simpler microorganisms in which the next effects of horizontal gene transfer might possibly be more significant in generating the genome than inheritance). For example, if A is more similar to B and C than to D is more similar to A than to B, D cannot also be more similar to B and C than to A. (Whereas, if you're designing genomes without any need for common descent, it's trivially easy* to design four genomes A, B, C, and D which can be arranged at the corners of a square, each being more similar to the two adjacent genomes than to the diagonally opposite one. When designing a large number of genomes, such nonhierarchical patterns would arise over and over again unless the designer made a considerable deliberate effort to avoid them -- for what reason? The existence of such nonhierarchical patterns of gentic similarity would rule out common descent and thus the theory of evolution.)

That last one is pretty conclusive in favor of evolution, based on what's been measured so far. If you want to convince anyone that genomes were designed, you have to either show nonhierarchical patterns of genetic similarity among earth's species, or give a plausible reason why such a hierarchical pattern of relationships would exist among a bunch of designed genomes, other than that the designer was being deliberately deceptive in creating the appearance of common descent. (Why that last limitation? Because if you've got a deceptive designer of unknown powers, face it, you're never going to be able to find any evidence confirming or falsifying any proposition about that designer, so in that case "the designer is deceptive" is the last and only thing that ID "science" could ever discover.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

*Here's an example:

genome A: CCAG ------ genome B: ACTG

genome D: CAAA ------ genome C: AATA

Each differs from its two adjacent genomes at two positions, but from its diagonally opposite genome at all four positions. Thus no hierarchical relationship can be established among them. That situations like aren't prevalent throughout earth's genomes indicates either common descent, or a designer trying to make it look like there was.

[joobz]

However, the probability of a good mutation occurring at a particular locus very quickly approaches 1 and further increases in population no longer increase this probability by significant amounts.
Can you show your calculations for this. Define "very quickly" followed by a definition for "significant amounts."

Dr. Kitten's stated that as pop---> infinity, generation to form binding site ----> 1. How do you go from this to population doesn't increase rate of binding site evolution? Your explanation doesn't seem to connect well.
provide your calculations to explain this because I'm completely missing it.

[John Hewitt]

1 - You claimed that the beliefs of scientists have some kind of effect on their findings. You were given good examples showing this claim to be invalid. Don't try to move the goalposts.

2 - You stated that creationist claims were unanswered. You were asked to provide an example of an unanswered creationist claim. What you provided above is not a creationist claim - it is a question. Don't try to move the goalposts.

3 - Oh, look - another unsupported claim. What is an 'evolutionary story'?

PS. Behe thoroughly discredited himself with his testimony at the Dover trial. You might want to look elsewhere for reference material.

Huh?
I do not know why you are asking me about creationism, my work does not come into that category.

I have pointed out to you that most criticism of evolutionary theory comes from a creationist perspective and that you are more likely to improve evolutionary theory by thinking about those criticisms rather than just ranting about them. I did read Behe's book and I found it better than you seem to think it is - which is not the same as saying agree with his general position. He does argue that one can stroll around the architecture of any cell and find components that were clearly designed. Adaptively designed, I would argue, intelligently designed he would argue, but certainly designed.

What he is saying, what I do agree with and am repeating to you, is that evolutionary theory, which labours under the misnomer of the "modern synthesis" provides not one sensible jot of explanation for their origin.

I have not moved any goalposts, I am trying to get people to understand that there is a difference between "the theory that evolution happened," which is not disputed by me and "a theoretical description for how evolution happened or got started." From a purely scientific perspective, I am not at all happy with those theories. In my opinion, those popularly expounded theories are largely vacuous and basically obsolete.

What I did, in response to your suggestion and Behe's was to stroll into a cell and pluck out an object - the gene. Not, I admit, a random choice but still the gene has clearly been designed - adaptively designed I would argue, intelligently designed Behe would argue.

Now, please, don't spout still more evidence that evolution happened - I already know that. I even know how evolution can lead to adaptive design. Tell me instead, since you seem to believe it, how evolutionary theory can validly be based on genes, when genes themselves have obviously been subject to prior design.

[Yahzi]

I do not know why you are asking me about creationism, my work does not come into that category.

...

Tell me instead, since you seem to believe it, how evolutionary theory can validly be based on genes, when genes themselves have obviously been subject to prior design.
So you think genes were designed, but you're not a creationist.

Riiiiight.

Anyway, the answer is pretty simple; genes have not been subject to prior design. This is obvious to anyone who studies genes.

[tsig]

I do not know why you are asking me about creationism, my work does not come into that category.

I have pointed out to you that most criticism of evolutionary theory comes from a creationist perspective and that you are more likely to improve evolutionary theory by thinking about those criticisms rather than just ranting about them. I did read Behe's book and I found it better than you seem to think it is - which is not the same as saying agree with his general position. He does argue that one can stroll around the architecture of any cell and find components that were clearly designed. Adaptively designed, I would argue, intelligently designed he would argue, but certainly designed.

What he is saying, what I do agree with and am repeating to you, is that evolutionary theory, which labours under the misnomer of the "modern synthesis" provides not one sensible jot of explanation for their origin.

I have not moved any goalposts, I am trying to get people to understand that there is a difference between "the theory that evolution happened," which is not disputed by me and "a theoretical description for how evolution happened or got started." From a purely scientific perspective, I am not at all happy with those theories. In my opinion, those popularly expounded theories are largely vacuous and basically obsolete.

