Annoying creationists

[I less than three logic]

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.
Don’t be alarmed by that whistle you just heard. It was only kjkent1’s comment soaring well over your head.

[Unnamed]

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.
Computer time costs money. kjkent1's proposal was completely reasonable and your refusal says a lot about yourself. I thought about using some of time allocated to me in my research group's cluster to do it, but I won't offer it anymore. Why should anyone else?

[delphi_ote]

I think your words are open to that interpretation..
If you want to play semantic games, I suppose. In context, my meaning is clear enough (especially in the response (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2145802#post2145802)!)

In the future, I guess I'll have to guard more stringently against intellectually dishonest quote mining. Mea maxima culpa.

[joobz]

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.If you say so. I was admittedly being sarcastic. However, my claim is far less "sloppy" than your claim of "mathematical proof against evolution." I've noticed you haven't provided it yet. We are still waiting.

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.
I have. Why do you think i haven't?

[joobz]

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.
What is the distinction you are trying to make here? Please clarify.






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.
I must interject that this is totally false.
DNA and RNA can adopt recognition domains through folding similar to protein tertiary structures. This is the basis behind aptamer binding and targeting. As such, ANYTHING that can generate a recognizable binding domain can also trigger an immune response. However, it is believed that they may be less immunogenic than proteins but this doesn't mean non-immunogenic.

[joobz]

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 evolutionarians from one side of the James Randi Science and Mathematics forum to the other. Add to that, annoyer of greedy Dilberts.

Why don’t you call my bluff Dilbert?

This doesn’t even qualify as a snack.


this is by far one of the most insane things you've done. Someone is actually willing to offer you a chance to prove your (insanely wrong) hypothesis. However, instead of taking that opportunity to prove yourself, you insult the person and belittle them.

As everyone said here. it either proves you as
1.) Incredibly lazy (as your cut and paste argument style suggests)
2.) Incredibly huge liar (as your perpetual need to missquote and deny facts suggest)
3.) pathologically insane (which all of the above suggest)

[delphi_ote]

I'd just like to point out the absurdity that creationists are now denying facts that have been directly observed in laboratories (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/20/12733). For years, the argument out of that camp has been that evolution can't be tested in a laboratory. "Unless you can show me, how can you prove it happened?" Apparently, even a direct test isn't enough to convince them of something these days. Denial is a strong force, no?

[kleinman]

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. Computer time costs money. kjkent1's proposal was completely reasonable and your refusal says a lot about yourself. I thought about using some of time allocated to me in my research group's cluster to do it, but I won't offer it anymore. Why should anyone else?
kjkent1’s proposal is all about marketing his company’s computer system and using a politically charged issue to do it. So Unnamed, why would you want to run ev? All you will get out of doing this is mathematical evidence that macroevolution by random point mutations and natural selection is mathematically impossible. Do you think Nucleic Acids Research will publish these results?
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. If you say so. I was admittedly being sarcastic. However, my claim is far less "sloppy" than your claim of "mathematical proof against evolution." I've noticed you haven't provided it yet. We are still waiting.
Just think of your waiting for mathematical proof against the theory of evolution as waiting for ev to converge with a realistic mutation rate and realistic genome length.
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. I have. Why do you think i haven't?
If you have run any more than the base line case with ev then you would realize what my “mathematical proof against evolution” is. Why don’t you post the results from your runs to counter my arguments?
I'd just like to point out the absurdity that creationists are now denying facts that have been directly observed in laboratories (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/20/12733). For years, the argument out of that camp has been that evolution can't be tested in a laboratory. "Unless you can show me, how can you prove it happened?" Apparently, even a direct test isn't enough to convince them of something these days. Denial is a strong force, no?
Delphi, what are you doing? Have you become an advocate for intelligent design? Your reference is about scientists who intelligently redesigned an existing ligase. Do you want to explain how the initial ligase evolved?

[delphi_ote]

Do you want to explain how the initial ligase evolved?
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/19_v-ld-at-goalpost.jpg

[kleinman]

Do you want to explain how the initial ligase evolved?
And Delphi responds with the jpg:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/19_v-ld-at-goalpost.jpg
Poor Delphi is complaining that I am moving the goal posts. However, self replicating molecules are subject to the same mathematics that Dr Schneider’s binding site model of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection. Since natural selection is a restatement of the 1st law of thermodynamics, what selection pressure would lead to the formation of a self replicating ligase?

Delphi, perhaps you would give us a reference for a self-replicating molecule in any living thing.

[Beleth]

Do you want to explain how the initial ligase evolved?
Counter-Creationism mantra #1:
"Abiogenesis is not evolution."

[joobz]

Since natural selection is a restatement of the 1st law of thermodynamics, what selection pressure would lead to the formation of a self replicating ligase?
It's so cute when you try and sound smart. Unfortunately, you are wrong.

[kleinman]

Do you want to explain how the initial ligase evolved?Counter-Creationism mantra #1:
"Abiogenesis is not evolution."
I know this; I’ve heard evolutionarians chant this frequently. The only chant that I hear more from evolutionarians is “recombination, recombination”. However, abiogenesis is still subject to both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. I had a very interesting discussion with Dr Schneider on this very topic and he said that natural selection applies to abiogenesis as well as the theory of evolution. Since natural selection is analogous to the 1st law of thermodynamics, I again find myself agreeing with Dr Schneider (we agree on so much). So then, the generation of your initial ligase is subject to the same mathematics that is modeled by Dr Schneider’s ev program.

This does give a point of hope for evolutionists since self-replicating molecules are much shorter than the genomes of any known free living organism, but you introduce new complications in your argument. How did the first of these molecules assemble without a ligase? How were the initial bases formed? How did these molecules evolve to ligases that could assemble something other than a clone of itself? This approach to your argument only reveals more and more gaps in your theory of evolution.

I know this isn’t mathematical data that I am throwing at your half finished mansion (really, it’s a house of cards) but we will have to wait for Professor joobz to apply some mathematics to his cooperative chemistry model of abiogenesis for that.

[delphi_ote]

:words:
The claim was made that self replicating RNA and protein were impossible. That claim has been demonstrated to be quite false. For self replication to be a feasible explaination for the origin of life, there's no need to prove that these reactions happen in modern life. You were pointlessly moving the goalpost.

Self replication itself isn't even a necessity for abiogenesis. It's possible life arose from an autocatalytic set (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalytic_set). As I've said over and over again, these are unanswered questions. We have good candidate solutions, each with its own supporting evidence and difficulties (No. "Poof" isn't among them.) As of today, we don't have a definite answer.

[delphi_ote]

This approach to your argument only reveals more and more gaps in your theory of evolution.
Right! As long as humans are ignorant of some things, your god will always have a hiding place. Just don't call him a god of truth. He's a god of ignorance.

[joobz]

However, abiogenesis is still subject to both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Please, do tell. I love hearing your detailed account of thermo. it's so enlightening. Tell me now, how does thermo prove that evolution takes too long?

[kleinman]

The claim was made that self replicating RNA and protein were impossible. That claim has been demonstrated to be quite false. For self replication to be a feasible explaination for the origin of life, there's no need to prove that these reactions happen in modern life. You were pointlessly moving the goalpost.

Self replication itself isn't even a necessity for abiogenesis. It's possible life arose from an autocatalytic set (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalytic_set). As I've said over and over again, these are unanswered questions. We have good candidate solutions, each with its own supporting evidence and difficulties (No. "Poof" isn't among them.) As of today, we don't have a definite answer.
Delphi, I keep telling you to lay off the sterno. I never claimed that self replicating molecules whether they be constructed from RNA or proteins were impossible. If you look back carefully, you will find that John Hewitt is the one who said something to this effect when he said the following:
There is no evidence that RNA/DNA has any self-replicating ability.
I guess I need to show you where the goal posts are again. Ev shows that when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used in the model, macroevolution is mathematically impossible because of the astronomically large number of generations to evolve only a few loci. Ev contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium because of the requirement of small populations which must evolving rapidly. Preliminary data from ev shows that huge populations do not reduce the number of generations sufficiently to make macroevolution possible. Delphi, please use a designated driver when coming to the ball park.

[Beleth]

I know this; I’ve heard evolutionarians chant this frequently.And yet you still asked a question that shows that you do not understand this. Hmmm.

I had a very interesting discussion with Dr Schneider on this very topic and he said that natural selection applies to abiogenesis as well as the theory of evolution.Evidence that he said that? Evidence to back up his claim?

So then, the generation of your initial ligase is subject to the same mathematics that is modeled by Dr Schneider’s ev program.Same math, perhaps. Different parameters, almost assuredly. One does not enter parameters appropriate for a cruise ship in order to come out with a canoe.

How did the first of these molecules assemble without a ligase? How were the initial bases formed? How did these molecules evolve to ligases that could assemble something other than a clone of itself?I anxiously await the answers to those questions which your theory provides. What was your theory, again?

I know this isn’t mathematical data that I am throwing at your half finished mansion (really, it’s a house of cards)Really, it's not. And that's "unfinished", not "half-finished."

but we will have to wait for Professor joobz to apply some mathematics to his cooperative chemistry model of abiogenesis for that.Wait, I thought you berated him into not doing it for you.

[kleinman]

I had a very interesting discussion with Dr Schneider on this very topic and he said that natural selection applies to abiogenesis as well as the theory of evolution. Evidence that he said that? Evidence to back up his claim?Yes, in our email communications. Paul was involved in these discussions.
So then, the generation of your initial ligase is subject to the same mathematics that is modeled by Dr Schneider’s ev program.Same math, perhaps. Different parameters, almost assuredly. One does not enter parameters appropriate for a cruise ship in order to come out with a canoe.
It is interesting to see how the results of ev are shaping the arguments for the theory of evolution. You may be able to postulate that smaller genome lengths can be used to generate self replicating molecules in ev but that still doesn’t solve the problem of how do you evolve creatures with larger genomes using random point mutations and natural selection? Every fundamental gene and control system would have to evolve on these short genome length self replicating molecule and then somehow self assemble to form more complex organisms.
How did the first of these molecules assemble without a ligase? How were the initial bases formed? How did these molecules evolve to ligases that could assemble something other than a clone of itself? I anxiously await the answers to those questions which your theory provides. What was your theory, again?
Beleth, read the title to this thread.
I know this isn’t mathematical data that I am throwing at your half finished mansion (really, it’s a house of cards) Really, it's not. And that's "unfinished", not "half-finished."
Every builder knows that if you don’t have a good foundation under your building, it will collapse. Ev has removed random point mutations and natural selection from the foundation of the theory of evolution.
but we will have to wait for Professor joobz to apply some mathematics to his cooperative chemistry model of abiogenesis for that.Wait, I thought you berated him into not doing it for you.
I know, I’m the mean old creationist who won’t let those fragile evolutionarians prove their theory. If I would just be nicer to the evolutionarians, they would tell me their secret urls and gifs that fill all the gaps in their theory. Take all the speculation out of the theory of evolution and it is nothing but gap.

[tsig]

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.

You are welcome to belive whatever you want. You have no math. never had and didn't bring it.

[Beleth]

Yes, in our email communications. Paul was involved in these discussions.ETA for you to produce them?

It is interesting to see how the results of ev are shaping the arguments for the theory of evolution.Well of course it is! That's science's modus operandi. New data comes in, and either the data is shown to be lacking (and therefore discarded) or the theory changes course in accordance with the data.

Beleth, read the title to this thread.So, your answer is "goddidit"? A simple yes or no answer to this will suffice.

Every builder knows that if you don’t have a good foundation under your building, it will collapse. Ev has removed random point mutations and natural selection from the foundation of the theory of evolution.Another common misconception among Creationists: that showing one part of the theory of evolution might need tweaking, shows that all the data and hypotheses and predictions and confirmation of predictions just magically evaporates until the only possible answer left is "goddidit".

Not so. Whatever new evidence ev might bring to the table will just push our knowledge base further away from goddidit. It can't help it. Knowledge accumulation never leads back to goddidit. Ev might give evolution a course correction, and we will all be the better for it, but it will simultaneously, unavoidably, move us further away from Creationism.

I know, I’m the mean old creationist who won’t let those fragile evolutionarians prove their theory.On the contrary. You are the doting old Creationist who doesn't realize that scientific theories are tempered -- a word which here means "strengthened by hardship" -- by stuff like this, and that religious hypotheses are necessarily weakened.

Take all the speculation out of the theory of evolution and it is nothing but gap.Actually, it's gap plus evidence. The concept which is reduced to nothing but gap when all the speculation is taken out is summed up by the title of this thread.

[delphi_ote]

Delphi, I keep telling you to lay off the sterno.
The funny just never stops with you, does it?
I never claimed that self replicating molecules whether they be constructed from RNA or proteins were impossible. If you look back carefully, you will find that John Hewitt is the one who said something to this effect when he said the following:
If you look back carefully, you'll see I was initially responding to Hewitt, not you. You jumped in and moved his goalpost.

[John Hewitt]

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.

To clarify, "A Habit of Lies" is not directly about evolutionary theory. The link is part of a signature file and appears automatically when I post to the JREF forum. You should know that my PhD is in molecular biology, not biology proper, and my first degree is in physical chemistry. The evolutionary work that has occupied my time for the past ten years or so is described in "Sex and Philosophy."
That work is entirely evolutionary and arises from "A Habit of Lies" and my reading of Popper but is now only distantly related to it. I assert that evolutionary theory should be based on the concept of data and I refer to the resulting development as bioepistemic evolution. I do think that evolution, as a process, can lead to the accumulation of selected information which, following Plotkin, I would call knowledge, and can encode that accumulating knowledge as data. Note, however, that the code needs to evolve at the same time as the knowledge.

So, the answer to your question is yes; given the right parameters, I think that any properly constructed simulation could do what you ask. I do not know whether EV is better than some other simulation - you would have to take that up with somebody who has more directly relevant expertise.

My problem with evolutionary theory is not with the process, which I think can and has happened, but with the theory. I think that the conceptual construction of evolutionary theory is very poor. I think the same of behaviour in the field, with evolutionists being, if anything, more abusive and dogmatic than their creationist opponents. In "Sex and Philosophy," where I discuss the application of bioepistemic evolution to prebiosis, abiogenesis if you prefer, I use the phrase "a plague on both your houses."
That is basically how I feel about this kind of debate. As far as earthly life is concerned, "Directed Panspermia" – life from spaceships – is nearly the same as intelligent design. I would not use either in a theory of my own but it seems to me that if scientists can talk about spaceships they can also talk about ID.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.
You have to consider how many cell divisions occur before the gametes are ready, and also the fact that the zygote is composed of two gametes.


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.
For sure, the critters that were selected against are not our ancestors.


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.
I have run many experiments that satisfy me. If you care to present the proof that I should be dissatisfied, I'm all ears.


~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

And this, folks, is Dr. Kleinman's method of argumentation. His goal is clear: He wants to be able to say crap like this at Creationist sites to win points with the evolution deniers.

You won't do the work to support your thesis, but you're perfectly happy to predict the outcome.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

However, self replicating molecules are subject to the same mathematics that Dr Schneider’s binding site model of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection.
Oh, please. What a load of ********.

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

Paul posted the following URL which presents a paper that discusses the mutation rate for the human genome.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1288368 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1288368)
I said the following about this paper:
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.
I believe my calculations are correct for a genome of length 3x10^8 however, a human genome is about 3x10^9 base pairs in length. So using their overall mutation rate of 2.14*10^-8 for a genome length of 3x10^9 would yield an average of about 70 mutations per genome per generation. This is still far short of the 128 mutations per genome per generation for the authors’ final estimate. Something is wrong with their bookkeeping.
Yes, in our email communications. Paul was involved in these discussions.ETA for you to produce them?
What does ETA mean? I will if it is ok with Dr Schneider, but it is obvious you must have some type of selection process to accelerate the random formation of molecules for abiogenesis. If you don’t have a selection process and consider this as a simple probability problem, you will be wiped out by the mathematics. Consider the case of a self replicating protein that is 32 amino acids long. The chance of forming such a protein by purely random processes is 1 in 40^32.
I never claimed that self replicating molecules whether they be constructed from RNA or proteins were impossible. If you look back carefully, you will find that John Hewitt is the one who said something to this effect when he said the following: If you look back carefully, you'll see I was initially responding to Hewitt, not you. You jumped in and moved his goalpost.
Let’s repost the quote:
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, you still haven’t answered how the first self-replicator could have formed. You also haven’t explained how the self-replicator evolved into a replicator of other molecules.

You continue to accuse me of moving the goal posts when you don’t even see the goal posts.

[Soapy Sam]

I know, I’m the mean old creationist who won’t let those fragile evolutionarians prove their theory. If I would just be nicer to the evolutionarians, they would tell me their secret urls and gifs that fill all the gaps in their theory. Take all the speculation out of the theory of evolution and it is nothing but gap.

Just to clarify- are you saying the mathematical model of evolution is wrong, or the "theory" of evolution is wrong?
Because if it's the former, I suspect you may well have a point.
If it's the latter, I would be intrigued to know what (if any) alternative you propose.

I do apologise if you have already clarified this. I find much of the discussion quite incomprehensible.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I believe my calculations are correct for a genome of length 3x10^8 however, a human genome is about 3x10^9 base pairs in length. So using their overall mutation rate of 2.14*10^-8 for a genome length of 3x10^9 would yield an average of about 70 mutations per genome per generation. This is still far short of the 128 mutations per genome per generation for the authors’ final estimate. Something is wrong with their bookkeeping.
I think you want to double that to account for diploidy.

~~ Paul

[joobz]

all of the arguments Kleinman has made have ALREADY been discounted for multiple reasons.

But since he feels the need to re-hash the same old lies, I'll link to all of the posts that explain why this is just 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=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.


This post is from page 15, we are now on page 20. And I'm STILL waiting for a new hypothesis from you as to why evolution is wrong.

[Myriad]

Edit: Cross-posted with Paul; never mind.

- Myriad

[joobz]

My insanely clever comment comparing him to a voodoo doctor.

Otherwise, no.

:D

I also liked your "throwing rocks" comment
oh, and the evolution of kleinman's macro posts was also nicely done.:D

[Mr. Scott]

Poor Delphi is complaining that I am moving the goal posts.

I don't think he's complaining. He's observing and sharing his observation with other readers of this thread. We just love to watch those goalposts move! Do it again, kleinman! If we did find a self-replicating molecule in a cell, what would you do? Move them again? Throw away your bible? I like easy questions.

You poor complaining bible thumpers have been moving your goalposts since Copernicus, and there is every reason to expect you to continue indefinately as long as science discovers truth. Why? Because you just don't want to give up the fairy tales of your childhood.

[I less than three logic]

all of the arguments Kleinman has made have ALREADY been discounted for multiple reasons.

But since he feels the need to re-hash the same old lies, I'll link to all of the posts that explain why this is just wrong.




This post is from page 15, we are now on page 20. And I'm STILL waiting for a new hypothesis from you as to why evolution is wrong.
All evidence in this thread indicates you’ll be waiting for quite some time. It seems the last 16 or so pages have taken the same shape.

Kleinman makes claim A.
Random poster (X) says claim A is wrong for reasons Y and Z.
Kleinman responds to X with B and C.
X show B and C are irrelevant to X's claim and that Y and Z have been left unaddressed.
Kleinman makes witless insult of X, pats self on the back, and makes claim A.
Repeat ad nauseam.

[Dr Adequate]

I keep dropping by to see if he's done anything new.

I like this, this is funny:

Natural selection is a restatement of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

[joobz]

I keep dropping by to see if he's done anything new.

I like this, this is funny:
My favorite so far has been.
(paraphrased)

Kleinman:If I had more powerful computer, i could prove that ev and thereby evolution is wrong.

kjkent1:I'd be happy to provide you the resources if you could write up a request.

Kleinman:um, a, um....No..I, uh...don't......computer..uh... You're greedy.. yeah that's it.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You may be able to postulate that smaller genome lengths can be used to generate self replicating molecules in ev but that still doesn’t solve the problem of how do you evolve creatures with larger genomes using random point mutations and natural selection?
The small self-replicating molecules direct the random point mutations in the larger genomes.

~~ Paul

[Beleth]

What does ETA mean?
Estimated Time of Arrival.

I take it that you have no disagreement with the rest of my previous post?

[kleinman]

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. You have to consider how many cell divisions occur before the gametes are ready, and also the fact that the zygote is composed of two gametes.
Again, note that the human genome is about 3x10^9 base pairs in length and accordingly, there should be an average of 70 mutations per DNA replication. So if you have two meiotic replications you would get 140 mutations, none of which can be fatal to the cell. How do you think natural selection would affect all these mutations?
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.For sure, the critters that were selected against are not our ancestors.
So only critters with 128 nonfatal mutations make it through?
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. I have run many experiments that satisfy me. If you care to present the proof that I should be dissatisfied, I'm all ears.
How many cases did you run before we started this discussion? It is already clear that from ev that you cannot evolve any fundamental gene or control system on a megabase or gigabase genome by random point mutations and natural selection. We are both satisfied with that result. When the computing power becomes available, we can find out what happens with populations greater than 10^6. Clearly, you are going to have trouble reconciling the results from ev and the number of base substitutions the separate humans and chimpanzees. Perhaps you can clarify something. If I understand it correctly, the number of base substitutions differences between the human genome and the chimpanzee genome is on the portions of the genomes that are homologous. There are apparently large portions of the genome where the base differences may be 10% or more, is that true?
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.And this, folks, is Dr. Kleinman's method of argumentation. His goal is clear: He wants to be able to say crap like this at Creationist sites to win points with the evolution deniers.

You won't do the work to support your thesis, but you're perfectly happy to predict the outcome.
Paul, both you and Dr Schneider have been saying for years that ev models reality. Look at your posts on this forum before we started doing parametric studies on ev. So don’t whine when someone shows you that your gross overstatements have no mathematical or scientific basis.
However, self replicating molecules are subject to the same mathematics that Dr Schneider’s binding site model of evolution by random point mutations and natural selection. Oh, please. What a load of ********.
Which part are you having trouble with, the random point mutations part or the natural selection part?
I know, I’m the mean old creationist who won’t let those fragile evolutionarians prove their theory. If I would just be nicer to the evolutionarians, they would tell me their secret urls and gifs that fill all the gaps in their theory. Take all the speculation out of the theory of evolution and it is nothing but gap. Just to clarify- are you saying the mathematical model of evolution is wrong, or the "theory" of evolution is wrong?
Because if it's the former, I suspect you may well have a point.
If it's the latter, I would be intrigued to know what (if any) alternative you propose.

I do apologise if you have already clarified this. I find much of the discussion quite incomprehensible.
Fair enough Sam. I again will state my position. Dr Schneider has written a computer simulation of random point mutations and natural selection. He has used information theory in order to derive this model. I believe that Dr Schneider’s mathematical model is a plausible simulation of this phenomenon. However, Dr Schneider used totally unrealistic input parameters in his single published case which gave a totally unrealistic rate of information gain by random point mutation and natural selection. Dr Schneider used this rate of information gain to estimate the amount of time it would take to evolve a human genome. When you use realistic parameters in his model, the rate of information gain by random point mutation and natural selection becomes so profoundly slow that not only do you lack the time to evolve a human genome, this model calls into question whether any fundamental gene or gene control system can evolve on a realistic length genome.