What I did, in response to your suggestion and Behe's was to stroll into a cell and pluck out an object - the gene. Not, I admit, a random choice but still the gene has clearly been designed - adaptively designed I would argue, intelligently designed Behe would argue.

Now, please, don't spout still more evidence that evolution happened - I already know that. I even know how evolution can lead to adaptive design. Tell me instead, since you seem to believe it, how evolutionary theory can validly be based on genes, when genes themselves have obviously been subject to prior design.



Designer genes!

How can you tell the genes are designed?

Can yourecognize design because you are designed?

Circularity.

[John Hewitt]

Designer genes!

How can you tell the genes are designed?

Can yourecognize design because you are designed?

Circularity.

Please take this as an answer to Yahzi also.

It is obvious and also universally agreed that all livings things have been the subject of design. At issue, in the dispute between creationsim and evolution is whether that content of design arises from the intervention of an intelligent agent or from adaptive design by a process of evolutionary selection.

The point I am making is
1. That modern evolutionary theory takes the gene as its fundamental concept.
2. That genes, like organisms have plainly been the subject of design - either intelligent design or adaptive design.
3. That if modern evolutionary theory is correctly constructed the gene precedes evolution. Therefore the content of design present in the gene could not have arisen from adaptation.
4. That the implication is either
a. the gene was intelligently designed or
b. modern evolutionary theory is not correctly constructed.

Myself, I favour option b, combined with a greater level of humility on the part of evolutionary theorists.

[kjkent1]

Please take this as an answer to Yahzi also.

It is obvious and also universally agreed that all livings things have been the subject of design. At issue, in the dispute between creationsim and evolution is whether that content of design arises from the intervention of an intelligent agent or from adaptive design by a process of evolutionary selection.

The point I am making is
1. That modern evolutionary theory takes the gene as its fundamental concept.
2. That genes, like organisms have plainly been the subject of design - either intelligent design or adaptive design.
3. That if modern evolutionary theory is correctly constructed the gene precedes evolution. Therefore the content of design present in the gene could not have arisen from adaptation.
4. That the implication is either
a. the gene was intelligently designed or
b. modern evolutionary theory is not correctly constructed.

Myself, I favour option b, combined with a greater level of humility on the part of evolutionary theorists.

Many complex molecules arise environmentally without any apparent intelligent intervention, so why can't self-replicating RNA/DNA arise similarly?

Is there some universal law which bars this outcome?

[Yahzi]

It is obvious and also universally agreed that all livings things have been the subject of design.
No, it is not.

It is inappropriate to describe the product of selection as "designed." While it is not random, it is not designed, either. Blurring this distinction only confuses the issue.

The point I am making is
1. That modern evolutionary theory takes the gene as its fundamental concept.
And you're wrong, at the very first point.

Biological evolutionary theory takes the gene as its fundamental concept. This is because biology is only interested in things that have genes.

The concept of evolution applies to any system with random mutation and a selection effect. It works perfectly well when writing computer programs (even though they are called "genetic algorthims" they don't actually have genes), and it works when applied to self-replicating chemical systems.

Myself, I favour option b, combined with a greater level of humility on the part of evolutionary theorists.
Like all theists, you have attempted to define your way to victory. Believing that the definition you give words affects and determines reality is the opposite of humility.

[joobz]

It is obvious and also universally agreed that all livings things have been the subject of design.

Not to get pedantic, but how are you using "design" here? Typically, design implies some sort of creative force driving outcome. I would not consider the autonomous following of simple, natural rules as "designed". Do you consider the spray pattern from a paintball as "designed"? It, too, follows prescribed force/momentum balances.

3. That if modern evolutionary theory is correctly constructed the gene precedes evolution. Therefore the content of design present in the gene could not have arisen from adaptation.
There is no reason to believe this. Complementary features can arise in concert and not require a sequential formation. For instance, Red/Ox pairs. Do you have to reduce something prior to oxidizing something else?

EDIT: Yahzi beat me too this critique.

[delphi_ote]

Tell me instead, since you seem to believe it, how evolutionary theory can validly be based on genes, when genes themselves have obviously been subject to prior design.
I see you're still challenging us with your ignorance. Your question still makes no sense. It's gibberish. Genes are molecules. Are you contending that the formation of these molecules is not adequately explained by science and invoking your designer before the process of evolution started? Is your argument "God made the genes and evolution acted on them."?

What you think is a clever attempt to sneak under the radar by pretending not to be a creationist isn't working out is it? If you would just start being honest with us, we could correct whatever misconceptions you have.

[Yahzi]

Yahzi beat me...
Three of my favorite words.

:D

[fishbob]

It is obvious and also universally agreed that all livings things have been the subject of design. At issue, in the dispute between creationsim and evolution is whether that content of design arises from the intervention of an intelligent agent or from adaptive design by a process of evolutionary selection.

Quite a twisted and tortured definition for 'design' you have there. Poor thing.

Deliberate confusion instead of communication is another common creationist characteristic.

Just so's you know.

[John Hewitt]

I see you're still challenging us with your ignorance. Your question still makes no sense. It's gibberish. Genes are molecules. Are you contending that the formation of these molecules is not adequately explained by science and invoking your designer before the process of evolution started? Is your argument "God made the genes and evolution acted on them."?

What you think is a clever attempt to sneak under the radar by pretending not to be a creationist isn't working out is it? If you would just start being honest with us, we could correct whatever misconceptions you have.

Genes are molecules? Go read a book.

[John Hewitt]

Many complex molecules arise environmentally without any apparent intelligent intervention, so why can't self-replicating RNA/DNA arise similarly?

Is there some universal law which bars this outcome?

There is no evidence that RNA/DNA has any self-replicating ability.

[John Hewitt]

Biological evolutionary theory takes the gene as its fundamental concept. This is because biology is only interested in things that have genes.

The concept of evolution applies to any system with random mutation and a selection effect. It works perfectly well when writing computer programs (even though they are called "genetic algorthims" they don't actually have genes), and it works when applied to self-replicating chemical systems.


When I said "living thing" I thought maybe it might be clear that we were talking about biological evolution.
I am perfectly familiar with other forms of evolution. Now, please, since genes are clearly not the general foundation of evolutionary theory, tell me why Dawkins keeps telling us that it is.

[John Hewitt]

Not to get pedantic, but how are you using "design" here?

Why not, pedantry seems to be the only level of discussion round here. I was hoping for an intelligent discussion but I am clearly not going to get it.

[delphi_ote]

Genes are molecules? Go read a book.
Still trying to pummel us with your ignorance? It's not going to work. Hint: DNA and RNA are molecules.
A gene is the unit of heredity in every living organism. Genes are encoded in an organism's genome, composed of DNA or RNA, and direct the physical development and behavior of the organism. Most genes encode proteins, which are biological macromolecules comprising linear chains of amino acids that affect most of the chemical reactions carried out by the cell. Some genes do not encode proteins, but produce non-coding RNA molecules that play key roles in protein biosynthesis and gene regulation. Molecules that result from gene expression, whether RNA or protein, are collectively known as gene products.
If they aren't composed of molecules, what do you contend a genes are?

[delphi_ote]

There is no evidence that RNA/DNA has any self-replicating ability.
That is false. Gerald F. Joyce (http://www.scripps.edu/mb/joyce/84.html) has done many experiments in this area. While it's not yet a perfect scenario for the origin of life, to say there's "no evidence" only demonstrates your ignorance.

Proteins (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v382/n6591/abs/382525a0.html)have been very clearly shown to be self replicating, as have some other types of molecules (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15556408&dopt=Abstract).

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It is obvious and also universally agreed that all livings things have been the subject of design. At issue, in the dispute between creationsim and evolution is whether that content of design arises from the intervention of an intelligent agent or from adaptive design by a process of evolutionary selection.
The latter clearly happens, so the real question is whether (a) some designer set it all up at the beginning so it would work out this way; or (b) some designer pokes a genome every now and again to make things wander in a particular direction.


Genes are molecules? Go read a book.
Say what?

~~ Paul

[joobz]

Why not, pedantry seems to be the only level of discussion round here. I was hoping for an intelligent discussion but I am clearly not going to get it.
This attitude is uncalled for. I was asking a legitimate question about your usage.

If you make a blanket statement like "It is obvious and also universally agreed that all livings things have been the subject of design," you better be able to back it up with your reasons. How can we debate an issue when there is an obvious inability to agree with issues?

Design's definition implies an intent. A creative force. Since evolution doesn't require this force to occur, there is no design to it.

[joobz]

If they aren't composed of molecules, what do you contend a genes are?
I think there may be a reasonable missunderstanding here. He's using the information on DNA analogy that provides an understanding of DNA. The one that states, gene's are encoded into the DNA's sequence but aren't the DNA. This can be thought of in computer terms. A digital picture of my foot on a harddrive is composed of electrons organized into a pattern, but this digital file wouldn't be considered mere electrons. That's just the medium it is written onto.

Now, I think that this reasoning (while useful for interpretations) is a false analogy. The digital foot photo is a seperate bit of information that was written onto the hardrive and is not of the harddrive. However, genes encoded on DNA/RNA can not be seperated from the molecules by which they are on. This is because genes are not exact a priori sequences that had to be hit initially. They were just the sequences that provided some advantage in what ever system they were in to begin with.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think there may be a reasonable missunderstanding here. He's using the information on DNA analogy that provides an understanding of DNA. The one that states, gene's are encoded into the DNA's sequence but aren't the DNA. This can be thought of in computer terms. A digital picture of my foot on a harddrive is composed of electrons organized into a pattern, but this digital file wouldn't be considered mere electrons. That's just the medium it is written onto.
So he's making a distinction between the DNA molecule and the information in a gene? Okay, sure. Tread carefully, though.

~~ Paul

[joobz]

So he's making a distinction between the DNA molecule and the information in a gene? Okay, sure. Tread carefully, though.

~~ Paul
I fully agree. I explain in the second paragraph why i think that's a dangerous game to play.

[kleinman]

Then if you understood what he is computing, he is assuming every base substitution is selected for and retained. None of the base substitutions are selected against and are lost from the gene pool. Imagine two humans have a child with 100 mutations, and it survives. Imagine two other humans have a child with 100 mutations, and it survives. (There may certainly be other children with 100 mutations who do not survive.) Now imagine those two children have a child of their own with no new mutations. How many mutations does it inherit?
Now that is an in depth analysis. Imagine two humans who have a child with 100 mutations, 99 good mutations and 1 fatal mutation and it dies. Imagine two other humans have a child with 99 good mutations and 1 fatal mutation, and it dies. (There may certainly be other children with 100 mutations who do not survive.) Now imagine that no children that suffer 100 mutations survive. How many mutations are passed on?
Paul, this is your computer model. You have written the online version to simulate evolution. Why is it that I have to drag you kicking and screaming as a moderator on the James Randi Science and Mathematics forum to do these cases? Do you have some type of agenda? Who's kicking and screaming? It's just a matter of resources, as I've repeated to you 20 times. I'm running a Pascal Ev simulation right now.