Sam, this is not a trivial debate. It requires knowledge of genetics, molecular biology, information theory (thermodynamics), probability theory and computer simulations. In addition, this debate is carried on in a highly charged political environment. But people on this forum are so friendly, it is a joy to carry on a discussion like this on this forum.
You may be able to postulate that smaller genome lengths can be used to generate self replicating molecules in ev but that still doesn’t solve the problem of how do you evolve creatures with larger genomes using random point mutations and natural selection? The small self-replicating molecules direct the random point mutations in the larger genomes.
Paul, do you want to expand on this hypothesis?
What does ETA mean? Estimated Time of Arrival.

I take it that you have no disagreement with the rest of my previous post?
I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the rest of your post, it is just too far off from topic from the ev computer simulation.

[Beleth]

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the rest of your post, it is just too far off from topic from the ev computer simulation.
On the contrary. It strikes at the heart of your conclusion about ev.

[Yahzi]

I also liked your "throwing rocks" comment

That's Beleth's, actually.

I just stole it.

;)

[Yahzi]

My problem with evolutionary theory is not with the process, which I think can and has happened, but with the theory. I think that the conceptual construction of evolutionary theory is very poor...

As far as earthly life is concerned, "Directed Panspermia" – life from spaceships – is nearly the same as intelligent design. I would not use either in a theory of my own but it seems to me that if scientists can talk about spaceships they can also talk about ID.
You complain about conceptual construction, but you don't understand the difference between aliens and gods?

[cyborg]

I keep dropping by to see if he's done anything new.

I like this, this is funny:

Yeah, that's definitely a WTF moment for me.

I'd just love to hear how it is so.

[kjkent1]

So, the answer to your question is yes; given the right parameters, I think that any properly constructed simulation could do what you ask. I do not know whether EV is better than some other simulation - you would have to take that up with somebody who has more directly relevant expertise.

My problem with evolutionary theory is not with the process, which I think can and has happened, but with the theory. I think that the conceptual construction of evolutionary theory is very poor. I think the same of behaviour in the field, with evolutionists being, if anything, more abusive and dogmatic than their creationist opponents. In "Sex and Philosophy," where I discuss the application of bioepistemic evolution to prebiosis, abiogenesis if you prefer, I use the phrase "a plague on both your houses."
That is basically how I feel about this kind of debate. As far as earthly life is concerned, "Directed Panspermia" – life from spaceships – is nearly the same as intelligent design. I would not use either in a theory of my own but it seems to me that if scientists can talk about spaceships they can also talk about ID.

Thanks, John. Your response is refreshingly informative -- and free of sarcasm and/or ad hominem.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, do you want to expand on this hypothesis? [that small self-replicating molecules direct the random point mutations in the larger genomes]
Don't tell me you haven't heard of designosomes?

~~ Paul

[kjkent1]

it is obvious you must have some type of selection process to accelerate the random formation of molecules for abiogenesis. If you don’t have a selection process and consider this as a simple probability problem, you will be wiped out by the mathematics. Consider the case of a self replicating protein that is 32 amino acids long. The chance of forming such a protein by purely random processes is 1 in 40^32.

OK, so we all know you think evolution is impossible by any reasonable probablistic measurement.

And, yet, life exists in overwhelming numbers and diversity. Sort of like the fact that people routinely play Powerball(r) knowing that the probability of any individual winning is a practical nullity. Nevertheless, someone eventually wins and it happens quite a few times every year.

I presume that your alternative theory is that all life on Earth is the product of instantaneous materialization by application of the divine will of an almighty and limitless creator?

This is not sarcasm on my part. I'm trying to understand why you think the above theory is more scientific than the one you seek to discredit.

Or, is it just your faith which leads you to the alternative conclusion?

[hammegk]

OK, so we all know you think evolution is impossible by any reasonable probablistic measurement.


I presume that your alternative theory is that all life on Earth is the product of instantaneous materialization by application of the divine will of an almighty and limitless creator?


Perhaps 'directed' or 'with intent' rather than 'random', timescales undefined, would be a better way to put it.

Instantaneous in geologic time does seem to be demonstrated more often than not.

[kleinman]

it is obvious you must have some type of selection process to accelerate the random formation of molecules for abiogenesis. If you don’t have a selection process and consider this as a simple probability problem, you will be wiped out by the mathematics. Consider the case of a self replicating protein that is 32 amino acids long. The chance of forming such a protein by purely random processes is 1 in 40^32. OK, so we all know you think evolution is impossible by any reasonable probablistic measurement.
Dr Schneider’s ev model of random point mutations with natural selection shows that natural selection is insufficient to overcome these probabilistic constraints as well. The mathematics that this model demonstrates is that this process only works quickly on unrealistically short genomes with unrealistically high mutation rates. This finding has shaped the arguments for evolution on this forum. Paul now talks about designosomes. The only part of my argument against the theory of evolution based on the results from ev is whether huge populations will accelerate evolution sufficiently to support the evolutionary theory. The preliminary data with populations up to 10^6 don’t look good for believers in the evolutionary theory.
And, yet, life exists in overwhelming numbers and diversity. Sort of like the fact that people routinely play Powerball(r) knowing that the probability of any individual winning is a practical nullity. Nevertheless, someone eventually wins and it happens quite a few times every year.
1 in 10^8 odds are great odds compared to 1 in 40^32. The point of this discussion is that Dr Schneider mathematically modeled what happens to the simple probability problem when you introduce natural selection and it is insufficient to overcome the horrendous probabilities the theory of evolution must overcome in order to be a mathematical science.
I presume that your alternative theory is that all life on Earth is the product of instantaneous materialization by application of the divine will of an almighty and limitless creator?

This is not sarcasm on my part. I'm trying to understand why you think the above theory is more scientific than the one you seek to discredit.

Or, is it just your faith which leads you to the alternative conclusion?
I am not here to offer an alternative theory. I am here to show what happens with Dr Schneider’s ev model when realistic parameters are used in the model. What it shows is that macroevolution is mathematically impossible by random point mutations and natural selection when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used, it contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium and that huge populations do not accelerate evolution sufficiently to invalidate either of the first two assertions. My last assertion has not been conclusively shown for populations over 10^6 so there is still a small amount of wiggle room for evolutionists until larger population cases are run.

Paul and Myriad are the only two evolutionists who have run cases and posted their results from ev. They may not agree with my assertions about what ev shows but both understand the mathematical difficulties this model presents for the theory of evolution. Why don’t you contact Dr Schneider, toms@ncifcrf.gov (toms@ncifcrf.gov) , and see whether he would be interested in running his model on your super computer. If he is, I’ll write up a proposal for your marketing people.

[kjkent1]

1 in 10^8 odds are great odds compared to 1 in 40^32. The point of this discussion is that Dr Schneider mathematically modeled what happens to the simple probability problem when you introduce natural selection and it is insufficient to overcome the horrendous probabilities the theory of evolution must overcome in order to be a mathematical science.

I don't have a sufficient understanding of the operation of DNA to be able to challenge your 40^32 raw probability. Maybe one of the other mathematicians here would be so kind as to discuss whether or not this is a reasonable conclusion. It sort of reminds of the tornado through the junkyard argument.

But, on a more basic level, and I realize that you find the difference in probablilities incomparable, once the outcome of an independent trial occurs, while it's probability of occuring again my be null, its probability of having already occured is 100%, right?

What I'm getting at here, is that the universe is a really, really big place. It may be for all practical purposes, limitless in scope -- or at least beyond any reasonable measurement. So given a set of nearly limitless possibilities, are not all outcomes equally likely? And, if so, doesn't this somewhat render your probability analysis moot?

Schneider's EV model shows that biological information gain is mathematically possible in this universe without divine intervention. And, life exists. So, regardless of its improbablness, we are here, and there are really only two alternatives:

1. Life is a process of matter which occurs under suitable conditions and evolves while those conditions persist, or;

2. Life is the product of an almighty creator.

Note: interjecting an extra-terrestrial alien intelligence merely forestalls the inevitable question of how the alien came to exist, and which leads back to questions #1 and #2, above.

So, while I understand that your intent is to show that EV is wrong, rather than advocating an alternative thoery, you can only do that by showing that EV does not produce undesigned information gain. Otherwise, your proof is refuted by life's actual existence -- in the absence of an alternative affirmative theory -- which you are refusing to advance.

Why don’t you contact Dr Schneider (email omitted) and see whether he would be interested in running his model on your super computer. If he is, I’ll write up a proposal for your marketing people.

Well, for one , I've already read Mark Twain. ;-)

I could certainly contact Dr. Schneider (and I just may do this), but this begs the question: why haven't you already done this? The only way that this gets interesting enough for media attention is if two well-respected intellectual foes can agree on the conditions of the experiment. This is a battle of creation vs. evolution -- nothing less, and that's how I'd want to advertise it to the press.

I don't actually know if you're a well-respected intellectual foe or not. You seem to be pretty good at advancing your position, and you and Dr. Schneider have already communicated -- apparently with some regularity.

So, what's your reluctance to contact Schneider?

[kjkent1]

Perhaps 'directed' or 'with intent' rather than 'random', timescales undefined, would be a better way to put it.

Instantaneous in geologic time does seem to be demonstrated more often than not.

Point taken.

[Soapy Sam]

Fair enough Sam. I again will state my position. Dr Schneider has written a computer simulation of random point mutations and natural selection. He has used information theory in order to derive this model. I believe that Dr Schneider’s mathematical model is a plausible simulation of this phenomenon. However, Dr Schneider used totally unrealistic input parameters in his single published case which gave a totally unrealistic rate of information gain by random point mutation and natural selection. Dr Schneider used this rate of information gain to estimate the amount of time it would take to evolve a human genome. When you use realistic parameters in his model, the rate of information gain by random point mutation and natural selection becomes so profoundly slow that not only do you lack the time to evolve a human genome, this model calls into question whether any fundamental gene or gene control system can evolve on a realistic length genome.

Sam, this is not a trivial debate. It requires knowledge of genetics, molecular biology, information theory (thermodynamics), probability theory and computer simulations. In addition, this debate is carried on in a highly charged political environment. But people on this forum are so friendly, it is a joy to carry on a discussion like this on this forum.


Thank you for that synopsis. The situation seems clear.

Life, showing evidence of common origins and long evolution, through an extensive fossil record, abounds.
A computer model of how life might have evolved, suggests this is either possible in the time available, or not possible, depending on input assumptions.

I agree the discussion is non trivial, but the conclusion seems simple enough.
If a model of reality is inadequate to explain reality, we need to fix the model, not reality.

If the second set of inputs are indeed more reasonable, then the program may be missing one or more accelerating effects, probably due to forced evolution due to competition, or major changes of evolutionary style , such as occurs with the replacement of the Ediacarans, or at the so-called Eocambrian "explosion".

It seems unrealistic to expect any model which simply tallies accumulations of point mutations in a single genome or phenotype, tested by a filter algorithm ,to model evolution as a whole.
It may model one, or several of many contributing processes.

Each change to every genome in existence affects the evolution of every other genome in existence, to a lesser or greater extent. In closely competing genomes the effect of a single improvement on genome A may far outweigh the effects of many accumulated mutations on genome B, because phenotypes A and B are either competing, or cooperating. What happens to creature A increases or decreases pressure on creature B., whether or not they share species (a meaningless distinction in early times anyway.) By the time we are looking at a tangled bank, the combinatorial feedback , I expect, will be beyond the power of any computer in existence today. We are into protein folding complexity levels.
.
No organism evolves in isolation and at present no computer can meaningfully simulate the interactions of whole ecosystems. We can't yet build a computer capable of solving a simple combinatorial travelling salesman problem.
We clearly cannot model the evolution of a planetary ecosystem- and any attempt to "evolve" a single genome in isolation is meaningless. Things don't evolve in isolation.

The mysteries of evolution and abiogenesis will be solved in the field, not in a computer.

[hammegk]

...the program may be missing one or more accelerating effects, probably due to forced evolution due to competition,

Is this effect now common consensus even among micro-biologists? That is, environmental pressure does increase mutation rates?


or major changes of evolutionary style , such as occurs with the replacement of the Ediacarans, or at the so-called Eocambrian "explosion".
Could you be a bit more specific? Or is 'evolutionary style' what your next comments are meant to address?

It seems unrealistic to expect any model which simply tallies accumulations of point mutations in a single genome or phenotype, tested by a filter algorithm ,to model evolution as a whole.
It may model one, or several of many contributing processes.
Seems reasonable.


Each change to every genome in existence affects the evolution of every other genome in existence, to a lesser or greater extent. In closely competing genomes the effect of a single improvement on genome A may far outweigh the effects of many accumulated mutations on genome B, because phenotypes A and B are either competing, or cooperating. What happens to creature A increases or decreases pressure on creature B., whether or not they share species (a meaningless distinction in early times anyway.) By the time we are looking at a tangled bank, the combinatorial feedback , I expect, will be beyond the power of any computer in existence today. We are into protein folding complexity levels.
And now you've moved to arm-waving with a just so story. Sorry.


Things don't evolve in isolation.
Except the times isolation has been nominated as playing a good part.


The mysteries of evolution and abiogenesis will be solved in the field,
Or not ... ;)

not in a computer.
Agreement again. :)

[joobz]

And now you've moved to arm-waving with a just so story. Sorry.


I don't completely understand this type of criticism. I respect the point of grounding everyone with the fact that we are unlikely to know exactly the way life started. But you are equating a mechanistic hypothesis whose individual parts should be testable to theories that have absolutely no grounding in reality. While most likely wrong, it is less sort of wrong than the "poof" hypothesis.

[joobz]

That's Beleth's, actually.

I just stole it.

;)
Oh,thanks for the correction.
Sorry about that Beleth!
I liked your "Throwing Rocks" analogy.

[hammegk]

I don't completely understand this type of criticism. I respect the point of grounding everyone with the fact that we are unlikely to know exactly the way life started. But you are equating a mechanistic hypothesis whose individual parts should be testable to theories that have absolutely no grounding in reality.
You see testability where I see nothing but more arm-waving, ever.


While most likely wrong, it is less sort of wrong than the "poof" hypothesis.
It's back to 'intent' rather than pure randomness. Do you think chem's periodic table is a result of randomness?

[joobz]

You see testability where I see nothing but more arm-waving, ever.
why the "ever"? do you believe that we can never have a working model of evolution? of abiogenesis?


It's back to 'intent' rather than pure randomness. Do you think chem's periodic table is a result of randomness?
Why is it intent vs. randomness? Randomness can be a driving mechanism but have non random results (you've heard this before). Diffusion for instance. But would you claim diffusion is an intential event?

[articulett]

We could manufacture a spore life form through nanotechnology and let it evolve before Hammy's eyes and he would be incapable of seeing it. All the scientists in the world could agree (as they do on evolution) that we've pretty much narrowed down the specifics of the primordial ooze and life, but he'd still call it arm waving and say "nyah, nyah, you'll never know--me and my intelligent designer are keeping it a mystery"...

But you have to admire his tenacity and inability to allow the tiniest shred of evidence to mar his faith that" we don't know what we actually do know--and that he knows all about that which he hasn't a clue.

What was Steve Weinberg saying about that crazy old aunt...

[cyborg]

Do you think chem's periodic table is a result of randomness?

No. It's a result of human design. Chemicals couldn't give a frell about the periodic chemical.

[John Hewitt]

You complain about conceptual construction, but you don't understand the difference between aliens and gods?

No, you are confusing me with those Star Trek episodes in which aliens behave as Gods.
I simply said that Gods and aliens might both be capable of inputting intelligent design into "daughter" organisms. So, if you believe directed panspermia is a reasonable theory for the origin of life on earth, you should have no problem with the idea of looking for evidence of intelligent design in earthly organisms.

[John Hewitt]

it is obvious you must have some type of selection process to accelerate the random formation of molecules for abiogenesis. If you don’t have a selection process and consider this as a simple probability problem, you will be wiped out by the mathematics. Consider the case of a self replicating protein that is 32 amino acids long. The chance of forming such a protein by purely random processes is 1 in 40^32./OK, so we all know you think evolution is impossible by any reasonable probablistic measurement.

And, yet, life exists in overwhelming numbers and diversity. Sort of like the fact that people routinely play Powerball(r) knowing that the probability of any individual winning is a practical nullity. Nevertheless, someone eventually wins and it happens quite a few times every year.

I presume that your alternative theory is that all life on Earth is the product of instantaneous materialization by application of the divine will of an almighty and limitless creator?

This is not sarcasm on my part. I'm trying to understand why you think the above theory is more scientific than the one you seek to discredit.

Or, is it just your faith which leads you to the alternative conclusion?
I would think Kleinman's estimate for the probability of gene like objects emerging by chance is, if anything, a great overestimate. For example, it rather generously assumes that there are only 20 amino acids in the prebiotic soup - you could easily defend even smaller values which would argue that life as we know it would not happen by chance anywhere in the universe, ever.
And even if this lottery came up - would this chance organism be adapted to its environment?

I think you can do much better if you base evolution on data, instead of genes. Then you can get a chemical selective process and have a chance of evolving genes.

[hammegk]

why the "ever"? do you believe that we can never have a working model of evolution? of abiogenesis?
At the 'why' level, never. At the 'how' level we may come close.

Evolution is already a 'working model'; we just don't know how or why.

And you are one of the few evolutionarians I've run across here who are willing to note that bio-evolution is actually a subset of abiogenesis.


Why is it intent vs. randomness? Randomness can be a driving mechanism but have non random results (you've heard this before). Diffusion for instance. But would you claim diffusion is an intential event?
Diffusion is an obviously random event.

BTW, you forgot to provide your thinking on the randomness of the chemical elements.


We could manufacture a spore life form through nanotechnology and let it evolve before Hammy's eyes and he would be incapable of seeing it.
Yeah,I seldom find cases of monkey see, monkey do impressive, which is what that feat would be.


All the scientists in the world could agree (as they do on evolution) that we've pretty much narrowed down the specifics of the primordial ooze and life, but he'd still call it arm waving and say "nyah, nyah, you'll never know--me and my intelligent designer are keeping it a mystery"...
Yeah, all agree "we've pretty much narrowed down the specifics"; i.e the arm-waving sounds impressive to those who believe rote learning and regurgitation represents thought and understanding.


But you have to admire his tenacity and inability to allow the tiniest shred of evidence to mar his faith that" we don't know what we actually do know--and that he knows all about that which he hasn't a clue.

What was Steve Weinberg saying about that crazy old aunt...
Aww, I don't think you are that old, articulett.

[kjkent1]

I think you can do much better if you base evolution on data, instead of genes. Then you can get a chemical selective process and have a chance of evolving genes.

So, as a practical matter how would you change EV to accomodate your theoretical model?

Maybe you should consider discussing your theory with Dr. Schneider. He's probably one of the few people who would be likely to understand the hypothesis.

[joobz]

At the 'why' level, never. At the 'how' level we may come close.
Well, why implies there is some meaning when that doesn't need to be true at all. I hope there is, but...

Evolution is already a 'working model'; we just don't know how or why.

And you are one of the few evolutionarians I've run across here who are willing to note that bio-evolution is actually a subset of abiogenesis.
I guess it's my own simple version of events. But I don't see them as being unrelated. It's like believeing in newtonian mechanics but not quantum. We don't know how abiogenesis occured, but it isn't a huge leap to assume that some form of evolutionary selection was involved in abiogenesis. While I never thought of it in those terms, I can see how one could call bio-evolution a subset of abiogenesis. But being a subset doesn't make it any less real. It just means we've learned one very important, mechanistic part of the story.


Diffusion is an obviously random event.

BTW, you forgot to provide your thinking on the randomness of the chemical elements.
Ok, now that I understand how you are terming random, then yes the periodic table is a logically imposed order onto the random association of nuclear groupings. The only part that makes this random less random than diffusion is the discrete form of groups (mass changes between elements are integers due to the discrete addition of proton/neutrons)


Yeah, all agree "we've pretty much narrowed down the specifics"; i.e the arm-waving sounds impressive to those who believe rote learning and regurgitation represents thought and understanding.
Again, I do not understand this critique of armwaving...
All hypotheses start as a wave of an arm. It's what is done to study it that is important. If you are critiquing evolutionary researchers for speculating without at least developing some experiments to test these theories, than you are right to do so. However, if you are critiquing a general audience for not conducting their own field experiments, that's a bit excessive. Most do not have the time/resources/qualifications to test these theories, but that doesn't mean they should be prevented from the discussions.

I know that most here would change their views as new data was to be presented. Does that still make it an armwaving argument? What is the alternative? To not speculate at all?

[kleinman]

Why don’t you contact Dr Schneider (email omitted) and see whether he would be interested in running his model on your super computer. If he is, I’ll write up a proposal for your marketing people. Well, for one , I've already read Mark Twain. ;-)

I could certainly contact Dr. Schneider (and I just may do this), but this begs the question: why haven't you already done this? The only way that this gets interesting enough for media attention is if two well-respected intellectual foes can agree on the conditions of the experiment. This is a battle of creation vs. evolution -- nothing less, and that's how I'd want to advertise it to the press.

I don't actually know if you're a well-respected intellectual foe or not. You seem to be pretty good at advancing your position, and you and Dr. Schneider have already communicated -- apparently with some regularity.

So, what's your reluctance to contact Schneider?
You need to do your homework. You can start by reading this thread carefully. If you had you would have seen this post.
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.
I contacted Dr Schneider by email and he refused my acceptance of his challenge.

Once you finish reading this thread, go to the Evolutionisdead website, and read the following two threads on the Information Theory forum:
Dr Tom Schneider, ev program (http://www.evolutionisdead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=348&sid=32bb6ccf2ca81c5f693b93f5b6a7ce18)and Molecular information theory and the Ev program (http://www.evolutionisdead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35&sid=32bb6ccf2ca81c5f693b93f5b6a7ce18) threads.

Life, showing evidence of common origins and long evolution, through an extensive fossil record, abounds.
A computer model of how life might have evolved, suggests this is either possible in the time available, or not possible, depending on input assumptions.

I agree the discussion is non trivial, but the conclusion seems simple enough.
If a model of reality is inadequate to explain reality, we need to fix the model, not reality.
I don’t question the reality of the evidence; I question the evolutionist interpretation of the evidence.

Don’t you think Paul or Dr Schneider would correct the model if they could?
it is obvious you must have some type of selection process to accelerate the random formation of molecules for abiogenesis. If you don’t have a selection process and consider this as a simple probability problem, you will be wiped out by the mathematics. Consider the case of a self replicating protein that is 32 amino acids long. The chance of forming such a protein by purely random processes is 1 in 40^32.I would think Kleinman's estimate for the probability of gene like objects emerging by chance is, if anything, a great overestimate. For example, it rather generously assumes that there are only 20 amino acids in the prebiotic soup - you could easily defend even smaller values which would argue that life as we know it would not happen by chance anywhere in the universe, ever.
And even if this lottery came up - would this chance organism be adapted to its environment?

I think you can do much better if you base evolution on data, instead of genes. Then you can get a chemical selective process and have a chance of evolving genes.
John, if anything my estimate is a great underestimate. There are more than 20 amino acids. There are L and R stereoisomers of the 20 amino acids found in living things. Since the vast majority of amino acids in living things are composed of L amino acids that gives you 40 amino acids that can randomly combine only half of which are found in living things. If you add all the possible non-biologic amino acids to this prebiotic soup and all the other molecules that would be combining in this chemical soup, your probabilities would be much smaller for forming a functional gene purely by random chemical reactions. Without some type of selection process in this prebiotic soup, you are working against impossible odds. Even with a selection process, Dr Schneider’s model shows how profoundly slow this process is. You have the same mathematical problem if you propose the RNA world.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Do you think chem's periodic table is a result of randomness?
What? Are you suggesting that any patterns we find in nature, and then make laws to describe, must have a mysterious design behind them?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If you add all the possible non-biologic amino acids to this prebiotic soup and all the other molecules that would be combining in this chemical soup, your probabilities would be much smaller for forming a functional gene purely by random chemical reactions. Without some type of selection process in this prebiotic soup, you are working against impossible odds.
We agree! Alert the media!