But tell me: You're the one claiming there is some kind of problem. Why aren't you responsible for doing the work to substantiate your claim?
Why Paul, it’s you who is kicking and screaming. Your computer with 1gig of memory will do the 2meg population case but none larger for the 1k genome length. I doubt it will resolve the population issue. I think it will take a super computer with at least 1000gig, perhaps more of memory before this issue will be resolve to your satisfaction.

Paul, I have substantiated my claims to the limits of my computer. It’s just a matter of resources, as I’ve repeated to you 20 times.
However, the probability of a good mutation occurring at a particular locus very quickly approaches 1 and further increases in population no longer increase this probability by significant amounts. Can you show your calculations for this. Define "very quickly" followed by a definition for "significant amounts."

Dr. Kitten's stated that as pop---> infinity, generation to form binding site ----> 1. How do you go from this to population doesn't increase rate of binding site evolution? Your explanation doesn't seem to connect well.
provide your calculations to explain this because I'm completely missing it.
These are not my calculations, these are calculations done using Dr Schneider’s ev computer model and I’ll repost the series with the largest populations done to date.
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
Note that increasing the population from 4 to 8 creatures decreases the generations for convergence by a factor of three. No other doubling of the population gives that large of a decrease and the factors of decrease become smaller and smaller as population is increased. The question is whether continued increases in population will approach Adequate’s value of 1 generation for an infinite population and if so, how quickly the generations will approach 1 with increasing population.
Please take this as an answer to Yahzi also.

It is obvious and also universally agreed that all livings things have been the subject of design. At issue, in the dispute between creationsim and evolution is whether that content of design arises from the intervention of an intelligent agent or from adaptive design by a process of evolutionary selection.

The point I am making is
1. That modern evolutionary theory takes the gene as its fundamental concept.
2. That genes, like organisms have plainly been the subject of design - either intelligent design or adaptive design.
3. That if modern evolutionary theory is correctly constructed the gene precedes evolution. Therefore the content of design present in the gene could not have arisen from adaptation.
4. That the implication is either
a. the gene was intelligently designed or
b. modern evolutionary theory is not correctly constructed.

Myself, I favour option b, combined with a greater level of humility on the part of evolutionary theorists. Many complex molecules arise environmentally without any apparent intelligent intervention, so why can't self-replicating RNA/DNA arise similarly?

Is there some universal law which bars this outcome?
The complex molecules that arise environmentally have no where near the complexity of the molecules that are seen in living things. The limitation on RNA/DNA arising “environmentally” is mathematical. This is the basis of my argument using an evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published computer model of random point mutations and natural selection.

So, kjkent1, were you just blowing smoke or do you have access to a super computer which can give us some more data points which disprove the theory of evolution. Here is the challenge; an evolutionist written and peer review/published computer model of random point mutations and natural selection shows mathematically that the theory of evolution is impossible when realistic parameters are used in the model. I think there would be as much interest in this as a chess computer program that can defeat a grand master, perhaps more since this is such a highly charged political issue.
There is no evidence that RNA/DNA has any self-replicating ability. That is false. Gerald F. Joyce (http://www.scripps.edu/mb/joyce/84.html) has done many experiments in this area. While it's not yet a perfect scenario for the origin of life, to say there's "no evidence" only demonstrates your ignorance.

Proteins (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v382/n6591/abs/382525a0.html)have been very clearly shown to be self replicating, as have some other types of molecules (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15556408&dopt=Abstract).
Delphi, if life arose by these self replicating molecules, why isn’t the world filled with nothing but self replicating molecules? How do you get the first self replicator? They certainly couldn’t evolve by random point mutations and natural selection, ev shows this.

Delphi, I’ve been meaning to ask you. Is that picture you posted earlier really you?
It is obvious and also universally agreed that all livings things have been the subject of design. At issue, in the dispute between creationsim and evolution is whether that content of design arises from the intervention of an intelligent agent or from adaptive design by a process of evolutionary selection.The latter clearly happens, so the real question is whether (a) some designer set it all up at the beginning so it would work out this way; or (b) some designer pokes a genome every now and again to make things wander in a particular direction.
Paul, your designer that “pokes a genome every now and again to make things wander in a particular direction” is really, really slow, ev shows this.

[kjkent1]

There is no evidence that RNA/DNA has any self-replicating ability.

Non responsive.

[kjkent1]

The complex molecules that arise environmentally have no where near the complexity of the molecules that are seen in living things. The limitation on RNA/DNA arising “environmentally” is mathematical. This is the basis of my argument using an evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published computer model of random point mutations and natural selection.

So, Kent, were you just blowing smoke or do you have access to a super computer which can give us some more data points which disprove the theory of evolution. Here is the challenge; an evolutionist written and peer review/published computer model of random point mutations and natural selection shows mathematically that the theory of evolution is impossible when realistic parameters are used in the model. I think there would be as much interest in this as a chess computer program that can defeat a grand master, perhaps more since this is such a highly charged political issue.