Even with a selection process, Dr Schneider’s model shows how profoundly slow this process is.
Of course, you have absolutely no idea whether this is true, even if it were true about the process that Ev does model.

~~ Paul

[kjkent1]

You need to do your homework. You can start by reading this thread carefully. If you had you would have seen this post.
I contacted Dr Schneider by email and he refused my acceptance of his challenge.

Once you finish reading this thread, go to the Evolutionists website, and read the following two threads on the Information Theory forum: (links omitted) threads.

OK, Professor Kleinman, I've done my homework now (and, I've pasted a gold star in the "Wednesday" calendar box displayed on the refrigerator, too). ;-)

I'm in no position to argue the science of your contentions. I wish that weren't the case, but my math/science education stopped with first year calculus and that was 20 years ago.

However, I am a pretty good judge of what it takes to get someone to a bargaining table in the mood to negotiate. And my observation is that your communication skills show a distinct lack of diplomacy.

A person who "wants" a fight, almost always gets his/her wish. If you really wanted to get Dr. Schneider's attention, you will stop "throwing down" the "gauntlet," because that's pretty much like telling your opponent that you find him a complete moron and that you are available at his convenience to beat him into submission.

And, my comment here is irrespective of the fact that Dr. Schneider may have used a similar phrase to describe his own challenge. Just because your opponent "may" have a chip on his shoulder, doesn't mean that you should immediately strike out to knock it off.

That's how arms get broken and wars start. However, in the end most of the combatants are dead or seriously injured, rather than better educated (although admittedly the scientists are usually safe in some bunker building more sophisticated weapons to continue the unending cycle).

Now, since I personally have no dog in this fight, other than a distinct amateur interest in the evolution v. design debate, when you write to me in a condescending tone, I just shrug it off. But, I'm trained to do that (i.e., unless/until I see a legally actionable claim with a positive property or liberty expectation) -- whereas the other scientists with whom you are jousting do not. Instead, they get defensive, and the conversation devolves into a lot of people shouting but no one doing much listening.

So, if your true goal is to actually get your opponent to concede that his science is deficient, then you should consider an approach that's a little more conciliatory.

On the other hand, if you prefer to be merely annoying, then just keep on with your current Don Quixote approach, and I can pretty much guarantee that your argument will remain right here on the Internet, and relatively unnoticed.

[John Hewitt]

John, if anything my estimate is a great underestimate. There are more than 20 amino acids. There are L and R stereoisomers of the 20 amino acids found in living things. Since the vast majority of amino acids in living things are composed of L amino acids that gives you 40 amino acids that can randomly combine only half of which are found in living things. If you add all the possible non-biologic amino acids to this prebiotic soup and all the other molecules that would be combining in this chemical soup, your probabilities would be much smaller for forming a functional gene purely by random chemical reactions. Without some type of selection process in this prebiotic soup, you are working against impossible odds. Even with a selection process, Dr Schneider’s model shows how profoundly slow this process is. You have the same mathematical problem if you propose the RNA world.
Yes, I'm sorry, I do realise the real probability is much lower. I misspoke myself. I should have said that the number on that negative exponential was much higher.

[kleinman]

Do you think chem's periodic table is a result of randomness?What? Are you suggesting that any patterns we find in nature, and then make laws to describe, must have a mysterious design behind them?
What? Are you suggesting that any patterns we find in nature, and then make laws to describe, don’t have any mysterious design behind them?
If you add all the possible non-biologic amino acids to this prebiotic soup and all the other molecules that would be combining in this chemical soup, your probabilities would be much smaller for forming a functional gene purely by random chemical reactions. Without some type of selection process in this prebiotic soup, you are working against impossible odds.We agree! Alert the media!
Don’t forget to tell the media that there is no known selection process that would reduce these impossible odds.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What? Are you suggesting that any patterns we find in nature, and then make laws to describe, don’t have any mysterious design behind them?
Yes, I am. If there is no reason to propose a mysterious designer, then there is no reason to propose it.


Don’t forget to tell the media that there is no known selection process that would reduce these impossible odds.
Hey media! We don't understand abiogenesis yet. Shocking, no?

~~ Paul

[cyborg]

What? Are you suggesting that any patterns we find in nature, and then make laws to describe, don’t have any mysterious design behind them?

You don't have to design a pattern for it to occur anyway.

If one is going to argue design what is more sensible:

1) The periodic table was designed and then atoms designed with rules to make them fit it
2) Atoms were designed with certain rules which lead to a pattern that can be described by the periodic table

Just about any system with rules can have patterns occurring in it - I'd even venture to say it's just about inevitable. That doesn't say anything as to whether or not the rules which lead to the patterns have any design to them - they don't have to at all.

[joobz]

You don't have to design a pattern for it to occur anyway.

If one is going to argue design what is more sensible:

1) The periodic table was designed and then atoms designed with rules to make them fit it
2) Atoms were designed with certain rules which lead to a pattern that can be described by the periodic table

Just about any system with rules can have patterns occurring in it - I'd even venture to say it's just about inevitable. That doesn't say anything as to whether or not the rules which lead to the patterns have any design to them - they don't have to at all.
It always seems that id-ers and evolutioners aren't even arguing the same issue.
It's how(the process) vs. why (meaning of life). Evolutionists don't ask why. Don't care about why. They just want to know how. Iders only ask why and (most of the time) have preconceived answers for that already. Yet both seem to take an affront at the others question and answer.

[kleinman]

OK, Professor Kleinman, I've done my homework now (and, I've pasted a gold star in the "Wednesday" calendar box displayed on the refrigerator, too). ;-)I wonder if it is your refrigerator that supplied the box that Beleth says I live in? Does it have two doors and an ice maker?

So you read the 50 or so pages in these threads in about an hour. Why do I find myself being so skeptical?
I'm in no position to argue the science of your contentions. I wish that weren't the case, but my math/science education stopped with first year calculus and that was 20 years ago.

However, I am a pretty good judge of what it takes to get someone to a bargaining table in the mood to negotiate. And my observation is that your communication skills show a distinct lack of diplomacy.
And my observation of you is that you are a greedy Dilbert who is stuck in a cubical and somehow stumbled into this thread and see this topic as an opportunity to further your career. If you want, I’ll post your quotes that lead me to believe this about you.
A person who "wants" a fight, almost always gets his/her wish. If you really wanted to get Dr. Schneider's attention, you will stop "throwing down" the "gauntlet," because that's pretty much like telling your opponent that you find him a complete moron and that you are available at his convenience to beat him into submission.
Anyone who is not willing to fight for what he believes should go sit on the side lines. I have never called anyone a moron in these discussions. I can’t recall ever calling anyone a moron. If you read the post carefully, it was Dr Schneider who used the terminology “the gauntlet was thrown”, I said that I would take up his thrown gauntlet. So reread these threads and get your facts straight.
And, my comment here is irrespective of the fact that Dr. Schneider may have used a similar phrase to describe his own challenge. Just because your opponent "may" have a chip on his shoulder, doesn't mean that you should immediately strike out to knock it off.
Read these threads, this discussion I have been having with Dr Schneider and his coworkers has been going on for more than 6 months. This wasn’t an immediate strike out at Dr Schneider.
That's how arms get broken and wars start. However, in the end most of the combatants are dead or seriously injured, rather than better educated (although admittedly the scientists are usually safe in some bunker building more sophisticated weapons to continue the unending cycle).
Well now, kjkent1 whose first motivation on this discussion was based in greed now will lecture on peace.
Now, since I personally have no dog in this fight, other than a distinct amateur interest in the evolution v. design debate, when you write to me in a condescending tone, I just shrug it off. But, I'm trained to do that (i.e., unless/until I see a legally actionable claim with a positive property or liberty expectation) -- whereas the other scientists with whom you are jousting do not. Instead, they get defensive, and the conversation devolves into a lot of people shouting but no one doing much listening.
Certainly you have a dog in this fight, you saw this debate as a marketing opportunity for your company and you want me to write your marketing plan and recruit the evolutionist who wrote the model.
So, if your true goal is to actually get your opponent to concede that his science is deficient, then you should consider an approach that's a little more conciliatory.

On the other hand, if you prefer to be merely annoying, then just keep on with your current Don Quixote approach, and I can pretty much guarantee that your argument will remain right here on the Internet, and relatively unnoticed.
It doesn’t matter whether devout evolutionists concede to the mathematics ev is showing. These discussions are already having the effect that I am seeking. No evolutionist who understands the mathematics of ev will underwrite this calculation on your computer system, so even if I ask with “pretty please with sugar on top”, you won’t find an evolutionist willing to back these calculations any more.
John, if anything my estimate is a great underestimate. There are more than 20 amino acids. There are L and R stereoisomers of the 20 amino acids found in living things. Since the vast majority of amino acids in living things are composed of L amino acids that gives you 40 amino acids that can randomly combine only half of which are found in living things. If you add all the possible non-biologic amino acids to this prebiotic soup and all the other molecules that would be combining in this chemical soup, your probabilities would be much smaller for forming a functional gene purely by random chemical reactions. Without some type of selection process in this prebiotic soup, you are working against impossible odds. Even with a selection process, Dr Schneider’s model shows how profoundly slow this process is. You have the same mathematical problem if you propose the RNA world. Yes, I'm sorry, I do realise the real probability is much lower. I misspoke myself. I should have said that the number on that negative exponential was much higher.
At the risk of being pesky, the number of amino acids (and other chemical reactants) affects the base number and the number of mers in the molecule affects the exponent when estimating the probabilities of forming a particular molecule. Hey, I’m already annoying, so why not expand my skill set and be pesky as well.
What? Are you suggesting that any patterns we find in nature, and then make laws to describe, don’t have any mysterious design behind them?Yes, I am. If there is no reason to propose a mysterious designer, then there is no reason to propose it.
So you take the opposite view point of those sciences that use pattern as a means of identifying intelligent origin of certain types of observations.
Don’t forget to tell the media that there is no known selection process that would reduce these impossible odds. Hey media! We don't understand abiogenesis yet. Shocking, no?
You are no closer to having an explanation than you were in the 1950’s with the Miller experiment. If anything, you are further away from having a plausible explanation.

[John Hewitt]

So, as a practical matter how would you change EV to accomodate your theoretical model?

Maybe you should consider discussing your theory with Dr. Schneider. He's probably one of the few people who would be likely to understand the hypothesis.

I am not far enough into programming to write simulations of the process I have in mind, so I shall merely state the chemistry I have in mind.

The sun is both an energy source and also a data source - it switches on and off each day. The resulting daily change in temperature will cause will cause chemical equilibria in the primordial soup to shift backward and forward. You will thus have primordial, chemical oscillations.

I point out that those chemical oscillations will be subject to evolution. They will compete with one another for environments that are protected from high energy processes, such as UV exposure. As these oscillations evolve, they will come more and more to resemble biochemical pathways which will eventually merge into protocells etc.

As a mechanism, that is quite parsimonious, because it is evolutionary from the outset but it does depend on a high energy input data source, the sun.
As I say, I wouldn't know how to write a simulation of such a process and it does not fit directly into an EV type program, which deals in base sequence. Still, telling Shneider about it might be a good idea.

[kjkent1]

I wonder if it is your refrigerator that supplied the box that Beleth says I live in? Does it have two doors and an ice maker?

So you read the 50 or so pages in these threads in about an hour. Why do I find myself being so skeptical?

And my observation of you is that you are a greedy Dilbert who is stuck in a cubical and somehow stumbled into this thread and see this topic as an opportunity to further your career. If you want, I’ll post your quotes that lead me to believe this about you.

Anyone who is not willing to fight for what he believes should go sit on the side lines. I have never called anyone a moron in these discussions. I can’t recall ever calling anyone a moron. If you read the post carefully, it was Dr Schneider who used the terminology “the gauntlet was thrown”, I said that I would take up his thrown gauntlet. So reread these threads and get your facts straight.

Read these threads, this discussion I have been having with Dr Schneider and his coworkers has been going on for more than 6 months. This wasn’t an immediate strike out at Dr Schneider.

Well now, kjkent1 whose first motivation on this discussion was based in greed now will lecture on peace.

Certainly you have a dog in this fight, you saw this debate as a marketing opportunity for your company and you want me to write your marketing plan and recruit the evolutionist who wrote the model.

It doesn’t matter whether devout evolutionists concede to the mathematics ev is showing. These discussions are already having the effect that I am seeking. No evolutionist who understands the mathematics of ev will underwrite this calculation on your computer system, so even if I ask with “pretty please with sugar on top”, you won’t find an evolutionist willing to back these calculations any more.

<Shrug>

1. How exactly do you define a "greedy Dilbert?"

2. Do you own your home or rent?

3. Back on the substantive issue, Dr. Schneider states in his blog: "Large genomes are known to appear by many duplication mechanisms that are not in the Ev model. There are polymerase slippage, illegitimate recombination, transposons, insertion sequences, tetraploidization, and Robertsonain translations. These can all increase genome size rapidly. The mechanisms are currently not part of the Ev/Evj model."

Have you accounted for all of these other mechanisms being able to increase the speed of evolutionary change? If not, why not?

:)

[Yahzi]

I simply said that Gods and aliens might both be capable of inputting intelligent design into "daughter" organisms.
Your inability to recognize that Gods are not conceptually equivalent to aliens is the point.

Why not look for design from fairies, gnomes, pixies, sprites, and unicorns?

Aliens are naturalistic entities, that follow the laws of physics. Gods are not. Ergo, putting Gods on the same level as aliens is conceptually ludicrous.

[Yahzi]

I can pretty much guarantee that your argument will remain right here on the Internet, and relatively unnoticed.
That's the goal.

If it got noticed, it might conclusively addressed, and then where would he be?

Better to have an argument that goes nowhere than one that gets refuted. This is the same kind of logic that says it's better to have a wrong answer than no answer at all. That is, religious logic.

[tsig]

I wonder if it is your refrigerator that supplied the box that Beleth says I live in? Does it have two doors and an ice maker?

So you read the 50 or so pages in these threads in about an hour. Why do I find myself being so skeptical?

And my observation of you is that you are a greedy Dilbert who is stuck in a cubical and somehow stumbled into this thread and see this topic as an opportunity to further your career. If you want, I’ll post your quotes that lead me to believe this about you.

Anyone who is not willing to fight for what he believes should go sit on the side lines. I have never called anyone a moron in these discussions. I can’t recall ever calling anyone a moron. If you read the post carefully, it was Dr Schneider who used the terminology “the gauntlet was thrown”, I said that I would take up his thrown gauntlet. So reread these threads and get your facts straight.

Read these threads, this discussion I have been having with Dr Schneider and his coworkers has been going on for more than 6 months. This wasn’t an immediate strike out at Dr Schneider.

Well now, kjkent1 whose first motivation on this discussion was based in greed now will lecture on peace.

Certainly you have a dog in this fight, you saw this debate as a marketing opportunity for your company and you want me to write your marketing plan and recruit the evolutionist who wrote the model.

It doesn’t matter whether devout evolutionists concede to the mathematics ev is showing. These discussions are already having the effect that I am seeking. No evolutionist who understands the mathematics of ev will underwrite this calculation on your computer system, so even if I ask with “pretty please with sugar on top”, you won’t find an evolutionist willing to back these calculations any more.

At the risk of being pesky, the number of amino acids (and other chemical reactants) affects the base number and the number of mers in the molecule affects the exponent when estimating the probabilities of forming a particular molecule. Hey, I’m already annoying, so why not expand my skill set and be pesky as well.

So you take the opposite view point of those sciences that use pattern as a means of identifying intelligent origin of certain types of observations.

You are no closer to having an explanation than you were in the 1950’s with the Miller experiment. If anything, you are further away from having a plausible explanation.

GIGO

[John Hewitt]

Your inability to recognize that Gods are not conceptually equivalent to aliens is the point.

Why not look for design from fairies, gnomes, pixies, sprites, and unicorns?

Aliens are naturalistic entities, that follow the laws of physics. Gods are not. Ergo, putting Gods on the same level as aliens is conceptually ludicrous.
I said nothing at all about fairies, gnomes, pixies, sprites or unicorns and I will leave to you the task of speculating about the properties of these entities.
I did not suggest that aliens and Gods are conceptually equivalent, I said that both might be capable of inputting intelligent design into daughter organisms. I do not know what difference you might perceive between Gods and aliens and, unless it becomes relevant to my own interests, I do not suppose that I will ever really care.

[kleinman]

1. How exactly do you define a "greedy Dilbert?"
I’ll let your own word give the definition.
I'm not a scientist, but I thought that getting published is the "money zone" for a researcher, and I would think that trying to get published would be a more interesting pursuit than merely arguing amongst each other for free.

But, then, I really like money, so maybe that's just my personal prejudice sneeking into this post.
Do you have any idea of how to do something just because you think it is the right thing to do even if you don’t make any money out of it?
2. Do you own your home or rent?
This has nothing to do with the topic of discussion and is none of your business to boot.
3. Back on the substantive issue, Dr. Schneider states in his blog: "Large genomes are known to appear by many duplication mechanisms that are not in the Ev model. There are polymerase slippage, illegitimate recombination, transposons, insertion sequences, tetraploidization, and Robertsonain translations. These can all increase genome size rapidly. The mechanisms are currently not part of the Ev/Evj model."

Have you accounted for all of these other mechanisms being able to increase the speed of evolutionary change? If not, why not?
If you had read the threads you would have some idea what has been discussed. Go back and do your homework properly and stop making telemarketing phone calls in the middle of dinner.
I can pretty much guarantee that your argument will remain right here on the Internet, and relatively unnoticed. That's the goal.
Set your publishing goals low enough and even Yahzi will read it.

[joobz]

kjkent1, I do not doubt that you've read the thread, but to provide a summary of events

These are the reasons why Kleinman is 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.

This has been Kleinman's only argument. His entire debate takes the following forumla.
All evidence in this thread indicates you’ll be waiting for quite some time. It seems the last 16 or so pages have taken the same shape.

Kleinman makes claim A.
Random poster (X) says claim A is wrong for reasons Y and Z.
Kleinman responds to X with B and C.
X show B and C are irrelevant to X's claim and that Y and Z have been left unaddressed.
Kleinman makes witless insult of X, pats self on the back, and makes claim A.
Repeat ad nauseam.

We are still waiting for a new hypothesis from him. A new critique. But he can't provide one. he doesn't have one. There's nothing new here.

[kjkent1]

If you had read the threads you would have some idea what has been discussed. Go back and do your homework properly and stop making telemarketing phone calls in the middle of dinner.

OK, is it fair to say that your hypothesis is that random point mutation and selection are the only mechanisms which contribute to meaningful evolutionary change, because other mechanisms lack sufficient gradualism and the result is likely fatal to the host?

And, because EV can't gradually evolve a complex creature in the time available since the formation of the Earth, that rules out evolution?

[Soapy Sam]

Is this effect now common consensus even among micro-biologists? That is, environmental pressure does increase mutation rates?

Hammegk- I cannot answer your question, being no biologist- but I think the question misses my point, which is that while mutation supplies the raw material for natural selection, it need not (and probably does not) set the rate of evolution, unless we define that rate purely as a function of the mutation rate, which would be a circular definition.

Could you be a bit more specific? Or is 'evolutionary style' what your next comments are meant to address?

By changes in evolutionary style, I mean the real developments which have emerged (and may still be emerging) as time passes. Examples would include (but not be limited to);-
The switch from non cellular to cellular biota.
The development of multicellular cooperatives and the integration of previously independent organisms within one another.
The related development of parasitic and symbiotic lifestyles at molecular and phenotypic levels and the development of counter measures to parasitism.
The development of plasmid , or other DNA exchange, including the invention of sex.
The development of photosynthesis and the O2 shift in the atmosphere.
The invention of exoskeletons.
The invention of the species - insofar as they exist at all.
There are thousands of such steps- probably gradual enough in reality, but "sudden transitions" seen through the wrong end of the geological telescope. (And we only know about the ones that left fossil evidence).
Each change involved positive feedback into the biosphere in terms of number and type of phenotype. The increase in variety forces more increase in variety. It's an accelerating system, with the main braking agents being tectonic and the odd asteroid. It seems obvious that a model which does not cope with these order of magnitude changes must be incomplete.


And now you've moved to arm-waving with a just so story. Sorry.

Hammegk, nobody knows the truth about what went on way back when. I'm speculating, yes. You think I'm the only one here doing that? If I have arms to wave, it's because I'm less fish-like than my ancestors. (I'll tell you about great-uncle Cedric some day).


Except the times isolation has been nominated as playing a good part.

In macroscopic speciation. Who was talking about that?


Or not ... ;)

Like I say, we're all way out on thin ice here. Pretending we have a mathematical model for a process we barely have begun to understand is wildly speculative. Nothing wrong with that, so long as we all realise it is.

Kleinmann- Yes, I'm sure the creators of the software will improve it if they can, but the way to improve a model of reality is to adapt it till it yields a result that resembles reality. I applaud the idea of such a model- we have to start somewhere- but I'd be astonished if it was in any sense " right" at such an early stage- and stunned if it had any claim to completeness. So I'm profoundly unsurprised that it gives apparently "wrong" results if we vary the input data.
I think people will still be improving it in a century or so, by which time we may have more complete data for them to model.

[kleinman]

Kleinmann- Yes, I'm sure the creators of the software will improve it if they can, but the way to improve a model of reality is to adapt it till it yields a result that resembles reality. I applaud the idea of such a model- we have to start somewhere- but I'd be astonished if it was in any sense " right" at such an early stage- and stunned if it had any claim to completeness. So I'm profoundly unsurprised that it gives apparently "wrong" results if we vary the input data.
I think people will still be improving it in a century or so, by which time we may have more complete data for them to model.
I doubt that the mathematics on which the ev model is based will change very much in a century or so. Neither will the genomes lengths associated with living things nor their mutation rates will change very much in a century or so. Dr Schneider’s model demonstrates the fundamental mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection. The only thing at an early stage in this model is your understanding of it. You evolutionists have your work cut out to try to adapt your interpretation of reality to the mathematics of ev. The theory of evolution never had a mathematical basis and it remains so. The theory of evolution doesn’t add up.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So you take the opposite view point of those sciences that use pattern as a means of identifying intelligent origin of certain types of observations.
Please don't annoy me with this gambit. Certain types of patterns are taken as indicative of human design. There are gobs of patterns that are not.


You are no closer to having an explanation than you were in the 1950’s with the Miller experiment. If anything, you are further away from having a plausible explanation.
I disagree. I believe you are conflating understanding with reproducing.


Aliens are naturalistic entities, that follow the laws of physics. Gods are not. Ergo, putting Gods on the same level as aliens is conceptually ludicrous.
I think Hammegk would call this a category error.


I did not suggest that aliens and Gods are conceptually equivalent, I said that both might be capable of inputting intelligent design into daughter organisms.
Can you propose a mechanism whereby god would do this?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Dr Schneider’s model demonstrates the fundamental mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection.
Do tell. What are the fundamental mathematical equations of random point mutations and natural selection? Show us how genome size, binding site width, population, and mutation rates vary with one another. Then, just to demonstrate the accuracy of your equations, show us how genome size, population, and mutation rates vary with, oh ... say, the evolution of the Krebs cycle.

~~ Paul

[joobz]

Do tell. What are the fundamental mathematical equations of random point mutations and natural selection? Show us how genome size, binding site width, population, and mutation rates vary with one another. Then, just to demonstrate the accuracy of your equations, show us how genome size, population, and mutation rates vary with, oh ... say, the evolution of the Krebs cycle.

~~ Paul
It's quite simple, Paul. It's starts with natural selection, which is just a restatement of the first law of thermo....

[fishbob]

I doubt that the mathematics on which the ev model is based will change very much in a century or so. Neither will the genomes lengths associated with living things nor their mutation rates will change very much in a century or so. Dr Schneider’s model demonstrates the fundamental mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection. The only thing at an early stage in this model is your understanding of it. You evolutionists have your work cut out to try to adapt your interpretation of reality to the mathematics of ev. The theory of evolution never had a mathematical basis and it remains so. The theory of evolution doesn’t add up.

You don't get to have it both ways:
"Dr Schneider’s model demonstrates the fundamental mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection"
- and -
"The theory of evolution never had a mathematical basis and it remains so"
can not exist in the same logical framework.

And of course the math won't change, but the calculations most likely will.
2 + 2 will always equal 4, but maybe we won't be adding 2 + 2.

And your rude arrogance, along with your failed logic, provides convincing evidence for my theory of creationist dishonesty.
Thank you for your support.

[John Hewitt]

Can you propose a mechanism whereby god would do this? (Impart intelligently designed content to a dauhter organism.)

~~ Paul

By moving in mysterious ways.
By contrast, an alien would use an intelligentifier beam, though he would need to have his inertial dampers switched on.

[delphi_ote]

You are no closer to having an explanation than you were in the 1950’s with the Miller experiment. If anything, you are further away from having a plausible explanation.
:nope:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

By moving in mysterious ways.
And that's pretty much the way the theory of intelligent design is going to stay forever.

$\mathit{design}=\mathrm{move}(\mathit{mystery}) + \mathrm{C}$

~~ Paul

[tsig]

And that's pretty much the way the theory of intelligent design is going to stay forever.

$\mathit{design}=\mathrm{move}(\mathit{mystery}) + \mathrm{C}$

~~ Paul

No intelligent designer would put a waste disposal in a recreation area.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No intelligent designer would put a waste disposal in a recreation area.
Hey, at least we don't have a cloaca.

~~ Paul

[AgingYoung]

I do intend to read this entire thread but this is the 2nd reference I've noticed about what I'm doing with wm2d.

Kleinman, I suggest you read this thread ("http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=48951). I would be interested to know your views on AgingYoung, and if you believe a perpetual motion machine is possible. The argument is exactly the same as this one, that a simulation of one small part of the world is more accurate at representing the world than the world is itself.

Cuddles,

Could you provide a direct link where I said that? I think you're spreading rumors.

Gene

[kleinman]

So you take the opposite view point of those sciences that use pattern as a means of identifying intelligent origin of certain types of observations.Please don't annoy me with this gambit. Certain types of patterns are taken as indicative of human design. There are gobs of patterns that are not.
Perhaps you would give us a scientific explanation for which patterns are of intelligent origin and those that are not.
You are no closer to having an explanation than you were in the 1950’s with the Miller experiment. If anything, you are further away from having a plausible explanation. I disagree. I believe you are conflating understanding with reproducing.
At least Miller was able to produce an experiment that showed how amino acids could be produced. You subscribers to the RNA world view of abiogenesis haven’t shown how an RNA base could be produced.
Dr Schneider’s model demonstrates the fundamental mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection. Do tell. What are the fundamental mathematical equations of random point mutations and natural selection? Show us how genome size, binding site width, population, and mutation rates vary with one another. Then, just to demonstrate the accuracy of your equations, show us how genome size, population, and mutation rates vary with, oh ... say, the evolution of the Krebs cycle.
You changed my statement from “fundamental mathematics” to “fundamental mathematical equations” but since you are raising an objection, let’s talk about this topic. You can not reduce the concept of random point mutations and natural selection to a single algebraic equation. The concept is too complex. Dr Schneider has taken a series of algebraic equations to model one of the simplest cases of random point mutations and natural selection. He starts with a random sequence of bases, sets aside a small portion of this random sequence to evolve and then allows random change to the sequence and imposes a selection process to choose which mutations are helpful or not and the lets those with the best sequences reproduce and repeats this cycle.

As I have pointed out to you on previous posts; neither you nor I know of any selection process that would allow for the evolution of the numerous enzymes involved in the Krebs cycle de novo. Ev shows the difficulty of evolving binding sites on large genomes with a well defined mathematical selection process, you don’t have a mechanism like this for the evolution of a gene.
I doubt that the mathematics on which the ev model is based will change very much in a century or so. Neither will the genomes lengths associated with living things nor their mutation rates will change very much in a century or so. Dr Schneider’s model demonstrates the fundamental mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection. The only thing at an early stage in this model is your understanding of it. You evolutionists have your work cut out to try to adapt your interpretation of reality to the mathematics of ev. The theory of evolution never had a mathematical basis and it remains so. The theory of evolution doesn’t add up.You don't get to have it both ways:
"Dr Schneider’s model demonstrates the fundamental mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection"
- and -
"The theory of evolution never had a mathematical basis and it remains so"
can not exist in the same logical framework.

And of course the math won't change, but the calculations most likely will.
2 + 2 will always equal 4, but maybe we won't be adding 2 + 2.
Why fishbob, I don’t need to have it both ways. The theory of evolution started without a mathematical basis and then Dr Schneider writes a computer model that simulates random point mutations and natural selection in a plausible manner. When you use realistic parameters in his model, it shows that random point mutations and natural selection is far too slow to allow for macroevolution, contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium and shows that huge populations do not have a marked increase on the rate of evolution. The theory of evolution started without a mathematical basis and when mathematics is applied to the theory, it contradicts your interpretation of observations.
And your rude arrogance, along with your failed logic, provides convincing evidence for my theory of creationist dishonesty.
Is that a promotion from being just a plain annoying creationist?

[John Hewitt]

And that's pretty much the way the theory of intelligent design is going to stay forever.

http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php?$%5Cmathit%7Bdesign%7D=%5Cmathrm%7Bmove% 7D%28%5Cmathit%7Bmystery%7D%29%20+%20%5Cmathrm%7BC %7D$

~~ Paul
I did not think you intended your question to be taken seriously. But I think this subject may well move on.

Was it not Paley who pointed out that we can tell by inspection that a watch was designed; a difference clearly exists and, while we may not yet have stated the distinction generally, there seems to me every possibility of delineating the general differences between intelligently designed and adaptively designed objects.

[joobz]

I do intend to read this entire thread but this is the 2nd reference I've noticed about what I'm doing with wm2d.

Cuddles,

Could you provide a direct link where I said that? I think you're spreading rumors.

Gene
Hi AgingYoung,
perhaps Cuddles is reading more into what your plans are, but it would be an honest mistake. I've checked that thread and came to the same conclusion. the question being, are you trying to prove the existence of PPM using a model? If so, a model can't do that. If you are simply having fun with wm2d to see to what extent you can (in that fictional world) create a PPM, then that is a completely agreeable thing to do.

However, Cuddles' point (As was mine in that thread), you can't account for everything in the model. Friction takes over. molecular interactions occur that you can't account for. So even if you see a PPM in the wm2d, that doesn't mean you can find materials to make it and it would work. That's all.

And to be fair, I would never compare your postings to what Kleinman has been doing. Kleinman has been dishonest throughout. He uses poor inputs that are not substantiated to run a simulation and pretends that disproves evolution. We've explained carefully why his inputs aren't justified, but he continues to ignore that. He deliberately missquotes, attacks, and insults everyone. His hypothesis has been completely refuted. But he continues to ignore that. He is completely and totally dishonest.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Perhaps you would give us a scientific explanation for which patterns are of intelligent origin and those that are not.
I have no explanation. We know a skyscraper is intelligently designed because we designed it. We assume that a snowflake is not intelligently designed. When someone stumbles upon the intelligent designer of the snowflake, then we will know we made an incorrect assumption.


You changed my statement from “fundamental mathematics” to “fundamental mathematical equations” but since you are raising an objection, let’s talk about this topic.
If you have some mathematics that doesn't involve equations, I'd be happy to see that, too.


As I have pointed out to you on previous posts; neither you nor I know of any selection process that would allow for the evolution of the numerous enzymes involved in the Krebs cycle de novo.
I think you're being a bit pessimistic here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=8703096&dopt=Citation

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4662.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/uu65t858g1k64326/

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/1/1

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jacsat/asap/abs/ja066103k.html

and, of course:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j8ur17mp987434g4/

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Was it not Paley who pointed out that we can tell by inspection that a watch was designed; a difference clearly exists and, while we may not yet have stated the distinction generally, there seems to me every possibility of delineating the general differences between intelligently designed and adaptively designed objects.
That would be an interesting project. Unfortunately, the only intelligent design we know about is human design. That is why Intelligent Design is nothing more than an analogy from human design (and why the Designer is not the Creator).

~~ Paul

[AgingYoung]

Oops, the link was meant to be http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=48951&page=8

To summarize it : AgingYoung has used a computer simulation, of part of the real world, that is only valid within it's design parameters of Newton's Laws, to design a machine that will run forever, thereby showing that Newton's Laws are not correct. Since he is attempting to do something which the simulation is not designed to do, any results he gets are completely meaningless, since they are not valid in the real world.


As I notice points made at my expense I feel compelled to comment. Newton's laws of motion tend to approximate reality. If you tweak wm2d by increasing the steps or frames of time it considers (per second) it approximates reality a little better.

The circular reasoning you're suggesting I'm falling for is very off the mark. I use the simulator as spreadsheet with a graphic i/o to calculate various forces over very short durations of time. I am in no way using it to disprove Newtonian physics. I don't think it was Newton that defined gravity as being conservative. My thoughts are it isn't.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

joobz,

perhaps Cuddles is reading more into what your plans are, but it would be an honest mistake. I've checked that thread and came to the same conclusion. the question being, are you trying to prove the existence of PPM using a model?In a word, 'no.'

I'm still reading this thread. If you've came to the same conclusion then I'd have to see precisely what it was I said that led you to it.

Gene

[fishbob]

Why fishbob, I don’t need to have it both ways. . . .
. . . The theory of evolution started without a mathematical basis and when mathematics is applied to the theory, it contradicts your interpretation of observations.

Please note that kleinman - in the same paragraph - denies that he wants it both ways while trying to have it both ways. Non-logical and not particularly honest.

Is that a promotion from being just a plain annoying creationist? No, just a more accurate description.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

When you use realistic parameters in his model, it shows that random point mutations and natural selection is far too slow to allow for macroevolution, contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium and shows that huge populations do not have a marked increase on the rate of evolution.
Could you list those realistic parameters, please? And then show the results from simulations with those parameters. Thank you ever so much.

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

Perhaps you would give us a scientific explanation for which patterns are of intelligent origin and those that are not. I have no explanation. We know a skyscraper is intelligently designed because we designed it. We assume that a snowflake is not intelligently designed. When someone stumbles upon the intelligent designer of the snowflake, then we will know we made an incorrect assumption.
How will you know when you stumble upon the intelligent designer?
You changed my statement from “fundamental mathematics” to “fundamental mathematical equations” but since you are raising an objection, let’s talk about this topic. If you have some mathematics that doesn't involve equations, I'd be happy to see that, too.
From the beginning of this discussion, I have said that Dr Schneider’s has written a mathematically plausible model for this process. So if Dr Schneider’s model of random mutation and natural selection are not the equations for this process, what are your equations?
As I have pointed out to you on previous posts; neither you nor I know of any selection process that would allow for the evolution of the numerous enzymes involved in the Krebs cycle de novo. I think you're being a bit pessimistic here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=8703096&dopt=Citation)

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4662.pdf (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/7/4662.pdf)

http://www.springerlink.com/content/uu65t858g1k64326/ (http://www.springerlink.com/content/uu65t858g1k64326/)

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...bstract/22/1/1 (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/1/1)

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract...ja066103k.html (http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/jacsat/asap/abs/ja066103k.html)

and, of course:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j8ur17mp987434g4/ (http://www.springerlink.com/content/j8ur17mp987434g4/)
Feel free to take any of the speculations in these papers, write a selection process for ev and evolve the genes that would code for the enzymes for the Krebs cycle. Then you would have mathematical proof for your theory of evolution. Let’s see if you can do this on a 256 base genome.
Why fishbob, I don’t need to have it both ways. . . .
. . . The theory of evolution started without a mathematical basis and when mathematics is applied to the theory, it contradicts your interpretation of observations. Please note that kleinman - in the same paragraph - denies that he wants it both ways while trying to have it both ways. Non-logical and not particularly honest.
Fishbob, your logical pressure is too great for me. I confess that I am getting it both ways.
Is that a promotion from being just a plain annoying creationist?No, just a more accurate description.
The day that I get a complement from an evolutionarian will be the day that I start questioning the accuracy of my analysis.

[AgingYoung]

I put Anagnostopoulos into my spellchecker and the sucker exploded! I'm still wiping spell checker off my face.

Gene

[joobz]

I put Anagnostopoulos into my spellchecker and the sucker exploded! I'm still wiping spell checker off my face.

Gene
That's a good healthy greek name. It definitely fairs better than my mom's maiden name which was de-greekified at ellis island when my grandpa came over.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How will you know when you stumble upon the intelligent designer?
His hair will be perfect.


From the beginning of this discussion, I have said that Dr Schneider’s has written a mathematically plausible model for this process. So if Dr Schneider’s model of random mutation and natural selection are not the equations for this process, what are your equations?
Fishbobian dodging of central issue duly noted. I have no equations and either do you.


Feel free to take any of the speculations in these papers, write a selection process for ev and evolve the genes that would code for the enzymes for the Krebs cycle. Then you would have mathematical proof for your theory of evolution. Let’s see if you can do this on a 256 base genome.
We don't understand the process well enough to model it, which is why all your spewing about Ev is irrelevant.

Either Ev is an accurate model of more or less the entirety of evolution and you can draw your pessimistic ultimate conclusion from it, or it is not. Which do you think is the case?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I put Anagnostopoulos into my spellchecker and the sucker exploded! I'm still wiping spell checker off my face.
Silly spellchecker.

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

How will you know when you stumble upon the intelligent designer?His hair will be perfect.
He will also be the fountain of smart.
From the beginning of this discussion, I have said that Dr Schneider’s has written a mathematically plausible model for this process. So if Dr Schneider’s model of random mutation and natural selection are not the equations for this process, what are your equations? Fishbobian dodging of central issue duly noted. I have no equations and either do you.
Paul, you certainly have come a long way in this discussion. You started with ev modeling reality to ev not modeling anything at all.
Feel free to take any of the speculations in these papers, write a selection process for ev and evolve the genes that would code for the enzymes for the Krebs cycle. Then you would have mathematical proof for your theory of evolution. Let’s see if you can do this on a 256 base genome. We don't understand the process well enough to model it, which is why all your spewing about Ev is irrelevant.

Either Ev is an accurate model of more or less the entirety of evolution and you can draw your pessimistic ultimate conclusion from it, or it is not. Which do you think is the case?
Again, you have come a long way in this discussion. You have no idea how evolution has occurred but you are sure it is true. You continue to devalue the model on which you have worked so hard.

I’ve told you many times I will be patient with you. I will again show you where the goal posts are. Dr Schneider has written a plausible model for random point mutations and natural selection. When you use realistic parameters in the model it shows that macroevolution is mathematically impossible, it takes far too many generations, ev contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium and huge populations do not accelerate the evolutionary processes sufficiently to contradict either of the first two assertions. Perhaps you could give Delphi a ride to the ball park since he is in no condition to drive.

[joobz]

Since we are on a new page and kleinman is still spouting the same wrong nonsense, I'd thought I'd provide a relisting of why kleinman is 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=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.

It seems all's quite on the new "why ev disproves evolution" hypothesis front.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Paul, you certainly have come a long way in this discussion. You started with ev modeling reality to ev not modeling anything at all.
Let's recap the conversation, shall we?


Dr Schneider’s model demonstrates the fundamental mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection.

Do tell. What are the fundamental mathematical equations of random point mutations and natural selection? Show us how genome size, binding site width, population, and mutation rates vary with one another. Then, just to demonstrate the accuracy of your equations, show us how genome size, population, and mutation rates vary with, oh ... say, the evolution of the Krebs cycle.

You changed my statement from “fundamental mathematics” to “fundamental mathematical equations” but since you are raising an objection, let’s talk about this topic.

If you have some mathematics that doesn't involve equations, I'd be happy to see that, too.

From the beginning of this discussion, I have said that Dr Schneider’s has written a mathematically plausible model for this process. So if Dr Schneider’s model of random mutation and natural selection are not the equations for this process, what are your equations?

Fishbobian dodging of central issue duly noted. I have no equations and either do you.

Paul, you certainly have come a long way in this discussion. You started with ev modeling reality to ev not modeling anything at all.
Ev models the evolution of binding sites. You, however, claim that it models "the fundamental mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection." Then you objected when I said "fundamental mathematical equations." Then you said "So if Dr. Schneiders's model of random mutation and natural selection are not the equations ...".


You have no idea how evolution has occurred but you are sure it is true.
I have no idea?


When you use realistic parameters in the model it shows that macroevolution is mathematically impossible, it takes far too many generations, ev contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium and huge populations do not accelerate the evolutionary processes sufficiently to contradict either of the first two assertions.
What were those realistic parameters again? What were the resulting data sets?

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

Paul, you certainly have come a long way in this discussion. You started with ev modeling reality to ev not modeling anything at all.Let's recap the conversation, shall we?
……
Paul, you certainly have come a long way in this discussion. You started with ev modeling reality to ev not modeling anything at all.
. . . . .
I have no idea?
Ev models the evolution of binding sites. You, however, claim that it models "the fundamental mathematics of random point mutations and natural selection." Then you objected when I said "fundamental mathematical equations." Then you said "So if Dr. Schneiders's model of random mutation and natural selection are not the equations ...".
What did the author of the computer model have to say?
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.
Dr Schneider has written a computer simulation or random point mutations and natural selection. The only reason that his model is specific to the evolution of binding sites is the selection process he has chosen. If you had any idea of what the selection process was to evolve the genes that produce the enzymes used in the Krebs cycle, it wouldn’t do it any faster than the selection process Dr Schneider used.

You and Dr Schneider have hung the theory of evolution on your own mathematical petard. So keep on squirming as you try to get it off.
When you use realistic parameters in the model it shows that macroevolution is mathematically impossible, it takes far too many generations, ev contradicts Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium and huge populations do not accelerate the evolutionary processes sufficiently to contradict either of the first two assertions. What were those realistic parameters again? What were the resulting data sets?
Genome lengths, mutation rates and even population sizes. You can go back on read the thread yourself for the data sets. Aren’t you glad you got involved with the ev program?

[I less than three logic]

What were those realistic parameters again? What were the resulting data sets?
Genome lengths, mutation rates and even population sizes. You can go back on read the thread yourself for the data sets. Aren’t you glad you got involved with the ev program?
Well, that has to be one of the most blatant dodges I've seen in a while. What were the realistic genome lengths? What were the realistic mutation rates? What were the realistic population sizes? And most importantly, this question you seemed to completely brush off, what were the resulting data sets?

Dodging questions like this doesn't play well for your appearance of honesty. If you do not have an answer to the questions asked, say so, but don't waste space with nonsense and pretend like you provided an answer. :mad:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Dr Schneider has written a computer simulation or random point mutations and natural selection. The only reason that his model is specific to the evolution of binding sites is the selection process he has chosen. If you had any idea of what the selection process was to evolve the genes that produce the enzymes used in the Krebs cycle, it wouldn’t do it any faster than the selection process Dr Schneider used.
Any faster than what? Which model? With which parameters?

Kleinman, you've decided that Ev shows that the evolution of every interesting biological mechanism is impossible, but you can't even specify the parameters for which Ev-style binding site evolution is impossible. Nor have you run any of those parameters, even though you claim that we cannot extrapolate.


Genome lengths, mutation rates and even population sizes. You can go back on read the thread yourself for the data sets. Aren’t you glad you got involved with the ev program?
I know what the parameters are called, for crying out loud. I want you to tell me what the "realistic values" are that you keeping yammering on about.

Also see previous post.

~~ Paul

[delphi_ote]

... there seems to me every possibility of delineating the general differences between intelligently designed and adaptively designed objects.
Then formulate it for us. Otherwise, this concept is worthless.

[John Hewitt]

Then formulate it for us. Otherwise, this concept is worthless.
I merely noted, following Paley and his famous watch, that humans seem to have an intuitive ability to identify objects that are intelligently designed. Given that we seem to possess such an ability, it seems reasonable to think it might be possible to give a general differences between data sets that arise from intelligent design and otherwise - one that would encapsulate and use that instinctive process.
I gave no concept about how to achieve that in practice. I am sorry you feel that was worthless.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I merely noted, following Paley and his famous watch, that humans seem to have an intuitive ability to identify objects that are intelligently designed.
Intelligently designed by us. We have no experience with any other intelligently designed things.

~~ Paul

[joobz]

I merely noted, following Paley and his famous watch, that humans seem to have an intuitive ability to identify objects that are intelligently designed. Given that we seem to possess such an ability, it seems reasonable to think it might be possible to give a general differences between data sets that arise from intelligent design and otherwise - one that would encapsulate and use that instinctive process.
I gave no concept about how to achieve that in practice. I am sorry you feel that was worthless.
But we also know that this "intuitive ability" is notoriously faulty. It's why optical illusions work. it's why magic tricks look like magic. Can you honestly say that this "instictive process" is trustworthy enough for this?

[kjkent1]

Genome lengths, mutation rates and even population sizes. You can go back on read the thread yourself for the data sets. Aren’t you glad you got involved with the ev program?

What would happen if EV killed off all but the best creatures from each generation?

Put another way, suppose a parameter was available to set the generation die off rate to greater than 50%?

[John Hewitt]

But we also know that this "intuitive ability" is notoriously faulty. It's why optical illusions work. it's why magic tricks look like magic. Can you honestly say that this "instictive process" is trustworthy enough for this?

No I don't trust such instinct. On the other hand, if we could find a way of formally describing those data sets that can arise through evolution.

An example occurs to me, following an earlier posting from on this thread - from someone whom I fear I cannot remember. One evident difference between living things and watches is that watch "design" is only on one scale - millimetre to centimetres. This is something to be expected of a designer trying to achieve an end, whereas biological organisms have design right down to a molecular level - something one would expect of evolution.

That is just handwaving, of course, but it seems it could be expressed in a more formal way. I think there may be other aspects of such data sets too that could be analysed formally.

[AgingYoung]

one of my favorite Darwin quotes is..

Organs of extreme perfection and complication. To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

he does follow it with a yet....

Darwin freely admitted that biology is complex. To the point of this thread how long would it take for an eye to evolve? How would an organism form in the primordial slime (with or without an eye) and eventually get sight (mechanism)?

As a side note if a beast were swimming in the primordial slime and didn't have an eye to see the slime, would the slime exist?

I'm still trying to catch up.

Gene

[AgingYoung]

Acta est fabula, plaudite!....Why come to this world, when there’s warmth and serenity in our mother’s wombs?....

After about 9 months the quarters become cramped?

I'm still reading but I'd like to nominate this entire thread.

Gene

[tsig]

I did not think you intended your question to be taken seriously. But I think this subject may well move on.

Was it not Paley who pointed out that we can tell by inspection that a watch was designed; a difference clearly exists and, while we may not yet have stated the distinction generally, there seems to me every possibility of delineating the general differences between intelligently designed and adaptively designed objects.