My prior post on this issue explains what is required to obtain the resources you wish to access. If you're asking me whether I can walk from my cube to a lab containing a computer with 1000 GB of RAM and an array of 100+ parallel processors, then the answer is "no."

If you're asking me whether I have access to management personnel who can allocate resources to conduct your experiment, then the answer is "yes."

But, I'm not going to do anyone's work for them. If you, or someone else wants me to go to bat for them to try to get this experiment done, then I need a pro-forma proposal underwritten by someone with a reputation that can get Marketing to find the experiment sufficiently enticing to allocate resources with a reasonable expectation of some media attention.

So, if Dr. Schneider, or someone of similar repute, is willing to go on record that a rigorous experiment at the limits of the EV algorithm will advance the understandings of theoretical evolutionary biological research, then my Marketing department probably will take the bait.

Otherwise not.

[delphi_ote]

So he's making a distinction between the DNA molecule and the information in a gene? Okay, sure. Tread carefully, though.
He's assuming genes are an abstraction to prove that their origin is not physically possible? If that's the case, I have a feeling we're going to be treated to one of the worst arguments for intelligent design yet.

[joobz]

Delphi, if life arose by these self replicating molecules, why isn’t the world filled with nothing but self replicating molecules?

But it is and we are it. We are a concert of highly organized, self-replicating molecules.

BTW, I'm still waiting for your mathematical proof that evolution takes too long. All you've shown so far is that unrealistic usage of a simplified evolution model takes a long time to generate results.

Please feel free to present your proof when you are ready.

[delphi_ote]

How do you get the first self replicator?
As I mentioned previously (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2120079#post2120079), this is one among many open questions in biology. "Poof" is not an answer.

ETA Here's the relevant bit from before:
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.

[fishbob]

. . . The complex molecules that arise environmentally have no where near the complexity of the molecules that are seen in living things. The limitation on RNA/DNA arising “environmentally” is mathematical. This is the basis of my argument using an evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published computer model of random point mutations and natural selection. . . .

Then your argument was pointless from the start. This is the same flawed argument (and thoroughly debunked) that William Dembski nattered on about for several years.

[kleinman]

The complex molecules that arise environmentally have no where near the complexity of the molecules that are seen in living things. The limitation on RNA/DNA arising “environmentally” is mathematical. This is the basis of my argument using an evolutionist written, peer reviewed and published computer model of random point mutations and natural selection.

So, Kent, were you just blowing smoke or do you have access to a super computer which can give us some more data points which disprove the theory of evolution. Here is the challenge; an evolutionist written and peer review/published computer model of random point mutations and natural selection shows mathematically that the theory of evolution is impossible when realistic parameters are used in the model. I think there would be as much interest in this as a chess computer program that can defeat a grand master, perhaps more since this is such a highly charged political issue. My prior post on this issue explains what is required to obtain the resources you wish to access. If you're asking me whether I can walk from my cube to a lab containing a computer with 1000 GB of RAM and an array of 100+ parallel processors, then the answer is "no."
To bad, but that’s the computer requirements to do this calculation.
If you're asking me whether I have access to management personnel who can allocate resources to conduct your experiment, then the answer is "yes."

But, I'm not going to do anyone's work for them. If you, or someone else wants me to go to bat for them to try to get this experiment done, then I need a pro-forma proposal underwritten by someone with a reputation that can get Marketing to find the experiment sufficiently enticing to allocate resources with a reasonable expectation of some media attention.
You are the one who opened your mouth first about this. Get your own signatures for your own marketing plan. Do you expect me to do your work?
So, if Dr. Schneider, or someone of similar repute, is willing to go on record that a rigorous experiment at the limits of the EV algorithm will advance the understandings of theoretical evolutionary biological research, then my Marketing department probably will take the bait.

Otherwise not.
Dr Schneider is only interested in indoctrinating naïve school children with his superficial analysis of ev, so if you are waiting for some reputable evolutionist to sign on to this study, don’t hold your breath. Someone who doesn’t have an evolutionist agenda and access to the computing resources will do this study and verify what has already been shown with the smaller cases from ev. It doesn’t have to be your company.
Delphi, if life arose by these self replicating molecules, why isn’t the world filled with nothing but self replicating molecules? But it is and we are it. We are a concert of highly organized, self-replicating molecules.

BTW, I'm still waiting for your mathematical proof that evolution takes too long. All you've shown so far is that unrealistic usage of a simplified evolution model takes a long time to generate results.

Please feel free to present your proof when you are ready.
Joobz, you are sloppy in your usage in the term “self-replicating molecules”. There are no self replicating molecules in your body. There is no DNA in your body that self replicates; there are no proteins in your body that self replicates. There are no molecules in your body that self replicate.

Don’t be so harsh about Dr Schneider’s “simplified evolution model”, after all it was peer reviewed and published in Nucleic Acid Research. Dr Schneider went so far to apply his model to the evolution of a human genome. Lest Myriad and other evolutionarians say that I do not include Dr Schneider’s full 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. . However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution.
Joobz are you ever going to run a single case with ev or are you going to make all your judgments with your superficial sound good to me type of analysis.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Now that is an in depth analysis. Imagine two humans who have a child with 100 mutations, 99 good mutations and 1 fatal mutation and it dies. Imagine two other humans have a child with 99 good mutations and 1 fatal mutation, and it dies. (There may certainly be other children with 100 mutations who do not survive.) Now imagine that no children that suffer 100 mutations survive. How many mutations are passed on?
But you cannot imagine your final scenario, because we know that the typical live human has about 100 mutations. Now, you can argue with this particular number; be my guest. I've seen estimates up to 200.

Edited to add: Here's a paper that estimates 128. Note one of the author's names.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1288368


Why Paul, it’s you who is kicking and screaming. Your computer with 1gig of memory will do the 2meg population case but none larger for the 1k genome length. I doubt it will resolve the population issue. I think it will take a super computer with at least 1000gig, perhaps more of memory before this issue will be resolve to your satisfaction.
The issue is resolved to my satisfaction. It appears that you are one who is dissatisfied.


Paul, I have substantiated my claims to the limits of my computer. It’s just a matter of resources, as I’ve repeated to you 20 times.
All righty then.


Paul, your designer that “pokes a genome every now and again to make things wander in a particular direction” is really, really slow, ev shows this.
So you're saying the designer set things up from the beginning? In that case, something preplanned but extraordinary must have happened at some point in the past to make things go quickly. Surely we can find evidence of this event in the genomes of extant organisms? Surely we can come up with hypotheses to explain why there would be a sudden spurt of evolution that would then ease up again?

~~ Paul

[Soapy Sam]

People, life is too short to read 19 pages of this.
As I understand, someone wrote a computer program to model evolution and the results are open to interpretation.

Did I miss anything?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Joobz, you are sloppy in your usage in the term “self-replicating molecules”. There are no self replicating molecules in your body. There is no DNA in your body that self replicates; there are no proteins in your body that self replicates. There are no molecules in your body that self replicate.
The folks working on self-replicating RNA vaccines are going to be unhappy to hear this.

~~ Paul

[kjkent1]

You are the one who opened your mouth first about this. Get your own signatures for your own marketing plan. Do you expect me to do your work?

If this is an example of how you make friends and influence people, you're gonna have a bitter and lonely existence.


Your conlusion is false. This isn't my work -- it's yours. You asked if I was blowing smoke. I've explained exactly what I have and what I can do. If that's not good enough for you, then you're welcome to try some other avenue. But, to be clear, "you" are the person who states that a computer run on a supercomputer will validate "your" hypothesis. I'm just a curious observer.


If you want to use my company's resources, you'll need to provide a compelling rationale, and I'll be happy to try to advance it through the system, because, it will make me look good, and that translates into mo' money for me. I work for pay -- not to win arguments against anonymous posters on an internet BBS.

Dr Schneider is only interested in indoctrinating naïve school children with his superficial analysis of ev, so if you are waiting for some reputable evolutionist to sign on to this study, don’t hold your breath. Someone who doesn’t have an evolutionist agenda and access to the computing resources will do this study and verify what has already been shown with the smaller cases from ev. It doesn’t have to be your company.

Your comments re Dr. Schneider are unreasonably hostile in my view (i.e., they're potentially defamatory, and legally actionable). I doubt that he has some underlying agenda to deceive the world's high school children.


You wanted an opportunity to answer your question sooner rather than later. I may be able to provide that opportunity. If you want me to work the issue, then I expect to be compensated. Simple as that.

[tsig]

Genes are molecules? Go read a book.

OK did that now can you explain that genes are not molecules?

Heck I thought we were all molecules of some sort ot the other.

Anything other than molocues here?

[John Hewitt]

I think there may be a reasonable missunderstanding here. He's using the information on DNA analogy that provides an understanding of DNA. The one that states, gene's are encoded into the DNA's sequence but aren't the DNA. This can be thought of in computer terms. A digital picture of my foot on a harddrive is composed of electrons organized into a pattern, but this digital file wouldn't be considered mere electrons. That's just the medium it is written onto.

Now, I think that this reasoning (while useful for interpretations) is a false analogy. The digital foot photo is a seperate bit of information that was written onto the hardrive and is not of the harddrive. However, genes encoded on DNA/RNA can not be seperated from the molecules by which they are on. This is because genes are not exact a priori sequences that had to be hit initially. They were just the sequences that provided some advantage in what ever system they were in to begin with.

Actually, one person on this thread seems to think that a gene equals a molecule and that is not the only misunderstanding floating around here.

Technically, and the distinction does matter, DNA sequence is data not information. I consider data, not genes to be the fundamental quantity of evolution. In my view, genes format some of the data in DNA. The data in a gene becomes information when it is interpreted into some biochemical activity and, I would argue, it is the biochmical activity that is the information. The code that performs that translation must have arisen at the same time that base sequence became significant. Thus base sequence is not the only data on a genome that is biologically significant. The choice of bases and determinants of the code are also important. At a grosser level, so is the sequence of genes on a genome.

Nobody does experiments with self-replicating nucleic acids. Here I write purely from memory but the first studies to make that kind of claim came from Spiegelman's laboratory. He worked on Qbeta, a phage that produces a RNA directed RNA polymerase. So he took his polymerase, some RNA, I think from the phage, and the necessary chemical substrates then he let it run and in that test tube it evolved. As I recall, it selected smaller molecular weight RNAs but that detail is not important.

What is important is that he provided the necessary enyme and substrates, no nucleic acid can do without such hand-holding and this kind of thing is not workable as a theory for evolution. Crick tried to calculate the probability of such self-contained systems arising by chance and he surrendered, eventually proposing, as a MORE realistic alternative, that life must have come to earth in spaceships.