John do you know the diffference between a watch and a baby?

[tsig]

No I don't trust such instinct. On the other hand, if we could find a way of formally describing those data sets that can arise through evolution.

An example occurs to me, following an earlier posting from on this thread - from someone whom I fear I cannot remember. One evident difference between living things and watches is that watch "design" is only on one scale - millimetre to centimetres. This is something to be expected of a designer trying to achieve an end, whereas biological organisms have design right down to a molecular level - something one would expect of evolution.

That is just handwaving, of course, but it seems it could be expressed in a more formal way. I think there may be other aspects of such data sets too that could be analysed formally.

Are you saying you are intelligently designed?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Put another way, suppose a parameter was available to set the generation die off rate to greater than 50%?
Interesting question. Myriad has also proposed an alternate selection method, a variant of which I plan to implement in Evj.

~~ Paul

[kjkent1]

Interesting question. Myriad has also proposed an alternate selection method, a variant of which I plan to implement in Evj.

~~ Paul

Thanks. It just occurs to me that we give little credit to nature's highly ruthless tendencies, while sitting at our computers, typing away in the comfort of our office or home.

However, this is not the reality of life on Earth for most of its existence.

[kleinman]

Dr Schneider has written a computer simulation or random point mutations and natural selection. The only reason that his model is specific to the evolution of binding sites is the selection process he has chosen. If you had any idea of what the selection process was to evolve the genes that produce the enzymes used in the Krebs cycle, it wouldn’t do it any faster than the selection process Dr Schneider used.Any faster than what? Which model? With which parameters?

Kleinman, you've decided that Ev shows that the evolution of every interesting biological mechanism is impossible, but you can't even specify the parameters for which Ev-style binding site evolution is impossible. Nor have you run any of those parameters, even though you claim that we cannot extrapolate.
Paul, Dr Schneider design a selection process that has very high resolution. You are evolving very small groups of bases, typically only 6 bases wide with a comparison weight matrix typically 5 bases wide. He then sets a threshold that allows for partial matches of the base sequences to allow for selection. This gives very high precision for the selection process that I don’t believe exists in reality. For genes that are hundreds or perhaps thousands of bases long, there is no known selection process that would start creating these genes de novo. If you can describe a selection process that would allow for the evolution of a gene de novo I believe everyone would be interested in hearing your hypothesis.
Genome lengths, mutation rates and even population sizes. You can go back on read the thread yourself for the data sets. Aren’t you glad you got involved with the ev program? I know what the parameters are called, for crying out loud. I want you to tell me what the "realistic values" are that you keeping yammering on about.

Also see previous post.
If less_than_three had read this thread carefully, he would have seen that for free living prokaryotes, the shortest known genome lengths are 700k base pairs in length, for free living eukaryotes, the shortest know genome lengths are 1.3m base pairs in length which are much, much longer that the 256 base length use by Dr Schneider, mutation rates given by Adequate of 1.7E-8 and from your own reference of 2.14x10^-8 are much, much lower than the 4E-3 value used by Dr Schneider. Now Dr Schneider did use a small population size of 64 in his published case and said 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. However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution.
I added the bold facing to the above quote. When increasing population sizes in ev, the rate of decrease in the generations for convergence drops off quickly. It appears the generations for convergence are approaching an asymptote much greater than Adequate’s proposed value of 1 generation for an infinite population. This is the only issue that I have raised that has not been conclusively been shown, but the preliminary data does not look good for your theory.
I merely noted, following Paley and his famous watch, that humans seem to have an intuitive ability to identify objects that are intelligently designed. Intelligently designed by us. We have no experience with any other intelligently designed things.
Paul, can’t you tell the difference between a bird’s nest and a bunch of grass and sticks blown by the wind into a pile? Why do the seti experiment since we can only identify intelligently designed things by us? You refuse to see design in the order of the universe because that is your agenda. Albert Einstein saw God in the order of creation but you are much smarter than Einstein.
Put another way, suppose a parameter was available to set the generation die off rate to greater than 50%? Interesting question. Myriad has also proposed an alternate selection method, a variant of which I plan to implement in Evj.
If kjkent1 would do his homework, he would find that Dr Schneider addressed this issue. You could allow for extinction.

[Level]

One evident difference between living things and watches is that watch "design" is only on one scale - millimetre to centimetres. This is something to be expected of a designer trying to achieve an end, whereas biological organisms have design right down to a molecular level - something one would expect of evolution.

That is just handwaving, of course, but it seems it could be expressed in a more formal way. I think there may be other aspects of such data sets too that could be analysed formally.

Ah, but we can design things at the molecular scale, and nanotechnology allows us to push individual atoms around.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Albert Einstein saw God in the order of creation but you are much smarter than Einstein.
God would be outside of Einsteins area of expertise but I would point out that Einstein did not see a personal God, he saw God as a collection of mindless forces. "The God of Spinoza" as he put it.

[kleinman]

Albert Einstein saw God in the order of creation but you are much smarter than Einstein. God would be outside of Einsteins area of expertise but I would point out that Einstein did not see a personal God, he saw God as a collection of mindless forces. "The God of Spinoza" as he put it.
Why not post Einstein’s quote:
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.
In seems to be in the area of expertise of evolutionarians to rule out God in the orderly harmony of what exists. I don’t know what mysterious expertise they have to draw this conclusion but they certainly seem sure of this.

[I less than three logic]

Is there a point in bringing up what Einstein’s beliefs were? Looks like a textbook example of fallacious appeal to authority. This is simply more wasted screen space; another addition to the multitude of intellectually dishonest debate tactics plaguing this thread.

[joobz]

Paul, Dr Schneider design a selection process that has very high resolution. You are evolving very small groups of bases, typically only 6 bases wide with a comparison weight matrix typically 5 bases wide. He then sets a threshold that allows for partial matches of the base sequences to allow for selection. This gives very high precision for the selection process that I don’t believe exists in reality.
Can you explain why this is "high precision"?
also, Do you believe that partially matched binding sites don't provide adherance for transcription factors in vivo?

[joobz]

No I don't trust such instinct. On the other hand, if we could find a way of formally describing those data sets that can arise through evolution. This is being done. It is part of the field of evolution. however, this is a seperate issue from seperating what was designed and what was evolution. Again, I hold to the notion that ID infers no process. Science looks for the way things happened, regardless of a "designer". Evolution is the best fitting model we have and as we learn more the theory will improve as well.

An example occurs to me, following an earlier posting from on this thread - from someone whom I fear I cannot remember. One evident difference between living things and watches is that watch "design" is only on one scale - millimetre to centimetres. This is something to be expected of a designer trying to achieve an end, whereas biological organisms have design right down to a molecular level - something one would expect of evolution.

That is just handwaving, of course, but it seems it could be expressed in a more formal way. I think there may be other aspects of such data sets too that could be analysed formally.
The lengthscale idea can't work because it's a moving boundry. AS our microchips possess finer features this explanation fails. Another example is liposomes are designed drug carriers and they have order on the lengths of nanometers.

To repeat, evolution and ID are not discussing the same thing. ID is a philosophy not a science.

[I less than three logic]

If less_than_three had read this thread carefully, he would have seen that for free living prokaryotes, the shortest known genome lengths are 700k base pairs in length, for free living eukaryotes, the shortest know genome lengths are 1.3m base pairs in length which are much, much longer that the 256 base length use by Dr Schneider, mutation rates given by Adequate of 1.7E-8 and from your own reference of 2.14x10^-8 are much, much lower than the 4E-3 value used by Dr Schneider. Now Dr Schneider did use a small population size of 64 in his published case and said the following:
First, I have made no claims to have read this thread carefully; in fact I’ll freely admit to being only a part-time lurker in this particular thread. The topic is not one that particularly interests me, but the nonsense being spewed out is entertaining. However, whether I have read the tread carefully or not is irrelevant to what I said, as I was simply pointing out your obvious attempt to weasel out of answering the questions asked. Paul asked you specific questions and you completely evaded answer them.

In fact, even now you continue to do so. You simply claim you’ve already answered them, and then go on to claim it is my (and implying this on anyone else) fault for not already knowing the answer because I haven’t read the thread well enough. Now you may or may not be correct in your claim that you’ve already provided answers, but that claim alone isn’t going to cut it as it reeks of dishonest debate tactics and will fool very few people here. If you have already answered the questions it should be easy enough to repeat the values you used, or if it is too inconvenient to retype the answers, simply provide a link or the post number where you’ve done so. That would be the reasonable way to answer such questions. Not only would it help your side of the debate, but showing that you’ve clearly already answered these questions of Paul’s may provide reason to question Paul’s motive for re-asking such questions. The fact that you opted evasion over a simply answer, while not providing direct reason to show you are wrong, certainly doesn’t provide any reason for anyone to think you are correct either.

Now for your convenience I’ll repeat and number the questions for you.

1. What were the realistic genome lengths that you used?
2. What were the realistic mutation rates that you used?
3. What were the realistic population sizes that you used?
4. What were the realistic values for any other parameters you may have used? (A catch all since Paul’s original question was more open-ended than just the list of three parameters you stated.)
5. What were the resulting data sets that you obtained using the above parameters?

No dodging this time. Please provide a direct answer to or link/post # to where you’ve already provided an answer to each and every one of these questions.


PS – Do you play with the text formatting just to making quoting you unnecessarily complicated? :confused: :)

[kjkent1]

If kjkent1 would do his homework, he would find that Dr Schneider addressed this issue. You could allow for extinction.

I wonder how your God feels about your constantly using ad hominem as a means of making your points?

If I were to use your method of argumentation in the courtroom, I'd be writing checks to the court for contempt every five minutes.

Paul A thought my idea re mortality rate has some merit, and I assume he's done a fair amount of homework to understand EV. So, why don't you tell us all why this suggestion is such an obvious dead end?

Alternatively, you could continue to debate like a child if you wish. But, as I've already mentioned -- I doubt that your Lord will be impressed with your behavior.

[kleinman]

If less_than_three, kjkent1 and other evolutionarians think they can discuss Dr Schneider’s ev program without studying the model and what he has written about it, perhaps they should post their comments on the paranormal forum on this web site. Otherwise, read the thread, read Dr Schneider’s writings on his program and stop whining like crybabies. Are there any evolutionarians out their who are not thin skinned crybabies?

[Yahzi]

I've been having an email debate with my own creationist. As an example of order arising from mechanical action, I mentioned that if you dump a trillion tons of dirt into empty space, eventually it will form a sphere. Not a cube, or a pyramid; always a sphere. Thus showing that order (a specific shape) can arise out of disorder and simple physical laws.

His response was to assert that there was "no reason for matter to aggregate on its own."

Yes... that's right: Creationists have not yet discovered gravity.

:D

[Yahzi]

I wonder how your God feels about your constantly using ad hominem as a means of making your points?
They all do this.

Indeed, my creationist even accused me of ad hominen, and explained that was what people do when they want to silence questions that are too hard to answer...

One of the most blatant examples of projection I have ever seen.

[kjkent1]

If less_than_three, kjkent1 and other evolutionarians think they can discuss Dr Schneider’s ev program without studying the model and what he has written about it, perhaps they should post their comments on the paranormal forum on this web site. Otherwise, read the thread, read Dr Schneider’s writings on his program and stop whining like crybabies. Are there any evolutionarians out their who are not thin skinned crybabies?

I'd love to get you on a witness stand. Your responses would positively get you a night behind bars.

I've already read all of Schneider's explanations, and I see nothing in Schneider's writing that explains why a different die off rate is irrelevant. I also see nothing that shows how different environmental stresses would not have a marked effect on the outcome of a creature at any point during its evolution.

So, would you kindly explain it for me?

[tsig]

If less_than_three, kjkent1 and other evolutionarians think they can discuss Dr Schneider’s ev program without studying the model and what he has written about it, perhaps they should post their comments on the paranormal forum on this web site. Otherwise, read the thread, read Dr Schneider’s writings on his program and stop whining like crybabies. Are there any evolutionarians out their who are not thin skinned crybabies?

Waaa!!

The big bad boy hurt me!!!

[kleinman]

If less_than_three, kjkent1 and other evolutionarians think they can discuss Dr Schneider’s ev program without studying the model and what he has written about it, perhaps they should post their comments on the paranormal forum on this web site. Otherwise, read the thread, read Dr Schneider’s writings on his program and stop whining like crybabies. Are there any evolutionarians out their who are not thin skinned crybabies? I'd love to get you on a witness stand. Your responses would positively get you a night behind bars.
I have had you evolutionarians call me a beast; I warn you, stay away from the entrance to my cave.
I've already read all of Schneider's explanations, and I see nothing in Schneider's writing that explains why a different die off rate is irrelevant. I also see nothing that shows how different environmental stresses would not have a marked effect on the outcome of a creature at any point during its evolution.
I doubt you have read this entire thread let alone Dr Schneider’s entire web site dedicated to this computer model. There are probably close to 100 pages of information related to ev on his site.
So, would you kindly explain it for me?
I’ll give you one instance of when Dr Schneider talked about his selection process, and then you will have to do your own homework.
The following quotes are taken from An Analysis of Batten's Criticism of the Ev Model page. This page is linked from Dr Schneider’s ev-blog page. If you have trouble finding the page, I’ll repost the links which have been posted multiple times on this thread.
For example, the selection coefficient is extremely high, the genome is extremely small, the mutation rate high, no possibility of extinction is permitted, etc the selection coefficient is extremely high. Why does a dandelion produce so many seeds? One plant could repopulate the entire yard! Why does a man or a sea urchin make millions of sperm? The answer is easy: most don't survive. But this objection is again a distraction from the point of the simulation, which was to demonstrate generation of information. Since does that, the objection is mute.

the mutation rate high. Perhaps Batten did not read the paper carefully. In Ev the mutation rate is only an order of magnitude higher than HIV. So instead of the simulation taking 700 generations it would take 7000. At 20 minutes per generation, this is only 4 hours. We have 2 to 3 billion years available.

the genome is extremely small. This is not relevant to the problem. If you make the genome larger it only slows down the simulation (you are welcome to try it yourself) but the same results will be obtained. If you don't believe that claim, do the simulation yourself.

no possibility of extinction is permitted. This is not relevant to the problem of information gain since extinction would merely stop the simulation. Besides, the simulation was explicitly designed to model gain of information in a new genetic control system that the organism is not yet dependent on. Logically, any new genetic control system has this property! So any extinctions that occur at the start are irrelevant. The relative survival will cause the evolution of the sites. If you don't believe this, try a simulation with extinction allowed.
Dr Schneider used a mutation rate 2 orders of magnitude higher than the HIV mutation rate and at least 3-4 orders of magnitude higher than those seen in any free living organism.

The genome length is unrealistically small and is relevant to the rate of information gain. I did do the simulation myself and as you lengthen the genome the rate of convergence of the model becomes so profoundly slow that macroevolution becomes mathematically impossible. As Dr Schneider recommends, “try it yourself”.

Dr Schneider’s argument that extinction is not relevant to the problem of information gain is incorrect. Extinction is an observed phenomenon. I have not raised this issue because even with Dr Schneider’s very liberal selection criteria, the model is still far too slow to explain macroevolution when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used in his model. You can find other discussions that Dr Schneider has made with reference to his selection process used in his program if you are willing to take the time to study his web site.
Waaa!!
There, there DHR, just take your medicine and you will feel much better afterwards.

[I less than three logic]

If less_than_three, kjkent1 and other evolutionarians think they can discuss Dr Schneider’s ev program without studying the model and what he has written about it, perhaps they should post their comments on the paranormal forum on this web site. Otherwise, read the thread, read Dr Schneider’s writings on his program and stop whining like crybabies. Are there any evolutionarians out their who are not thin skinned crybabies?
You’ve managed to produce yet another post containing nothing but fallacies, evasions, and unsubstantiated claims. Good for you. If nothing else you’re consistent with your deceitful debate tactics.

Now, provide the answers to the questions asked, or admit that you can not. Then find the post and quote me on where I said (or even implied) I was an evolutionarian, which by the way is not a word; it appears to be an ineffective and witless insult. You can then proceed to show where I have “whined like a crybaby”. I’m merely requiring you to hold an honest debate and to follow the rules expected in such. Thus far, you appear completely unable to do so. That gives the impression that your argument holds no merit.

[fishbob]

. . . Paul, can’t you tell the difference between a bird’s nest and a bunch of grass and sticks blown by the wind into a pile? . .

See my unanswered post #733: This is the same flawed argument (and thoroughly debunked) that William Dembski nattered on about for several years.

Still looks like you are pushing the same argument as Dembski.

[kjkent1]

I have had you evolutionarians call me a beast; I warn you, stay away from the entrance to my cave.<shrug> Your ad hominems don't rise to the level of anything legally actionable. If they ever do, I'll let you know via personal service of summons. Meanwhile, if you'd rather not discuss this subject with me, then just let me know and I'll stop asking you questions.

OTOH, if you want to educate me, then answer my questions.

I doubt you have read this entire thread let alone Dr Schneider’s entire web site dedicated to this computer model. There are probably close to 100 pages of information related to ev on his site.Irrelevant.

Dr Schneider used a mutation rate 2 orders of magnitude higher than the HIV mutation rate and at least 3-4 orders of magnitude higher than those seen in any free living organism.Maybe "macro"-evolution doesn't happen gradually. Maybe evolution via punctuated equillibrium due to extreme environmental stress on a organism population is the norm.

That's why I'm raising the issue. If we are to modify EV's selection mechanism, then we may as well do it realistically.

The genome length is unrealistically small and is relevant to the rate of information gain. I did do the simulation myself and as you lengthen the genome the rate of convergence of the model becomes so profoundly slow that macroevolution becomes mathematically impossible. As Dr Schneider recommends, “try it yourself”.Yes, I know. This is your prima facie case, and you are relentlessly compounding it. It's an interesting case, in my opinion, but not necessarily a winner.

Dr Schneider’s argument that extinction is not relevant to the problem of information gain is incorrect. Extinction is an observed phenomenon. I have not raised this issue because even with Dr Schneider’s very liberal selection criteria, the model is still far too slow to explain macroevolution when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used in his model.Dr. Schneider's model proves information gain due to mutation and selection. The rate of mutation and method of selection/environmental stress is THE issue, because as you have demonstrated, unless some realistic combination of mutation and selection causes a profound increase in evolutionary change, then either the model is flat wrong, or there is something else present in the evolutionary process which remains unknown.

[cyborg]

In seems to be in the area of expertise of evolutionarians to rule out God in the orderly harmony of what exists. I don’t know what mysterious expertise they have to draw this conclusion but they certainly seem sure of this.

I want to know what mysterious expertise anyone has to have any conclusions about what most people would say is a thing that is inherently beyond human comprehension.

Besides, it's entirely clear that ol' Al was using a poetic god when the fully body of his quotes on the matter are considered. Either way, it's pretty irrelevant since you're saying you're cleverer than all 'evolutionists' and hence your opinions on gods are superior to theirs or you're saying everyone's too stupid and hence you're perfectly justified in making any conclusion you want.

[kleinman]

This is the same flawed argument (and thoroughly debunked) that William Dembski nattered on about for several years. Still looks like you are pushing the same argument as Dembski.
I have only read Dr Schneider’s rebuttal to Dembski’s criticisms of the ev model. Apparently Demski’s argument is that Dr Schneider has somehow smuggled information into the computer model. My argument is different. I believe that Dr Schneider has written a plausible mathematical model for random point mutations and natural selection. What my assertion is that when realistic parameters are used in his model, it shows that rate of information acquisition becomes profoundly slow, too slow to allow for macroevolution by the mechanism of random point mutations and natural selection. Fishbob, why don’t you try Dr Schneider’s model? Paul Anagnostopoulos, moderator for this forum wrote the java version of the program and made it simple to use. Try increasing the genome length in the model and see what happens to the generations for convergence.
Dr Schneider used a mutation rate 2 orders of magnitude higher than the HIV mutation rate and at least 3-4 orders of magnitude higher than those seen in any free living organism. Maybe "macro"-evolution doesn't happen gradually. Maybe evolution via punctuated equillibrium due to extreme environmental stress on a organism population is the norm.

That's why I'm raising the issue. If we are to modify EV's selection mechanism, then we may as well do it realistically.
The point you are missing is that when you use realistic mutation rates and genome lengths, it takes huge numbers of generations to evolve only a few loci in the ev model. Paul has not made very many extrapolations with the data from ev that I agree with, but one that I think we are close on is for the evolution of 16 binding sites (each 6 bases wide for a total of 96 loci) on a 100k genome with a mutation rate of 10^-6 and a population of 1,000,000 would take 200,000,000 generations to evolve only 96 loci.

If you could find a selection process that would speed up convergence in ev, I think evolutionarians would raise a glass to you from one end of this forum to the other. Delphi would raise a glass either way.
The genome length is unrealistically small and is relevant to the rate of information gain. I did do the simulation myself and as you lengthen the genome the rate of convergence of the model becomes so profoundly slow that macroevolution becomes mathematically impossible. As Dr Schneider recommends, “try it yourself”. Yes, I know. This is your prima facie case, and you are relentlessly compounding it. It's an interesting case, in my opinion, but not necessarily a winner.
Again, what you don’t realize is that it forces evolutionarians to take the position that all fundamental genes and genetic control systems have to evolve on very short length genomes. You can not evolve any long sequences of bases on a long genome by random point mutations and natural selection.
Dr Schneider’s argument that extinction is not relevant to the problem of information gain is incorrect. Extinction is an observed phenomenon. I have not raised this issue because even with Dr Schneider’s very liberal selection criteria, the model is still far too slow to explain macroevolution when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used in his model.Dr. Schneider's model proves information gain due to mutation and selection. The rate of mutation and method of selection/environmental stress is THE issue, because as you have demonstrated, unless some realistic combination of mutation and selection causes a profound increase in evolutionary change, then either the model is flat wrong, or there is something else present in the evolutionary process which remains unknown.
Virtually everything is unknown in abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. There is no plausible explanation how RNA bases could form in the primordial soup, there is no plausible explanation how these bases could link up nonezymatically to form the first functional ribozymes, there is no plausible explanation how these ribozymes could initiate protein synthesis and form DNA, there is no plausible explanation how this collection of chemicals could remain stable long enough and in one place long enough to combine and form the first living thing, there is no explanation of what kind of selection process would allow for such chemical reactions, and now ev shows that once you have living creatures, random point mutations and natural selection is so slow that you don’t have enough time to evolve any fundamental gene or genetic control system. The abiogenesis and the theory of evolution is a long list of speculations each with its own set of highly improbable unknowns.

Your own evolutionarian mathematical model argues against your case.

[kjkent1]

The point you are missing is that when you use realistic mutation rates and genome lengths, it takes huge numbers of generations to evolve only a few loci in the ev model.I'm not missing this point -- you repeat it frequently, and I am acknowledging that it is important.

However, the issue, "now," is whether the generational requirements would be reduced given other "realistic" parameters, such as actual organism survival rates, external environmental stresses, other types of genetic changes, such as recombination, and different types of mutation "mistakes" (i.e., I note that the EV program only codes two types of mistakes), none of which appears to have been contemplated by the EV model.

Also, on the other side of the coin, someone could impose a specific set of changes at some specific point (a "design"), and then continue to run the program, to see whether the design would start to substantially deteriorate, and how long that deterioration would require. If deterioration occurred quickly, it would suggest a rather crappy design, and it would also suggest that continuous intervention by the designer would be necessary to maintain the species continuum.

If you could find a selection process that would speed up convergence in ev, I think evolutionarians would raise a glass to you from one end of this forum to the other. Delphi would raise a glass either way.General legal advice: stop suggesting that Delphi has a drinking problem. If it turns out in reality that he has none, and that persons who know him for who he really is, think less of him as the result of your comments here, then you could find yourself to be the "natural selection" for the role of defendant in a libel/false light attribution suit. Getting your actual ID and contact info would be trivially easy via a subpoena served on randi.org.

Again, what you don’t realize is that it forces evolutionarians to take the position that all fundamental genes and genetic control systems have to evolve on very short length genomes. You can not evolve any long sequences of bases on a long genome by random point mutations and natural selection.This is not necessarily a fatal flaw in the theory of evolution. Maybe this is exactly what happens.

PS. I'm not an "evolutionarian." I prefer not to believe that magic rules the universe. However, if this ultimately is the case, then I'll just have to deal with it.

PPS. Schneider's published paper states that its purpose is to "demonstrate that Rsequence can indeed evolve into Rfrequency." That is the thesis statement and that is the only bit of science which was likely peer reviewed. You admit that this is proven by the program, so your other complaints about the publication are not particularly relevant.

If you want to show that EV specifically refutes long genomes by point mutation and natural selection, then it falls to you to submit your research for publication. If you are rejected, THEN you may have something worthy of a serious complaint (i.e.: $$$).

[fishbob]

I have only read Dr Schneider’s rebuttal to Dembski’s criticisms of the ev model. Apparently Demski’s argument is that Dr Schneider has somehow smuggled information into the computer model. My argument is different. I believe that Dr Schneider has written a plausible mathematical model for random point mutations and natural selection. What my assertion is that when realistic parameters are used in his model, it shows that rate of information acquisition becomes profoundly slow, too slow to allow for macroevolution by the mechanism of random point mutations and natural selection. Fishbob, why don’t you try Dr Schneider’s model? Paul Anagnostopoulos, moderator for this forum wrote the java version of the program and made it simple to use. Try increasing the genome length in the model and see what happens to the generations for convergence.

I have no facility or real interest in running (or technical cability to run) computer models. There is no reason for me to try to duplicate what people with more skills are already doing.

I was not in any way referring to anything Dembski had to say about the ev model. What Dembski has to say about anything is not relevant.

I am saying that your argument against evolution appears to share the same flawed basis as Dembski's argument against evolution. The difference being that your argument focuses on the Schneider model, while Dembski's argument used statistics.

[Myriad]

For those who might be interested, here's a review of some details of how ev actually works:

1. The model starts with a population of individually generated random genomes -- sequences of random characters from the set {a, c, g, t} whose length is G+w-1, where

G = the number of possible binding sites (a user-controllable parameter)
and
w = the width, in bases, of each binding site or "site width" (a user-controllable parameter)

Every position in the genome is considered a possible binding site except for the (w-1) bases at the end of the genome, which can't be binding sites because there's not enough genome left to bind with.

2. The initial portion of the genome encodes a weight matrix, an array of numbers representing a weight for each of the four possible bases for each of the w positions of a potential binding site. Each base represents two binary digits (a = "00," c="01," g="10", t = "11"). The number of bases used to specify each entry in the weight matrix, or "weight width," is a user-controllable parameter. The gene sequences encoding the weight matrix values are converted into numbers using twos-complement notation, so the allowed values have a roughly symmetrical negative to positive range (and a single mutation to the most significant digit can cause a wide swing). Since the sequences start out random, obviously the numbers in the weight matrix also start out random.

3. Following the weight matrix, there is a threshold region of the same number of bases as encode each entry in the weight matrix (parameter "weight width") which is decoded the same way, as a twos-complement (positive or negative) binary number.

4. The remainder of the genome is the region in which binding sites may be located. A user-controllable parameter specifies the number of binding sites. The user can specify whether the binding sites are located at evenly spaced intervals or randomly, and if randomly, with or without the possibility of overlapping. The binding site locations are set at the outset, do not move, and are the same for all individuals.

The purpose of the simulation is to demonstrate that the information necessary to "find" or bind to the binding sites, and not to any other sites in the genome, evolves in the genome through random mutation and selection. The weight matrix, threshold, binding sites, and all other non-binding sites evolve together to reach a configuration in which the weight matrix yields an above-threshold result at the binding sites and a below-threshold result at all other sites. The resulting evolved genomes exhibit a property that appears to meet IDers' definition of irreducible complexity, because the binding site sequences and the weight matrix sequence must, and do, match up to each other in order for the binding sites to function.

It's important to note that while the binding sites are located in the region of the genome following the threshold, every position in the genome (except a few at the very end as already noted), including within the weight matrix and threshold regions, is considered a potential binding site where an unwanted binding "mistake" can occur.

5. The key operation in ev's model of natural selection is counting the number of "mistakes" each creature has. To count the mistakes, the model first reads the weight matrix and the threshold value encoded in the genome. Using the weight matrix, the model determines a binding value starting at each base in the genome (except the last few at the end). For instance, for the 101st possible binding site, starting at the 101st base in the genome, if the 101st base is "t" and the weight matrix entry for [0, t] is 52, then 52 is added to the binding strength. If the 102nd base is also "t" and the weight matrix entry for [1, t] is -120, then -120 is added to the running total. If the 103rd base is "a" and the weight matrix entry for [2, a] is 21, then 21 is added. And so forth, until the total over all w positions (w = the specified binding site width) have been summed.

The sum or total binding strength is compared to the threshold value. If the site is a binding site, and the binding strength is less than the threshold, then that counts as a "mistake" -- the binding mechanism fails to bind to the useful binding site. If the site is not a designated binding site, and the binding strength is greater than the threshold, that also counts as a "mistake" -- the binding mechanism is binding needlessly to a position that's not a useful binding site.

6. Selection in ev is based entirely on number of mistakes. All the individuals in the population are sorted by their total number of mistakes. They are then compared in pairs starting at the beginning and end of the sorted list. That is, the first (fewest mistakes) creature on the list is compared with the last (most mistakes), then the second creature is compared with the second to last creature, and so forth. If the creature from the first half of the list has fewer mistakes than the creature from the second half of the list, the bottom-half creature's genome is erased and replaced with a copy of the top-half creature's genome. If they are tied with the same number of mistakes, both survive. It's not unusual, depending on the parameters, to have a large "tied" population in each generation.

(In response to certain critical comments, Dr. Schneider installed and tested variant tie-breaking methods that can be invoked by user-settable flags. In one version, ties are broken by a 50-50 random choice. In another, whichever creature happened to be sorted into the first half of the list wins a tie, which makes survival dependent on the arbitrary internal behavior of the sorting algorithm.)

One subtlety that might be worth noting is that even with the original algorithm in which both creatures survive a tie, which creatures survive is still sometimes dependent on the arbitrary internal behavior of the sorting algorithm. Suppose the population has the following numbers of mistakes, after sorting:

4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 9

The 6, the 9, and the two fives who happen to be in the unlucky third-to-last and fourth-to-last position will be matched up against the 4's and consequently replaced. The remaining 5's are all matched up against each other, are tied, and so all survive. Ev counts the number of deaths, and also makes a separate count of numbers of deaths for which other creatures with the same number of mistakes survived that generation, so experimenters can judge for themselves whether this occurrence has any significant effect.

7. Random mutation in ev is straightforward and works as one might expect. All bases in a genome are subject to random mutation with equal probability. User-settable parameters can define the mutation rate as either the expected number per creature per generation, or the expected number per base per creature per generation. Regardless of which option is used for setting the parameter, if the expected number of mutations per creature per generation has a fractional part, then whether that fractional part results in a mutation is randomly determined (with a probability equal to the fraction) for each creature for each generation.

The preceeding are all plain facts about how ev works, easily verified by examining the code and/or reading the provided documentation. What follows is evaluation of that behavior based on experience with actual runs.

- Selection Model -

Two facts are very important for understanding ev's behavior: One, that selection is based solely on the number of mistakes; and two, that after a relatively brief initial period at the start of a run, most of the mistakes in the population require multiple point changes in the genome to eliminate.

There is no positive selective value for a creature for any improvement short of eliminating a mistake. A mutation that reduces the magnitude of a mistake, without eliminating the mistake, does not confer any advantage, except for the chance of a subsequent mutation that eliminates the mistake the rest of the way. (Of course, subsequent mutations can also make the mistake worse again, or create a new mistake somewhere else that will cause that creature to be selected out.) Furthermore, a mutation that makes an existing mistake worse in magnitude does not confer any selective disadvantage either. (This remains equally true if either of the two alternative tie-breaking methods are used.)

With large genomes and/or low mutation rates, the population eventually settles out so that most of the individuals have not only the same number of mistakes, but mistakes at all the same locations. (These are binding site mistakes; non-binding-site mistakes tend to be much more quickly selected out.) Creatures receiving mutations that increase their number of mistakes are the ones selected out each generation; the others all remain tied. The appearance of an individual with one fewer mistake is a rare event. When it happens, the individual with one fewer mistake, unless it is exceedingly unlucky with subsequent mutations, quickly multiplies and its descendents replace the entire rest of the population in a few generations. This can result in a loss of diversity at the remaining binding sites -- the individual with one fewer mistake might have worse than average values at its remaining mistake locations, for instance. Because of this, and because there are fewer and fewer improvements left to make, there tend to be an increasing number of generations between reductions in the number of mistakes as the number of mistakes decreases.

- Population -

Because multiple changes to the genome are typically required to eliminate any one population-wide mistake, Kleinman's argument that large increases in population should have little effect on the number of generations to reach a "perfect creature" (no mistakes), because the probability of any one specific mutation occurring in the population per generation approaches 1 with a population on the order of the genome length, is invalid. The probabilities of a given combination of 2 or more mutations obviously does not approach 1 until the population reaches the order of successive powers of the genome length -- which microbial populations in nature can easily do, up to at least the third power. This prediction is consistent with test results. Every series of test runs with increasing populations has continued to show reductions in number of generations for as long as the data series is extended. Kleinman points out that the rate of reduction decreases as the population increases, but has not given any reason why we should expect otherwise if the curve has an exponent of, say, .5 or .33. Therefore Kleinman's assertion that large populations make no difference is contradicted on both theoretical and experimental grounds.

One detail that should be kept in mind as tests with higher populations are contemplated is ev's current relatively crude method of distributing mutations. In ev, if the mutation rate is 1 per genome per generation, it means each creature undergoes exactly 1 mutation. This is a reasonable approximation at low populations, but it might change the behavior significantly at higher populations. For instance, suppose the population were 10^12 individuals, with a genome length of 10^6 and a mutation rate of 1 per genome per generation. Furthermore, suppose that a certain population-wide mistake can be eliminated by two mutations, but each of those mutations individually creates a new mistake. (For instance, one mutation might change the weight matrix, and another mutation in a non-mistake binding site prevents the change from causing a new mistake there). If mutations were truly distributed randomly through the population at an expected rate of 1/genome-generation, the chance per generation of both mutations occurring simultaneously in the same individual would be about 1 in 10^13, so population-wide it would be about 1 in 10 per generation. But with mutations distributed as exactly one per creature per generation as ev does it, the probability of that same event is zero.

- Genome Length -

As the genome length in ev is increased, with other parameters held constant, several different effects occur.

1. If the mutation rate per genome is held constant, then the chance of any given base mutating decreases proportionally. This reduces the effective mutation rate of the "key" parts of the genome -- the weight matrix, threshold, and binding sites. Of course, a mutation to any other part of the genome can be significant if it causes a non-binding-site mistake, but such mistakes are relatively less likely to occur and are quickly selected out when they do occur. So, the net effect is that convergence toward "perfect creature" slows down.

2. The longer the genome, the more information is required to specify the locations of the binding sites in the genome. The amount (in bits) of information required to find a given binding site is displayed by the program as the value Rfrequency. Thus, the genome has to evolve more information per binding site to find the binding sites.

Furthermore, the binding sites can only contain a certain maximum amount of information, which is 2 bits per base or 2*(site width) bits total. This limit is called Rcapacity (but it is not displayed by the program). As Rfrequency increases above about (Rcapacity - 2), the convergence slows down rapidly, and when Rfreq >= Rcapacity, the population doesn't converge at all. (In nature, according to Dr. Schneider's work, Rfrequency tends to approximately Rcapacity/2.)

With ev's default binding site width of 6 (Rcapacity = 12), and with its default 16 binding sites, Rfrequency starts getting close to Rcapacity (to 10.0) at a genome length of 16,384. Convergence slows down rapidly beyond that, and doesn't happen at all at or above a genome length of 65,000.

This is not merely an effect of genome length alone. It can easily be seen at shorter genome lengths, where convergence is normally rapid, by reducing the site width to reduce Rcapacity. For instance, I've run 1024 bases, 8 binding sites (Rfreq = 7), site width 3 (Rcapacity = 6), for over 7,000,000 generations without ever seeing a non-mistake binding site appear. I have to admit that while I understand the information theory explanation of why this occurs (basically, you can't put seven gallons of water in a six-gallon bucket), I don't understand it intuitively on the what-happens-next level of how the simulation runs. However, it may be directly related to the phenomena described in the next item.

3. With longer genomes, there are noticeable differences in how the evolution progresses, especially in the early stages. With a short genome, the initial selection often favors individuals that, by chance, have fewer binding-site mistakes to begin with. But with longer genomes, there are many more non-binding sites, and so the weight of selection shifts to favoring individuals with fewer non-binding-site mistakes. With long random genomes, the individuals with the fewest non-binding-site mistakes are the ones with high threshold values and few positive values anywhere in the weight matrix, so the population quickly acquires those characteristics. This results in a population in which every binding site is a mistake in every individual. Elimination of mistakes is slow, because the same kinds of changes likely to eliminate a binding site mistake -- decreases to the threshold or increases in weight values -- are also likely to cause multiple non-binding-site mistakes to appear.

4. Longer genomes increase the memory requirements to run the program, and increase the realtime necessary to run the model per generation. This is irrelevant to the results of tests as they apply to evolution, but it has a big effect on what tests can be performed practically.

Kleinman has reported that the generations to convergence increase dramatically as longer genome lengths are tested. However, what he's seeing are largely the result of effects 1 and 2. To my recollection he's never reported the results of any tests at any binding site width other than the default, so his runs never converge past genome lengths about 50,000 bases.

Paul has reported tests using a constant mutation rate per base (controlling effect #1) and starting with a large site width (controlling effect #2 within the practical limits of genome lengths for his test run) and reported that the generations to convergence increases linearly with the genome length. This despite effect #3 and despite all the limitations of the selection model discussed previously.

Thus, Kleinman's claims of evolution becoming "profoundly slow" with "realistic" parameters for genome length and mutation rate (see below) are not supported by the evidence.

- Mutation Rate -

By all accounts and according to all tests so far, reducing the mutation rate has a linear effect on increasing the generations to convergence, for reasons that should be intuitively obvious. Except for cases such as I described above where simultaneous mutations might be advantageous but individually fatal, there's no difference to a creature whether it receives 10 mutations one every 100 generations on average, or 10 mutations in the same generation, or somewhere in between. The effect of the mutation rate only becomes complex when it becomes very high (many orders of magnitude higher than what Kleinman accepts as "realistic") resulting in a mutation load that slows down or even prevents evolutionary progress.

Even if one accepts the claim that the ancient prokaryotes that are the closest scenario from nature to what ev simulates must have mutation rates similar to present-day microorganisms (and no evidence whatsoever has been offered to support that claim), such a mutation rate (versus the 1 per 512 base rate that Paul used in his genome-length series) only accounts for a further increase in number of generations of a factor of about 10^4, which combined with the linear effects of expanding to "realistic" genome lengths, still does not result in evolution that's "profoundly slow" by known evolutionary time scales. There are also sound mathematical and experimental reasons to expect that higher populations would indeed compensate for lower mutation rates. For instance, if (unlike in ev) mutations were truly randomly distributed, a large fraction of the population would receive signficantly more than the expected number of mutations in any given generation.

- Sex Sells Everything, Even Evolution -

In attempting to apply quantitative results (however questionable) of ev to questions of the evolution rate of humans and other eukaryotes, Kleinman has rejected any hypothesis that sexual reproduction can account for faster, more efficient evolution. While it is true that recombination alone does not create additional mutations, mutations alone do not control the rate of information increase. The generation of combinations of mutations and the selection of such combinations is critical, as should be patently obvious to anyone who, like Kleinman, has run the ev model and observed that, taking the population into account, it can take enough generations to converge for every possible point mutation to have occurred tens, hundreds, or thousands of times over along the way. Clearly it matters what combinations of mutations appear in which individuals, and sexual reproduction generates new combinations much more efficiently while allowing the population to assimilate a considerably higher mutation load.

This is well known to every engineer who designs and uses genetic algorithms.

It's also well-known to Kleinman, or at least it should be. One mathematical model comparing asexual to sexual reproduction is given by MacKay available at w w w.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/itprnn/ps/265.280.pdf. (Figure 19.1 sums up the difference recombination makes very succinctly.) I'm indebted to Kleinman for pointing me to the MacKay monograph in the first place, and I've pointed out significance of the MacKay model to Kleinman on several occasions to no apparent avail.

- Further Research -

I'm glad to hear that Paul is contemplating some experiments with modified selection models. I've been experimenting with two ideas: one is to include other selective factors such as the mean or maximum mistake magnitude, and the other is to randomly or periodically alter the effective threshold value (representing e.g. day/night temperature cycles affecting the binding strength) so as to give a selective advantage to more robust binding strengths and lesser-magnitude mistakes (which are more likely to become non-mistakes with an altered threshold value). This is going slowly because for convenience and flexibility, I'm using a slow-running scripting language (Lingo/Shockwave) for my test programs. But I'm not under any deadline.

Selecting based on worst mistake magnitude (as a tie-breaker for total number of mistakes) has produced the most interesting results so far. For one thing, it appears to cause the number of generations between successively smaller numbers of mistakes to decrease as the number of remaining mistakes decreases, instead of increasing as it does in plain ev.

Some other ideas:

- Use Gray binary instead of twos-complement for the weights and threshold encodings. This guarantees that it's always possible to make a one-unit incremental change by a single mutation, whereas regular binary can get trapped and unable to make a needed small increase or small decrease without changing mutiple digits. Example: attt = 00111111; if this needs to be higher but cttt = 01111111 is too high, then two separate mutations are needed to reach a value in between.

- To represent the presence of a already-evolved genes in the genome, designate sections of the genome as gene regions, with some fixed chance that any mutation to a gene region is immediately fatal. (However, some provision must also be made to allow mutations that eliminate mistakes.) Not only is this reasonably realistic, but some quick calculations and small-scale experiments suggest that as long as the overall mutation load is not too high, this can speed up the convergence by selecting in favor of the portion of the population receiving modifications to the evolving (threshold, weight matrix, and binding site) parts of the genome. Essentially, partially compensating for the genome being longer, at low mutation rates.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Excellent, Myriad. Thanks for the detailed summary.


Furthermore, the binding sites can only contain a certain maximum amount of information, which is 2 bits per base or 2*(site width) bits total. This limit is called Rcapacity (but it is not displayed by the program).
Rcapacity is displayed on the Data & Statistics panel.

~~ Paul

[Apathia]

Myriad,

Thank you for your clear summary. I find the clarity worth the process of "Annoyance" in this thread.

[joobz]

Virtually everything is unknown in abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. There is no plausible explanation how RNA bases could form in the primordial soup, there is no plausible explanation how these bases could link up nonezymatically to form the first functional ribozymes, there is no plausible explanation how these ribozymes could initiate protein synthesis and form DNA, there is no plausible explanation how this collection of chemicals could remain stable long enough and in one place long enough to combine and form the first living thing, there is no explanation of what kind of selection process would allow for such chemical reactions, and now ev shows that once you have living creatures, random point mutations and natural selection is so slow that you don’t have enough time to evolve any fundamental gene or genetic control system. The abiogenesis and the theory of evolution is a long list of speculations each with its own set of highly improbable unknowns.
bolding mine.
If someone provides a plausible mechanism, are you saying you'd change your mind? No, you are using it as an escape hatch. when ever we present data to the contrary, you claim it is "not plausible".

So, can you provide data why you feel ID is plausible?

[hammegk]

So, can you provide data why you feel ID is plausible?
For me, the order we all notice in perceived reality at every level of observation greater than Planck length. :)

[Dr Adequate]

Your own evolutionarian mathematical model argues against your case. You have degenerated from an amusing buffoon into a bore. Can't you think of some new lies?

I haven't had a good laugh out of this thread since last you mentioned thermodynamics.

[Yahzi]

I want to know what mysterious expertise anyone has to have any conclusions about what most people would say is a thing that is inherently beyond human comprehension.
I agree with the above statement; but I had to read it five times to figure what it's saying.

:D

[joobz]

For me, the order we all notice in perceived reality at every level of observation greater than Planck length. :)
At least you acknowledge that that is a personal reflection to fulfill your own preceived reality and not something you try to apply to all observers.

So far, I got to say that I've enjoyed your postings. Thank you:)

[kjkent1]

For those who might be interested, here's a review of some details of how ev actually works:

(redacted...)


Respectfully,
MyriadThanks. That was helpful. I'm sure kleinman will have a number of objections to your explanation -- so, I shall withhold further comment until the argument narrows again.

[Soapy Sam]

Myriad- Thank you for your description. It confirms my suspicion that while Ev may be an interesting early attempt , it is in no meaningful sense an accurate model of evolution. This is no to criticise the attempt; the Wright Flyer was not an F22 for similar reasons.

It does support my simple observation that if the result of a model does not reflect reality, it is the model , not reality which we must improve.

(Why this should be hard for to see is beyond my understanding ).

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Myriad- Thank you for your description. It confirms my suspicion that while Ev may be an interesting early attempt , it is in no meaningful sense an accurate model of evolution.
I disagree. It models the evolution of binding sites well enough to demonstrate that Rsequence approaches Rfrequency, which was exactly the point of writing it. Furthermore, when selection is turned off, the information content of the binding sites drops back to zero. Also, the generations required to evolve the binding sites varies linearly with the mutation rate. And so on.

The characteristics of binding sites are an important issue in biology.

http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/oxyr/latex/

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/24/4994

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=200970&tools=bot

If what you mean is that Ev does not model a significant portion of the real-world evolutionary landscape in exact detail, then I agree. Models of real-world evolution are going to be of necessity somewhat generic, unless you are willing to model chemistry in excruciating detail.

~~ Paul

[cyborg]

unless you are willing to model chemistry in excruciating detail.

At which point is it easier to just do the chemistry.

It's going to be pretty difficult for a computer of any design with a program of any cleverness to beat the pure simplicity of just using the real world. The basic point of computer models is that sometimes using the real world is impractical. It's a trade-off. No free lunch and all that.

[Myriad]

I'm glad people have found my summary useful. Fringe benefits of insomnia...

However, I did omit discussion of the actual original purpose of the model, so anyone looking up the original paper on ev (http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/) might be surprised to find that it's all about showing that Rsequence approaches Rfrequency, as a facet of Dr. Schneider's work on binding sites and his efforts to promote "sequence logos" as an improvement on "consensus sequences" as the most effective way to evaluate and document known binding sites and search for unknown ones. I didn't discuss Rsequence because it's not really among the issues Kleinman raised, and in fact, the model does not use the calculated values of Rsequence internally in any way. The behavior of Rsequence, like the concept of "generations to convergence," is strictly an output of the ev model.