The other popular nonsense is enzyme hypercycles which, I vaguely recall come from Schuster on the continent. These too are highly unlikely and Orgel, another well known advocate of spaceships, described such thinking as an appeal to magic. I agree with him about the magic but not about the spaceships.

So note clearly, Kleinman is right. There are no self-replicating molecules in the cell. Not RNA, DNA or protein. I know of no sensible reason to believe that any such molecule could ever self-replicate. The smallest known self-replicating entities in biology today are cells and I do not believe that there was ever a replicator comprising one single molecule or even a small number of molecules.

Finally, Paul, I am sure there are some exceptions but nucleic acids are not generally immunogenic and are therefore unlikely to be of value as a vaccines. In the main, it is proteins and complex carbohydrates, such as the sidechains on glycoproteins and glycolipids, that generate immune responses. I therefore think your comments on vaccines must be wide of the mark.

[kleinman]

Now that is an in depth analysis. Imagine two humans who have a child with 100 mutations, 99 good mutations and 1 fatal mutation and it dies. Imagine two other humans have a child with 99 good mutations and 1 fatal mutation, and it dies. (There may certainly be other children with 100 mutations who do not survive.) Now imagine that no children that suffer 100 mutations survive. How many mutations are passed on? But you cannot imagine your final scenario, because we know that the typical live human has about 100 mutations. Now, you can argue with this particular number; be my guest. I've seen estimates up to 200.

Edited to add: Here's a paper that estimates 128. Note one of the author's names.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1288368 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1288368)
I have a little problem with this estimate of 128 mutations per genome per generation. If you take a mutation rate of 10^-7 and a genome length of 3x10^8, you should only get about 30 mutations per generation per genome. They suggest and overall mutation rate of 2.14x10^-8 which would give only about 7 mutations per generation per genome.

The also are seeking a mutation rate that would satisfy evolutionist assumptions when they say the following:
From the sequence-divergence data, the following rates of mutations per base per year can be obtained for the X chromosome (table 3 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1288368&rendertype=table&id=TB3)), if it is assumed that there has been 5 million years of separation between the two species (White et al. 1994 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1288368#RF28#RF28)) and, hence, a combined 10 million years of mutation accumulation during divergence: 5.15×10-9 transitions at CpG sites, 3.92×10-10 transitions at non-CpG sites, 2.36×10-10 transversions, 6.94×10-10 base substitutions, 2.86×10-11 small deletions/insertions, and 7.23×10-10 for small deletions/insertions and base substitutions combined.
Even if you assume their estimate of 128 mutations per genome per generation is correct, some of those mutations will be harmful and that creature will be selected against, some mutations will be helpful and that creature will be selected for and some mutations will be neutral and will not be selected for or against. What does ev show when selection is turned off? There was a very interesting name in this paper, “Green”, and a very unusual name and difficult to spell.
Why Paul, it’s you who is kicking and screaming. Your computer with 1gig of memory will do the 2meg population case but none larger for the 1k genome length. I doubt it will resolve the population issue. I think it will take a super computer with at least 1000gig, perhaps more of memory before this issue will be resolve to your satisfaction. The issue is resolved to my satisfaction. It appears that you are one who is dissatisfied.
I know that Dr Schneider’s superficial analysis satisfied you until you realize he failed to attend to the details. I will only me satisfied when this job on the theory of evolution is finished.
Paul, your designer that “pokes a genome every now and again to make things wander in a particular direction” is really, really slow, ev shows this.So you're saying the designer set things up from the beginning? In that case, something preplanned but extraordinary must have happened at some point in the past to make things go quickly. Surely we can find evidence of this event in the genomes of extant organisms? Surely we can come up with hypotheses to explain why there would be a sudden spurt of evolution that would then ease up again?
Paul, I have not move this goal post either, from the very beginning of out discussions, as Delphi said, “poof” Goddidit. I’m sure evolutionarians can come up with some other story; you just won’t have a mathematical explanation of how it happened.
People, life is too short to read 19 pages of this.
As I understand, someone wrote a computer program to model evolution and the results are open to interpretation.

Did I miss anything?
Yes, you lack an attention span of more than one sound bite.
Joobz, you are sloppy in your usage in the term “self-replicating molecules”. There are no self replicating molecules in your body. There is no DNA in your body that self replicates; there are no proteins in your body that self replicates. There are no molecules in your body that self replicate. The folks working on self-replicating RNA vaccines are going to be unhappy to hear this.
Paul, feel free to join the sloppy use of language club.
You are the one who opened your mouth first about this. Get your own signatures for your own marketing plan. Do you expect me to do your work?If this is an example of how you make friends and influence people, you're gonna have a bitter and lonely existence.
I don’t need friends who look at everything as an opportunity to make money.

[Dr Adequate]

It doesn't so much rn and run as trickle and drip.

[kjkent1]

I don’t need friends who look at everything as an opportunity to make money.

I said, "make friends 'and influence people'..."

I am offering you an opportunity to prove your hypothesis. This requires neither my friendship, nor the friendship of my supercomputer ("Open the pod bay door HAL."). It does require that you influence me (i.e., the supercomputer is not subject to emotional or even pecuniary appeals).

However, you are quickly achieving the exact opposite influence which you purportedly seek to accomplish.

Or, perhaps foreclosing the possibility of testing your theory is the "real" goal?

Food 4 thought.