Briefly, Rsequence is a measure of the amount of information in the binding sites, calculated from the genome sequences at the binding sites of a given individual creature in the model population (just as it can be calculated for any real genetic control system in any real genome, if the binding sites and their sequences are known). While ev might not be sophisticated in its model of genetic variation (most genetic algorithms, for instance, include, at least, recombination in addition to point mutation), it is (to my knowledge) unique and valuable in incorporating a well-defined measure of the amount of information gained by a given genome though the process of point mutation and selection.

I find the clarity worth the process of "Annoyance" in this thread.

I appreciate the compliment, but let's not take this "clarity" idea too far. Don't forget that Kleinman has gone to great lengths to be annoying, for our benefit. It would be most ungrateful of us to turn the discussion to clarification of the facts or useful discussion of the science. :D

Respectfully,
Myriad

[articulett]

I appreciate the compliment, but let's not take this "clarity" idea too far. Don't forget that Kleinman has gone to great lengths to be annoying, for our benefit. It would be most ungrateful of us to turn the discussion to clarification of the facts or useful discussion of the science. :D

Respectfully,
Myriad

I find his conviction interesting, and I appreciate your model. I could not figure out why he was sticking with this evolution via point mutation model when we know so many ways that genomes can be altered through time. Plus, I'm always bothered by the notion of "adding to the genome" that creationist like to talk about. Do they mean base pairs, genes, gene expression, function--? No matter how great the computer program is, it doesn't help if you can't say what you are testing for. And unless it includes all the ways we know that changes can occur to a genome, it's ridiculous to extract the exclusion that it evolution couldn't have happened unless some intelligent designer had a hand in it.

What becomes of the people who believe that evolution is a dead theory in 10 years when the data is even more stellar and obvious. Do they just get more and more cloistered in their illusion? Do you think Kleinman just can't understand why Shepard's model is inept? I just think it's so strange that he must believe all these scientists all over the world are working with a false theory while he and his theistic friends have the truth which is obvious in his math problem. Do they imagine that one day, Dawkins etc. will say, "gee, it's impossible for the genome to evolve without a designer--we need to start looking for evidence of the designer--the math shows that a designer is necessary because there's not enough time to evolve when you factor in a point mutation rate of "x"!"

Do they ever question themselves? I hope the new sim game "spore" factors in more than a point mutation algorithm for the evolution of creatures...or it will be a long slow game.

[kleinman]

The point you are missing is that when you use realistic mutation rates and genome lengths, it takes huge numbers of generations to evolve only a few loci in the ev model. I'm not missing this point -- you repeat it frequently, and I am acknowledging that it is important.
I have to continually repeat this because so many whining and whimpering evolutionarians keep saying that I am moving the goal posts.
However, the issue, "now," is whether the generational requirements would be reduced given other "realistic" parameters, such as actual organism survival rates, external environmental stresses, other types of genetic changes, such as recombination, and different types of mutation "mistakes" (i.e., I note that the EV program only codes two types of mistakes), none of which appears to have been contemplated by the EV model.
Recombination without errors can not create a new gene; recombination with natural selection can cause loss of alleles. Other forms of mutations such a gene and chromosomal duplications require point mutations to create new genes. Feel free to use frame shift mutations, inversions and other kind of mutation you can think of in ev to see if you get more rapid convergence. I think you underestimate how much Dr Schneider has contemplated his model. He has had this model for more than 20 years.
Also, on the other side of the coin, someone could impose a specific set of changes at some specific point (a "design"), and then continue to run the program, to see whether the design would start to substantially deteriorate, and how long that deterioration would require. If deterioration occurred quickly, it would suggest a rather crappy design, and it would also suggest that continuous intervention by the designer would be necessary to maintain the species continuum.
Turn off selection in the program and the binding sites quickly revert to random. This is an interesting point you raise. In order to sustain a particular sequence in the binding site region of ev, the selection process must be maintained forever. Whatever selection process that would lead to the evolution of a sequence of bases must never be removed otherwise that sequence of bases would quickly disappear.
If you could find a selection process that would speed up convergence in ev, I think evolutionarians would raise a glass to you from one end of this forum to the other. Delphi would raise a glass either way.General legal advice: stop suggesting that Delphi has a drinking problem. If it turns out in reality that he has none, and that persons who know him for who he really is, think less of him as the result of your comments here, then you could find yourself to be the "natural selection" for the role of defendant in a libel/false light attribution suit. Getting your actual ID and contact info would be trivially easy via a subpoena served on randi.org.
Oh, so his icon which says he needs a drink is a joke? I’ve used my actual ID on this and every site I have posted, unlike most of the hooded evolutionarians on this and other sites on which I have raised this issue.

Now why don’t you do your homework for your own little marketing plan and maybe you can find a way out of your cubicle you lazy, greedy Dilbert.
I am saying that your argument against evolution appears to share the same flawed basis as Dembski's argument against evolution. The difference being that your argument focuses on the Schneider model, while Dembski's argument used statistics.
Appearances can be deceiving. Dr Schneider’s computer program appeared to show mathematically how random point mutations and natural selection leads to gain in information in a genome, however when realistic parameters are used in the model, something totally different appears.
The resulting evolved genomes exhibit a property that appears to meet IDers' definition of irreducible complexity, because the binding site sequences and the weight matrix sequence must, and do, match up to each other in order for the binding sites to function.
Thank you for your very thorough description of the ev program. I have never seen a mathematical statement for irreducible complexity so I was wondering whether the application of ev when using unrealistic parameters would meet the condition of a refutation of irreducible complexity?
Because multiple changes to the genome are typically required to eliminate any one population-wide mistake, Kleinman's argument that large increases in population should have little effect on the number of generations to reach a "perfect creature" (no mistakes), because the probability of any one specific mutation occurring in the population per generation approaches 1 with a population on the order of the genome length, is invalid. The probabilities of a given combination of 2 or more mutations obviously does not approach 1 until the population reaches the order of successive powers of the genome length -- which microbial populations in nature can easily do, up to at least the third power. This prediction is consistent with test results. Every series of test runs with increasing populations has continued to show reductions in number of generations for as long as the data series is extended. Kleinman points out that the rate of reduction decreases as the population increases, but has not given any reason why we should expect otherwise if the curve has an exponent of, say, .5 or .33. Therefore Kleinman's assertion that large populations make no difference is contradicted on both theoretical and experimental grounds.
Why don’t you post the data which refutes my assertion?
Kleinman has reported that the generations to convergence increase dramatically as longer genome lengths are tested. However, what he's seeing are largely the result of effects 1 and 2. To my recollection he's never reported the results of any tests at any binding site width other than the default, so his runs never converge past genome lengths about 50,000 bases.
Feel free modify 1. (the mutation rate) in the middle of a run and see whether ev will converge more quickly. 2. (the effect of the longer genome length requiring more information to locate a binding site) is a mathematical condition imposed by information theory. Perhaps you can see a plausible way around this condition.

I have done a series where I examined the effects of site width on the rate of convergence ev and have posted the data on the Evolutionisdead forum. I’ll repost the information here for your convenience. G=2048, Rf=7, Population=64, mutation rate=1/genome per generation, weight width=1-site width.
Site Width/Gernerations for Rs >= Rf/Generations for perfect creature
6/35486
7/36920/36819
8/29745/48335
9/35009/35651
10/42747/42672
11/37899/63415
12/29658/34675
13/34201/36666
14/29726/33928
15/31448/31201
Feel free to use what ever site width you want and see if you can get a megabase genome to converge and refute my assertions.
By all accounts and according to all tests so far, reducing the mutation rate has a linear effect on increasing the generations to convergence, for reasons that should be intuitively obvious. Except for cases such as I described above where simultaneous mutations might be advantageous but individually fatal, there's no difference to a creature whether it receives 10 mutations one every 100 generations on average, or 10 mutations in the same generation, or somewhere in between. The effect of the mutation rate only becomes complex when it becomes very high (many orders of magnitude higher than what Kleinman accepts as "realistic") resulting in a mutation load that slows down or even prevents evolutionary progress.
Not quite by all accounts, I have already posted several series which show that mutation rates exhibit a paraboloid type of behavior on the rate of convergence. Of the five series I have done examining the effects of mutation rate on the rate of convergence, each has demonstrated this type of behavior. You need to run some of these cases so that you will convince yourself of this effect.
Even if one accepts the claim that the ancient prokaryotes that are the closest scenario from nature to what ev simulates must have mutation rates similar to present-day microorganisms (and no evidence whatsoever has been offered to support that claim), such a mutation rate (versus the 1 per 512 base rate that Paul used in his genome-length series) only accounts for a further increase in number of generations of a factor of about 10^4, which combined with the linear effects of expanding to "realistic" genome lengths, still does not result in evolution that's "profoundly slow" by known evolutionary time scales. There are also sound mathematical and experimental reasons to expect that higher populations would indeed compensate for lower mutation rates. For instance, if (unlike in ev) mutations were truly randomly distributed, a large fraction of the population would receive signficantly more than the expected number of mutations in any given generation.
It is you evolutionarians who are in the professional speculation business. There are known, measured mutation rates and genome lengths. If you think that there are sound mathematical and experimental reasons to expect that high populations will somehow compensate for these known, measured values, post your data, otherwise you continue to pile speculation upon speculation.
In attempting to apply quantitative results (however questionable) of ev to questions of the evolution rate of humans and other eukaryotes, Kleinman has rejected any hypothesis that sexual reproduction can account for faster, more efficient evolution. While it is true that recombination alone does not create additional mutations, mutations alone do not control the rate of information increase. The generation of combinations of mutations and the selection of such combinations is critical, as should be patently obvious to anyone who, like Kleinman, has run the ev model and observed that, taking the population into account, it can take enough generations to converge for every possible point mutation to have occurred tens, hundreds, or thousands of times over along the way. Clearly it matters what combinations of mutations appear in which individuals, and sexual reproduction generates new combinations much more efficiently while allowing the population to assimilate a considerably higher mutation load.
I have not rejected any hypothesis that sexual reproduction can account for faster, more efficient evolution. I have even suggested to Dr Schneider a means of introducing this concept into his model. Myriad, perhaps you will introduce recombination into ev and prove my assertions wrong.
It's also well-known to Kleinman, or at least it should be. One mathematical model comparing asexual to sexual reproduction is given by MacKay available at w w w.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/itprnn/ps/265.280.pdf. (Figure 19.1 sums up the difference recombination makes very succinctly.) I'm indebted to Kleinman for pointing me to the MacKay monograph in the first place, and I've pointed out significance of the MacKay model to Kleinman on several occasions to no apparent avail.
I also have said to you, once we have finished dissecting ev, we could examine the MacKay model in more detail and see whether this model rescues you theory. I have also pointed out to you that the MacKay model contradicts your assertion that huge populations will speed evolution, apparently to no avail.
Virtually everything is unknown in abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. There is no plausible explanation how RNA bases could form in the primordial soup, there is no plausible explanation how these bases could link up nonezymatically to form the first functional ribozymes, there is no plausible explanation how these ribozymes could initiate protein synthesis and form DNA, there is no plausible explanation how this collection of chemicals could remain stable long enough and in one place long enough to combine and form the first living thing, there is no explanation of what kind of selection process would allow for such chemical reactions, and now ev shows that once you have living creatures, random point mutations and natural selection is so slow that you don’t have enough time to evolve any fundamental gene or genetic control system. The abiogenesis and the theory of evolution is a long list of speculations each with its own set of highly improbable unknowns. If someone provides a plausible mechanism, are you saying you'd change your mind? No, you are using it as an escape hatch. when ever we present data to the contrary, you claim it is "not plausible".
I’ve been thinking about how we could get you back into this discussion besides your posting of URL’s and an occasional smiley face.

Since you are a professor of chemical engineering, why don’t you start by giving us a plausible mechanism for forming the initial RNA bases necessary to start the RNA world? Let’s make it simpler than that, why don’t you describe an experiment that would simulate the primordial world where you could generate ribose?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Feel free to use what ever site width you want and see if you can get a megabase genome to converge and refute my assertions.
Here's some data I collected:

population 36
site width 8
1 mutation per 512 bases

genome size, generations
512, 3763
722, 4950
1024, 9866
1448, 11446
2048, 11189
2887, 13037
4096, 38731
5775, 34424
8192, 61365
11550, 68696
16384, 73915
23101, 136762
32768, 177424
46202, 344124
65536, 526545
92406, 707871

This fits $7.8G^{.98}$ with r=0.99. It also fits a linear equation with r=0.99, even if I discard the first half of the points.

So tell me, what do you think is going to happen between a genome size of about 100K and 1000K that's going to screw up the curve fit? I just want to know what the magic is.

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

Feel free to use what ever site width you want and see if you can get a megabase genome to converge and refute my assertions.…So tell me, what do you think is going to happen between a genome size of about 100K and 1000K that's going to screw up the curve fit? I just want to know what the magic is.
I don’t know, why don’t you run a few more points in this series and see if you can refute my assertions.

[joobz]

I’ve been thinking about how we could get you back into this discussion besides your posting of URL’s and an occasional smiley face.
you've been having a discussion over the past 5+ pages? I didn't notice. I've only seen you post the same already refuted nonsense over and over again. That's hardly a "discussion". So I just posted the relavent posts that refute your claims.

Since you are a professor of chemical engineering, why don’t you start by giving us a plausible mechanism for forming the initial RNA bases necessary to start the RNA world? Let’s make it simpler than that, why don’t you describe an experiment that would simulate the primordial world where you could generate ribose?
You avoid my questions, and most of everyone elses, and then you expect your's to be answered? That seems a little one sided, do you think?

Anyway, I've already traveled this road with you. I could happily speculate, but my speculations would be less informed than those in the field. regardless, you would be "unsatisfied" with any answer.

BTW, how does my position tie into the question you pose? If you were to ask me a question on thermo, mass transfer, fluid mechanics, polymer chemistry, drug delivery, reaction kinetics... the connection is clear. But alas, you do not wish to discuss science. You simply wish to continue throwing rocks.

[Myriad]

I find his conviction interesting, and I appreciate your model. I could not figure out why he was sticking with this evolution via point mutation model when we know so many ways that genomes can be altered through time... No matter how great the computer program is, it doesn't help if you can't say what you are testing for. And unless it includes all the ways we know that changes can occur to a genome, it's ridiculous to extract the exclusion that it evolution couldn't have happened unless some intelligent designer had a hand in it.

... Do you think Kleinman just can't understand why Shepard's model is inept? I just think it's so strange that he must believe all these scientists all over the world are working with a false theory while he and his theistic friends have the truth which is obvious in his math problem. Do they imagine that one day, Dawkins etc. will say, "gee, it's impossible for the genome to evolve without a designer--we need to start looking for evidence of the designer--the math shows that a designer is necessary because there's not enough time to evolve when you factor in a point mutation rate of "x"!"

Do they ever question themselves?

My theory is that Kleinman has an orgasm every time he reads a post proving him wrong. This makes him the happiest man on earth.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[kleinman]

Since you are a professor of chemical engineering, why don’t you start by giving us a plausible mechanism for forming the initial RNA bases necessary to start the RNA world? Let’s make it simpler than that, why don’t you describe an experiment that would simulate the primordial world where you could generate ribose? You avoid my questions, and most of everyone elses, and then you expect your's to be answered? That seems a little one sided, do you think?
Is a mean old creationist ganging up on all you poor evolutionarians? How unfair of me. At least your grammar is showing some improvement.
My theory is that Kleinman has an orgasm every time he reads a post proving him wrong. This makes him the happiest man on earth.
I guarantee that this discussion has not given me any sexual gratification; however your latest theory is an improvement over the theory of evolution.

[John Hewitt]

Since you are a professor of chemical engineering, why don’t you start by giving us a plausible mechanism for forming the initial RNA bases necessary to start the RNA world? Let’s make it simpler than that, why don’t you describe an experiment that would simulate the primordial world where you could generate ribose?


I could happily speculate, but my speculations would be less informed than those in the field. regardless, you would be "unsatisfied" with any answer.

BTW, how does my position tie into the question you pose? If you were to ask me a question on thermo, mass transfer, fluid mechanics, polymer chemistry, drug delivery, reaction kinetics... the connection is clear. But alas, you do not wish to discuss science. You simply wish to continue throwing rocks.

If you have time to present them, I too would be very interested in those speculations.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Since you are a professor of chemical engineering, why don’t you start by giving us a plausible mechanism for forming the initial RNA bases necessary to start the RNA world? Let’s make it simpler than that, why don’t you describe an experiment that would simulate the primordial world where you could generate ribose?
Originally Posted by joobz
You avoid my questions, and most of everyone elses, and then you expect your's to be answered? That seems a little one sided, do you think?

Is a mean old creationist ganging up on all you poor evolutionarians? How unfair of me. At least your grammar is showing some improvement.

Dodging the questions again I see. Is it because whenever you provide an actual answer, you prove your silliness?

I'm still waiting to see why you say ev shows evolution takes too long. All of your arguments provided so far have been...well...wrong.

[I less than three logic]

Is a mean old creationist ganging up on all you poor evolutionarians? How unfair of me. At least your grammar is showing some improvement.

I guarantee that this discussion has not given me any sexual gratification; however your latest theory is an improvement over the theory of evolution.
This is yet another empty post that does nothing to advance or support your argument. If you truly think these ideas of yours are correct and have any interest whatsoever in advancing your ideas academically, then I highly recommend you work extremely hard in convincing at least one person that can hold a rational debate to take up the fight for you. The last 20 or so pages have proven beyond any doubt that you are utterly incompetent in this department. As long as you’re at the helm of this idea it is doomed to sit idle on forums such as this earning no more respect than any other idea being propagated by an internet troll.

[kjkent1]

Oh, so his icon which says he needs a drink is a joke? I’ve used my actual ID on this and every site I have posted, unlike most of the hooded evolutionarians on this and other sites on which I have raised this issue.

Now why don’t you do your homework for your own little marketing plan and maybe you can find a way out of your cubicle you lazy, greedy Dilbert.

I don't know what a lazy, greedy Dilbert is, so my response to this is <shrug>.

To your use of your "actual" ID, this is meaningless to me, as well. If you want to clearly identify yourself to me in this forum, that will be great.

As far as your substantive comments are concerned, I'll continue to wait for the other, more knowledgeable parties to respond. There's no purpose served by my trying to argue with you on the science.

[kleinman]

I don't know what a lazy, greedy Dilbert is, so my response to this is <shrug>.

To your use of your "actual" ID, this is meaningless to me, as well. If you want to clearly identify yourself to me in this forum, that will be great.

As far as your substantive comments are concerned, I'll continue to wait for the other, more knowledgeable parties to respond. There's no purpose served by my trying to argue with you on the science.
Here is an example of how you are lazy. If you were to read this thread and the Evolutionisdead thread on this topic, you would have my first and last names, and my educational background and training, but you are too lazy to read these threads. I have already told you why you are a greedy Dilbert. I now add inattentive to your description.

As far as finding more knowledgeable parties on ev, you have Paul who is now talking about magic, Myriad who has gone off into some sexual gratification discussion and Dr Schneider who is cowering over at the National Cancer Institute. Good luck in finding your more knowledgeable parties.

[kjkent1]

Here is an example of how you are lazy. If you were to read this thread and the Evolutionisdead thread on this topic, you would have my first and last names, and my educational background and training, but you are too lazy to read these threads. I have already told you why you are a greedy Dilbert. I now add inattentive to your description.

As far as finding more knowledgeable parties on ev, you have Paul who is now talking about magic, Myriad who has gone off into some sexual gratification discussion and Dr Schneider who is cowering over at the National Cancer Institute. Good luck in finding your more knowledgeable parties.

That was a terrific demonstration of your lack of talent for sarastic comedy. Don't quit your day job.

It was also, entirely non-responsive.

If you want to ID yourself, then do so. Otherwise, don't. If you want to prove your theories, send me a pro forma underwriten by a credible scientist (maybe you are such a scientist), and I'll try to get you the resources.

Otherwise, I'll just assume that you're afraid your hypothesis will ultimately be falsified.

[Eternal Gaijin]

Sometimes these annoying creationists just piss me off:

http://www.evolutionisdead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=11670&sid=3406e76df02b7fb9f60af262a63c3a63#11670

~~ Paul
How do you even pick the most annoying?
The groupthink they chuck around and accuse others of is amazing. (Looking at you, AiG)

[kleinman]

Here is an example of how you are lazy. If you were to read this thread and the Evolutionisdead thread on this topic, you would have my first and last names, and my educational background and training, but you are too lazy to read these threads. I have already told you why you are a greedy Dilbert. I now add inattentive to your description. If you want to ID yourself, then do so. Otherwise, don't. If you want to prove your theories, send me a pro forma underwriten by a credible scientist (maybe you are such a scientist), and I'll try to get you the resources.

Otherwise, I'll just assume that you're afraid your hypothesis will ultimately be falsified.
If you can’t get my name and scientific background off these threads you don’t have the skills to get the resources to run the larger problems with ev. I am not worried about being falsified. I’m also not in any hurry either; I’m enjoying annoying evolutionarians by twisting their evolutionary tales.

[kjkent1]

If you can’t get my name and scientific background off these threads you don’t have the skills to get the resources to run the larger problems with ev. I am not worried about being falsified. I’m also not in any hurry either; I’m enjoying annoying evolutionarians by twisting their evolutionary tales.

You're entitled to your opinion -- worthless as it may be.

[I less than three logic]

I’m also not in any hurry either; I’m enjoying annoying evolutionarians by twisting their evolutionary tales.
So you’re admitting you’re just a troll then? I’m afraid I can’t say I’m surprised.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don’t know, why don’t you run a few more points in this series and see if you can refute my assertions.
Hazaaa! Marvelous!! Now they are only assertions. The truth be out!

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

I’m also not in any hurry either; I’m enjoying annoying evolutionarians by twisting their evolutionary tales.So you’re admitting you’re just a troll then? I’m afraid I can’t say I’m surprised.
I told you to stay away from the entrance to my cave.
I don’t know, why don’t you run a few more points in this series and see if you can refute my assertions. Hazaaa! Marvelous!! Now they are only assertions. The truth be out!
What’s the matter, you don’t like the word assertion? Feel free to substitute any of the following synonyms; declaration, statement, claim, allegation, contention, argument. It doesn’t matter whether you run some more points from your series. When the computing resources become available, I will run the cases and the truth be out about ev. I love co-opting evolutionarian ideas, the only problem is there are so few worth co-opting.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What’s the matter, you don’t like the word assertion? Feel free to substitute any of the following synonyms; declaration, statement, claim, allegation, contention, argument.
Those words are all fine, too. Until now, you had been talking as if you had proof.

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

What’s the matter, you don’t like the word assertion? Feel free to substitute any of the following synonyms; declaration, statement, claim, allegation, contention, argument. Those words are all fine, too. Until now, you had been talking as if you had proof.
The only proof I have are more than 200 different cases with a variety of different input parameters from ev against the Dr Schneider’s single published case and perhaps the hundred or so cases that you and Myriad have posted that show the same results that my cases show. I understand it is not a very strong case for evolutionarians but you have to play the hand you are dealt. Actually, most of the truth is already out on ev, the only thing remaining to be shown is whether increasing population can rescue your theory. I doubt it will but this little bit of unknown gives a reason to continue this discussion (aside from the joy I experience in annoying evolutionarians).