[delphi_ote]

Actually, one person on this thread seems to think that a gene equals a molecule and that is not the only misunderstanding floating around here.
You're now misrepresenting what I've said. Genes are composed of molecules. I never said a gene was a molecule.
Nobody does experiments with self-replicating nucleic acids.
I'm very disappointed in you now. I already linked to someone (Joyce) who does and has had great success. Either you're not paying attention or you're not being honest.

Dishonesty seems to be a trend here. First you come in pretending not to be a creationist. Now you're misrepresenting facts and your opponents' words. Whatever religion you come from, you're not setting a very good example.

[kleinman]

It doesn't so much rn and run as trickle and drip.
Adequate, I thought we lost you. I need you. I know that when I am having a bad day, at least I can always annoy you. Anyway, don’t you want to find out if ev ever makes it to 1 generation?
I don’t need friends who look at everything as an opportunity to make money. I said, "make friends 'and influence people'..."
If you are looking for a drinking buddy, try Delphi ote, maybe he’ll toss back a couple with you.
I am offering you an opportunity to prove your hypothesis. This requires neither my friendship, nor the friendship of my supercomputer ("Open the pod bay door HAL."). It does require that you influence me (i.e., the supercomputer is not subject to emotional or even pecuniary appeals).
You are quickly tuning into a greedy version of Dilbert trying to make his way out of his cubicle into an office, maybe even with windows. You are trying to use this issue to advance your career. You work for a company that can make the kind of computers that can solve computational intensive problem like this. This issue already has huge amounts of interest but don’t expect any support from evolutionists now that they have a better understanding of what their model predicts. I’m content to drip on Adequate’s parade for now. If you aren’t interested in presenting this to your marketing people, that’s fine with me. I’m patient; there is someone out there who has a computer that can handle this model.
However, you are quickly achieving the exact opposite influence which you purportedly seek to accomplish.
I proudly wear the badge of annoying creationist, annoyer of evolutionarians from one side of the James Randi Science and Mathematics forum to the other. Add to that, annoyer of greedy Dilberts.
Or, perhaps foreclosing the possibility of testing your theory is the "real" goal?
Why don’t you call my bluff Dilbert?
Food 4 thought.
This doesn’t even qualify as a snack.

[sphenisc]

I never said a gene was a molecule.


Genes are molecules.

I think your words are open to that interpretation..

[kjkent1]

Nobody does experiments with self-replicating nucleic acids. Here I write purely from memory but the first studies to make that kind of claim came from Spiegelman's laboratory. He worked on Qbeta, a phage that produces a RNA directed RNA polymerase. So he took his polymerase, some RNA, I think from the phage, and the necessary chemical substrates then he let it run and in that test tube it evolved. As I recall, it selected smaller molecular weight RNAs but that detail is not important.

What is important is that he provided the necessary enyme and substrates, no nucleic acid can do without such hand-holding and this kind of thing is not workable as a theory for evolution. Crick tried to calculate the probability of such self-contained systems arising by chance and he surrendered, eventually proposing, as a MORE realistic alternative, that life must have come to earth in spaceships.

I have gone to the trouble to read your "A Habit of Lies." You're obviously a very knowledgeable scientist, and apparently you believe that you have an important contribution to make to biology which has been unfairly dismissed by your peers.

I'm nowhere near well versed enough in biological science to judge the merits of your work, but I wonder if you could explain to me as a layperson, how any of this is relevant to the question of whether EV is an accurate model of what it purports to be?

As I understand it, Dr. Schneider's model was intended to demonstrate that molecular information gain is theoretically possible without extrinsic intelligent guidance -- something which apparently everyone here agrees the model demonstrates.

The remaining issue is apparently whether or not there has been sufficient time since the beginning of the universe for sufficient information gain to have produced the complexity of life found on Earth.

Now, I'm sure that I still haven't summarized the issue as well as someone with a PH.D in biology could, but if you will be so kind as to ignore any literal gaffs on my part and address the substantive issue, I'm certain that everyone here will find your comments useful.

And, if not everyone, then at least, I will.

[kjkent1]

You are quickly tuning into a greedy version of Dilbert trying to make his way out of his cubicle into an office, maybe even with windows. You are trying to use this issue to advance your career. You work for a company that can make the kind of computers that can solve computational intensive problem like this. This issue already has huge amounts of interest but don’t expect any support from evolutionists now that they have a better understanding of what their model predicts. I’m content to drip on Adequate’s parade for now. If you aren’t interested in presenting this to your marketing people, that’s fine with me. I’m patient; there is someone out there who has a computer that can handle this model.

I proudly wear the badge of annoying creationist, annoyer of revolutionariness from one side of the James Randi Science and Mathematics forum to the other. Add to that, annoyer of greedy Dilberts.

I'm not annoyed by you. So, if a pyrrhic victory is your goal, then you be my guest.

[kleinman]

I'm not annoyed by you. So, if a pyrrhic victory is your goal, then you be my guest.
Evolutionists (including Paul Anagnostopoulos, the programmer for the online version of ev and a moderator on this site) have already been discounting Dr Schneider’s model for months. Any results from ev with realistic genome lengths, mutation rates and populations would be shrugged off by evolutionists. The only victory here is showing that the theory of evolution has no mathematical basis and I believe never will.

[Yahzi]

As I understand, someone wrote a computer program to model evolution and the results are open to interpretation.
The results showed that an adequate supply of information had enough time to evolve.

Klienman changed the parameters of the simulation, and now claims that proves evolution is impossible.

Did I miss anything?
My insanely clever comment comparing him to a voodoo doctor.

Otherwise, no.

:D