[joobz]

The only proof I have are more than 200 different cases with a variety of different input parameters from ev against the Dr Schneider’s single published case and perhaps the hundred or so cases that you and Myriad have posted that show the same results that my cases show. I understand it is not a very strong case for evolutionarians but you have to play the hand you are dealt. Actually, most of the truth is already out on ev, the only thing remaining to be shown is whether increasing population can rescue your theory. I doubt it will but this little bit of unknown gives a reason to continue this discussion (aside from the joy I experience in annoying evolutionarians).
Oh, that's interesting. Because everything I've seen posted here has completely and totally contridicted your opinion. But then again, you do have thermodynamic evidence.:p

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Actually, most of the truth is already out on ev, the only thing remaining to be shown is whether increasing population can rescue your theory.
So now you're back to claiming you have proof.

Nothing new here, I guess.

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

Actually, most of the truth is already out on ev, the only thing remaining to be shown is whether increasing population can rescue your theory.So now you're back to claiming you have proof.

Nothing new here, I guess.
You’re the only one who has had to back pedal on your claims. I have never abandoned my claims. You are just working too hard parsing words looking for a way out of the mathematical vise that Dr Schneider has put the theory of evolution in with his ev model.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You’re the only one who has had to back pedal on your claims. I have never abandoned my claims. You are just working too hard parsing words looking for a way out of the mathematical vise that Dr Schneider has put the theory of evolution in with his ev model.
There's a world of difference between "see if you can refute my assertions" and "actually, most of the truth is already out." Unless, of course, you're just a slob with words.

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

You’re the only one who has had to back pedal on your claims. I have never abandoned my claims. You are just working too hard parsing words looking for a way out of the mathematical vise that Dr Schneider has put the theory of evolution in with his ev model. There's a world of difference between "see if you can refute my assertions" and "actually, most of the truth is already out." Unless, of course, you're just a slob with words.
I can’t tell which I enjoy more, annoying you or watching you squirm.

[articulett]

My theory is that Kleinman has an orgasm every time he reads a post proving him wrong. This makes him the happiest man on earth.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Oh. Well then, that explains it. And for now, that's the explanation that fits the data best. :)

but wait...does that mean...that...ewww...I feel so dirty.

[kleinman]

My theory is that Kleinman has an orgasm every time he reads a post proving him wrong. This makes him the happiest man on earth.

Respectfully,
Myriad Oh. Well then, that explains it. And for now, that's the explanation that fits the data best.

but wait...does that mean...that...ewww...I feel so dirty.
The only explanation is that this was all genetically predetermined. I can’t help it, I was born this way. You better not discriminate against us creationists, or we’ll have kjkent1 get his lawyers after you.

Articullet, take a bath and stop arousing yourself on this most serious matter.

[cyborg]

Articullet, take a bath and stop arousing yourself on this most serious matter.

SHAME ON YOU ARTICULLET!

This is some serious ****! Souls are at stake here - right kleinman?

[Dr Adequate]

Kleiman resembles nothing so much as a lunatic who repeatedly soils his straitjacket so as to give his keepers the trouble of changing it. Impotent to do them any actual harm, he can at least make himself into a disgusting and loathsome chore for the sane people whom he so hates and envies.

I say, let the lunatic sit in his own stinking waste if he wants to. The smell of his ordure is apparently gratifying to him, and we will never succeed in making the filthy creature clean.

[kleinman]

Articullet, take a bath and stop arousing yourself on this most serious matter. SHAME ON YOU ARTICULLET!

This is some serious ****! Souls are at stake here - right kleinman?
I don’t know cyborg, is your soul at stake?
Kleiman resembles nothing so much as a lunatic who repeatedly soils his straitjacket so as to give his keepers the trouble of changing it. Impotent to do them any actual harm, he can at least make himself into a disgusting and loathsome chore for the sane people whom he so hates and envies.

I say, let the lunatic sit in his own stinking waste if he wants to. The smell of his ordure is apparently gratifying to him, and we will never succeed in making the filthy creature clean.
Adequate, you are my favorite annoyee but you sometimes disappoint me. You forgot to put a gif in your post as a demonstration of your skills as a mathematician.

[articulett]

The only proof I have are more than 200 different cases with a variety of different input parameters from ev against the Dr Schneider’s single published case and perhaps the hundred or so cases that you and Myriad have posted that show the same results that my cases show. I understand it is not a very strong case for evolutionarians but you have to play the hand you are dealt. Actually, most of the truth is already out on ev, the only thing remaining to be shown is whether increasing population can rescue your theory. I doubt it will but this little bit of unknown gives a reason to continue this discussion (aside from the joy I experience in annoying evolutionarians).


Does anyone share your reality? To me, you sound as deluded as those folks who are waiting for Jesus to rapture them up to heaven (not that there really is an "up" on a spherical planet.) You do realize that Darwin never even saw a chromosome, right? You do realize how amazing it was to find and begin to unravel the units of information he could only hypothesize about in regards to sexual selection? I take it that you accept some aspects of evolution...like Francis Collins--you just think that an "intelligent designer" must have had a part in it, right--? Or do you not accept any of it--believing that God "poofed" things into existence in their present species form. Are you one of those people who actually spread the misinformation that evolution is a dying theory? Is there any peer reviewed scientist in recent history who has understood evolution and then denied it's veracity? Because the journals I read only get more detailed regarding the subject. Evolution is accepted as fact.

How do you explain all the species that have died out in your theory? As a person who understands and accepts evolution, we just call those experiment that didn't work out--or didn't have what it takes to keep evolving as a species (Neanderthals, for example). How does your theory fit that data? What about deformities and suffering--how does your theory explain that? What do you imagine will happen in regards to evolution--we'll stop teaching it and take all the information that we've gathered and....what? Do you understand that paternity tests, forensics tests, and molecular genetics are all based on evolution--in which the similarity of the genomes is indicative of the most recent common ancestor between any two life forms?

What do you tell yourself as to why the Smithsonian, Scientific American, FAS, and all noted scientific institutions around the world seem to accept evolution as fact. Recently, molecular studies showed that hippos are more closely related to whales than any land mammal. Do you think the scientists who "discovered" this are mistaken--and misleading the public? Why do you only use point mutations in your theory when members on this forum have repeatedly told you that that there are many more ways for information in a genome to change, alter, grow, transform, etc.? Do you know that we can actually see the changes between us and chimps--that is, we can see what our common ancestors had and what changes took place along the way to becoming separate species? Inversions and translocations played a major role--but they are not a part of your equation. Also, promoter regions dictating when and where certain genes are expressed (make proteins) account for much of the difference between us and other primates--that is, the genes make the same proteins, but at different times and different parts of the body--particularly the brain. Point mutations aren't particularly relevant for these differences.

It seems like you know very much about your particular math equation because it supports a belief you want to have, but you know very little about actual genetics. Why do you think geneticists don't take your equation seriously? Why would you need to use the term "evolutionarian" to try and put science on the same level as faith--if the facts were truly in your favor?
In scientific history, the name calling usually comes from the losing side, you know. I don't think anyone who actually understands evolution thinks that the theory is on shaky ground--in fact, the more one knows and the more the data accumulates, the more profoundly prescient Darwin seems. Have you read Darwin? Dawkins? Where did you get your understanding of evolution from?--Your preacher? I think the only people taking you seriously are those desperate to believe their god is true. Your conviction just doesn't match the evidence. Is your ego prepared to find out you might be wrong? Do you have an actual alternative theory to evolution or is your whole theory that Evolution can't work according to your mathematics and therefore, some higher intelligence must have been involved? I mean, do you have actual evidence that supports an alternate theory?

You do understand that pointing to gaps in knowledge for one theory is not evidence for another theory. The theory of gravity and atoms was true long before we filled in the details--and so is evolution. It is that solid. You may have some wiggle room with abiogenesis or dualism because there are bigger gaps there--but the accumulating evidence is not in favor of your conclusions. You are deceiving yourself.

Your theory makes sense the way this makes sense: "the earth is obviously flat or the oceans would spill out! You guys are just pissed off sphere-earthians! You're crying because you know the round earth theory doesn't work unless you add more complicated things like spinning--which I've proven false by the fact that I get motion sickness very easily, and I would be the first to know if the earth was moving."

Really. That's how I perceive you. It seems that others on this forum perceive you similarly. So, how would you respond to the above? Would your response sound similar to the responses you've been getting? How do you see yourself as being different than that example?--why should anyone take your theory (or hypothesis) more seriously than the above.

In any case, you make for an interesting study.

[cyborg]

I don’t know cyborg, is your soul at stake?

Is this a betting game now?

I'll place 2 on evolution please.

[Mr. Scott]

Dr. Kleinman, do you believe that an intelligent creator designed the AIDS virus to punish homosexuals?

[kleinman]

Dr. Kleinman, do you believe that an intelligent creator designed the AIDS virus to punish homosexuals?
No.

[I less than three logic]

Finally, a question was answered instead of evaded. Perhaps everyone should stick to asking Kleinman yes/no questions. ;)

[kleinman]

So where does this discussion of Dr Schneider’s ev model of random point mutations and natural selection revolve at this time? Dr Schneider who has thrown down the gauntlet refuses to discuss the results from his model publicly. Paul is squirming around trying to parse my every word in order to find a way of extracting himself from this discussion and now is turning to magic to free himself from the results of the mathematical model he helped produce. Paul has been back peddling so quickly on his previous statements about ev, he should turn the seat on his bicycle around backwards. Myriad has written a very nice summary of the logic and theory behind Dr Schneider’s model but because he can’t find any way to produce the results he wants from the model spends his nights trying to find ways to discredit me, his latest diversion from the topic of discussion is about sexual gratification (he does do this respectfully). Joozb won’t tell us how ribose could be produced in the primordial world because I was so mean to him to suggest that as professor at a US engineering school he should be able to read and write English. He says it is because I won’t tell him what the mutation rate was in the primordial world, but it is the criticism of his unintelligible use of the English language that makes him angry. Adequate is preoccupied with fecal matter so much so that I think I’m going to start calling him scatequate. Kjkent1 is still trying to find the exit to his cubical. Perhaps he should have been given a road map with instructions but I doubt he would read them. Delphi complains that I am always moving the goal posts and kjkent1 complains that I keep repeating myself. This thread has a variety of other hooded evolutionarians who still haven’t figured out what I am saying but are too lazy to study Dr Schneider’s model to understand what I am saying. They would rather question whether I have lost contact with reality or am a mad man. They have all the courage of a poison pen letter author.

I’ll just keep reminding you that Dr Schneider’s ev model of random point mutations and natural selection is so profoundly slow when realistic parameters are used that it shows that macroevolution is mathematically impossible. The results from the model contradict Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium. And the preliminary data from the model shows that huge populations do not accelerate evolution sufficiently to contradict either of my first two assertions (claims, declarations, statements, contentions). The mushy soft theory of evolution started without any mathematical foundation and continues to be that way. Yes fishbob, I am getting this both ways.

[joobz]

Ev Debate current status: kleinman is 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=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.


BTW, John Hewitt, I have not had time to devote thought into the speculations but I will.

[fuelair]

Annoying creationists
is a really neat thing to do!!!
Annoy one today!!!:D :D :D :D

[kjkent1]

I’ll just keep reminding you that Dr Schneider’s ev model of random point mutations and natural selection is so profoundly slow when realistic parameters are used that it shows that macroevolution is mathematically impossible. The results from the model contradict Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium. And the preliminary data from the model shows that huge populations do not accelerate evolution sufficiently to contradict either of my first two assertions (claims, declarations, statements, contentions). The mushy soft theory of evolution started without any mathematical foundation and continues to be that way. Yes fishbob, I am getting this both ways.

I have searched your prior threads to verify your claim that you have publically identified yourself, however I only find that you claim that you are a physician and engineer. Precisely what sort of physician and/or engineer is unknown, as is the jurisdiction of your license to practice.

If you or anyone else has better info, please advise.

Whereas, Dr. Schneider is a well-known researcher, whose research is peer-reviewed and published by a reputable scientific periodical.

At the moment, I think that the objective evidence shows you are not very confident in your conclusion. If you were really confident, you would put your personal reputation on the line and try to affirmatively prove via your own verifiable research that Dr. Schneider's published research is fatally flawed.

Instead you prefer to engage in a juvenile flame war with your opponents.

Dr. Schneider has raised three responses to your assertions on his blog. He claims, among other things, that EV does not consider many process which he did not model and which would increase the performance of EV.

You claim that none of these process will positively alter EV's behavior. Fine, let's see YOU prove your statement. Model the processes and prove Schneider wrong. Otherwise, you are just another creationist who seeks to force scientists to prove a negative, rather than to put your own faith at risk and conduct a legitimate scientific investigation.

Frankly, if I thought it were possible to prove Evolution impossible, I'd be all over that experiment, because it is absolutely worth a Nobel Prize.

[Myriad]

Oh. Well then, that explains it. And for now, that's the explanation that fits the data best.

but wait...does that mean...that...ewww...I feel so dirty.

Exactly. Kleinman denies that the gratification is sexual, so perhaps I'm a bit off. But in any case, isn't his behavior eerily like those old experiments where the rat would continue to press the lever, over and over and over again, long after the reward was discontinued?

Speaking of data, Kleinman has posted some results of varying the site width, but only in ranges where Rcapacity remains greater than Rfrequency, where varying the site width has little effect. This is yet more deliberate deception.

Here are two series varying only the binding site width.

genome length 1024
number of binding sites 8
Rfrequency = 7
mutation rate 1/512 bases
weight width 5
population 64
site width / Rcapacity / generations to perfect creature
10 / 20 / 5,746
9 / 18 / 7,186
8 / 16 / 5,073
7 / 14 / 2,778
6 / 12 / 5,180
5 / 10 / 6,848
4 / 8 / 12,298
3 / 6 / no correct binding sites in >7,000,000 generations

genome length 4096
number of binding sites 8
Rfrequency = 9
mutation rate 1/512 bases
weight width 5
population 64
site width / Rcapacity / generations to perfect creature
10 / 20 / 14,459
9 / 18 / 19,907
8 / 16 / 18,228
7 / 14 / 18,390
6 / 12 / 16,396
5 / 10 / 75,384
4 / 8 / no correct binding sites in >550,000 generations

Notice that when Rcapacity is less than Rfrequency no binding sites evolve, and when it's close to (but greater than) Rfrequency the number of generations to evolve a perfect creature increases sharply.

Now imagine what would happen if you ran a series of trials with the site width fixed at 5 (and hence Rcapacity fixed at 10), the number of binding sites fixed at 8, with a series of increasing genome lengths. At length 1024 you'd see (from the data above, first series) 6,848 generations, and at length 4096 you'd see (from the data above, second series) 75,384 generations. Quadrupling the genome length appears to increase the generations to convergence elevenfold. You might conclude that the convergence rate slows down with genome length by a power of 2 or so, or perhaps even exponentially, especially once you see that the next fourfold increase in genome length (making Rfrequency exceed Rcapacity) fails to converge at all. You might conclude that, that is, until you realized your error of scaling up other parameters without suitably scaling up the binding site width. (Analogy: if you scale up a scale model train, but forget to scale up the wheels in proportion, it won't run very well.)

This is exactly what Kleinman did, though at different numbers (except for the part about realizing his error, though it was pointed out to him months ago). It's what his entire argument is based on. It was an understandable error at first, and I can see why he would be disappointed when he thought he'd found an interesting and important result and turned out to be wrong, but now he's just pushing the lever over and over and over.

I talk about his motives for making false claims because all his claims have been so thoroughly refuted that there's nothing else left to talk about. It is, however, an interesting topic. If there's no gratification involved, then perhaps it's because he believes in a religion, such as Discordianism, SubGenius, or certain branches of Satanism, in which lying is approved of.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[John Hewitt]

BTW, John Hewitt, I have not had time to devote thought into the speculations but I will.
I shall look forward to that.

[Yahzi]

Kleiman resembles nothing so much as a lunatic who repeatedly soils his straitjacket so as to give his keepers the trouble of changing it. Impotent to do them any actual harm, he can at least make himself into a disgusting and loathsome chore for the sane people whom he so hates and envies.

I say, let the lunatic sit in his own stinking waste if he wants to. The smell of his ordure is apparently gratifying to him, and we will never succeed in making the filthy creature clean.
Only Dr. Adequate could turn:

"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it."

into the verbal feast that is the above post.

:) :) :)

(dang it where are my little bowing angels?)

[articulett]

Does Kleinman not believe in evolution at all? Recently molecular DNA studies revealed that hippos are more closely related to whales than any land mammal. What does Kleinman make of that? The scientists are mistaken? Even if point mutations were the only way DNA could evolve, that would still make the case for evolution, right? Only some "intelligent designer" would be needed to speed up the process. Does Kleinman agree with that much--or is he as impenetrable as Behe and his repeatedly disclaimed "irreducible complexity" argument. But even "that" isn't an argument against evolution--it's just an argument that implies, at best, that humans haven't explained how "x" could happen without divine interference. Kleinman isn't Kent Hovind crazy is he? --Does he believe species poofed into existence and that all this evidence is a trick of god (or satan) or evil scientists? I remember reading about this in college--I can't help but think this theory is at work in Kleinman's case.

"Leon Festinger's Theory

In studying this phenomena, credit must be given to Leon Festinger for his cognitive dissonance theory, 2 as developed in his book When Prophecy Fails, originally published in 1956 and co-authored by Festinger, Henry W. Riecken and Stanley Schachter. The authors comprised a research team who conducted a study of a small cult-following of a Mrs. Marian Keech, a housewife who claimed to receive messages from aliens via automatic writing. The message of the aliens was one of a coming world cataclysm, but with the hope of surviving for the elect who listened to them through Keech and selected other mediums. What Festinger and his associates demonstrated in the end was that the failure of prophecy often has the opposite effect of what the average person might expect; the cult following often gets stronger and the members even more convinced of the truth of their actions and beliefs! This unique paradox is the focus of attention in this article, and will be later applied specifically to the Jehovah's Witness movement.

Festinger observes:

"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.
"We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.
"But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view. "

I shall give Kleinman the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he's a liar or scam artist--I think he's just invested a lot in his belief and it would be too ego-damaging to be wrong. Also, he probably believes that having strong faith despite evidence can lead to salvation. He is a brilliant example at how very good humans are at self deception. Thankfully, science figure that information into the equation. Faiths never do.

[Dr Adequate]

Does Kleinman not believe in evolution at all? Aparently, kleinman is a halfwitted sociopath. I wouldn't have made my previous post if that wasn't true.

I like you, you're a nice person, please go and reason with someone amenable to such treatment.

[kleinman]

I have searched your prior threads to verify your claim that you have publically identified yourself, however I only find that you claim that you are a physician and engineer. Precisely what sort of physician and/or engineer is unknown, as is the jurisdiction of your license to practice.
If you want to find my PhD thesis, check with University Microfilms, however you will find the mathematics a bit more difficult than what Dr Schneider has done. If you are persistent enough to check, you will find that I am licensed in both engineering and medicine.
Whereas, Dr. Schneider is a well-known researcher, whose research is peer-reviewed and published by a reputable scientific periodical.
This is one of the many areas where you don’t understand this debate. The only reason I get traction in this discussion is that this is an evolutionarian written peer reviewed and published mathematical model. If I were to write any mathematical model, I would be immediately labeled as a biased creationist researcher and the results would be shrugged off. You know what it is to shrug, don’t you? I like it when evolutionarian researchers write mathematical models, I can co-opt their work.
At the moment, I think that the objective evidence shows you are not very confident in your conclusion. If you were really confident, you would put your personal reputation on the line and try to affirmatively prove via your own verifiable research that Dr. Schneider's published research is fatally flawed.
Again, you misunderstand the debate. I believe that Dr Schneider’s model is essentially correct. I think his selection process is unrealistic and accelerates the mutation/natural selection process but even with this advantage, it still doesn’t speed the process sufficiently to support the theory of evolution. Where Dr Schneider’s publication fails the scientific test was when he used the rate of information gain from a 256 base genome with a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation to extrapolate the evolution of a human genome in a billion years. This estimate is off by at least 3 or 4 orders of magnitude. Even if you consider the other factors Dr Schneider raised when he made this estimate, no evolutionarian has shown how these other factors will accelerate the evolutionary process sufficiently to prove their case.
Instead you prefer to engage in a juvenile flame war with your opponents.
I look at this as more of squirt guns at 10 paces or like a snowball fight. Unfortunately for you evolutionarians, you don’t have much to squirt except for scatequate who has found something else to sling.
Dr. Schneider has raised three responses to your assertions on his blog. He claims, among other things, that EV does not consider many process which he did not model and which would increase the performance of EV.
Then his task is simple, include any process he wants in his model and increase the performance of ev. I doubt there is any process he could include in his model that would increase the performance of ev.
You claim that none of these process will positively alter EV's behavior. Fine, let's see YOU prove your statement. Model the processes and prove Schneider wrong. Otherwise, you are just another creationist who seeks to force scientists to prove a negative, rather than to put your own faith at risk and conduct a legitimate scientific investigation.

Frankly, if I thought it were possible to prove Evolution impossible, I'd be all over that experiment, because it is absolutely worth a Nobel Prize.
Again your greedy nature reveals itself. You don’t understand the principle of doing something because it is the correct thing to do. It is the responsibility of evolutionarians to prove their own theory. Ev doesn’t do it, in fact, ev contradicts your theory.
This is exactly what Kleinman did, though at different numbers (except for the part about realizing his error, though it was pointed out to him months ago). It's what his entire argument is based on. It was an understandable error at first, and I can see why he would be disappointed when he thought he'd found an interesting and important result and turned out to be wrong, but now he's just pushing the lever over and over and over.
The data you have posted mirrors data that I posted months ago on the Evolutionisdead forum. Since you have discovered my “error”, why don’t you post the data that contradicts my assertions? The only thing you have shown is that not only does ev converge very slowly, in some cases it won’t converge at all. That’s not much of an improvement in your case for ev.
Does Kleinman not believe in evolution at all? Recently molecular DNA studies revealed that hippos are more closely related to whales than any land mammal.
I believe that microevolutionary processes occur. The concept of abiogenesis is complete nonsense and ev is demonstrating that random point mutations and natural selection if far too slow to accomplish macroevolutionary processes. You evolutionarians have only one set of observations that supports your theory. Different living things have some similarities in their genomes. The problem you have with your theory is that there are no known mechanisms which can morph the genome of one species like hippos to whales in the time available. This is becoming more apparent as the human and chimpanzee genomes are compared in more detail. This is an issue of bookkeeping and the audit of the theory of evolution is showing the fatal flaws in your theory.

[John Hewitt]

I shall give Kleinman the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he's a liar or scam artist--I think he's just invested a lot in his belief and it would be too ego-damaging to be wrong. Also, he probably believes that having strong faith despite evidence can lead to salvation. He is a brilliant example at how very good humans are at self deception. Thankfully, science figure(s) that information into the equation. Faiths never do.

Unfortunately, the fact is that scientific debate tends to be far from the dispassionate model you seem to be claiming here. You may believe that faith is a mindless act of self-deception and immune to reason but that describes science almost as well as it does religion.

[kjkent1]

I have searched your prior threads to verify your claim that you have publically identified yourself, however I only find that you claim that you are a physician and engineer. Precisely what sort of physician and/or engineer is unknown, as is the jurisdiction of your license to practice.
If you want to find my PhD thesis, check with University Microfilms, however you will find the mathematics a bit more difficult than what Dr Schneider has done. If you are persistent enough to check, you will find that I am licensed in both engineering and medicine.

I don't "want" any of this info. It's your credibility that's at issue here -- if it's not important that you are as transparent as your opponent, Dr. Schneider, it's your problem, not mine.

Whereas, Dr. Schneider is a well-known researcher, whose research is peer-reviewed and published by a reputable scientific periodical.
This is one of the many areas where you don’t understand this debate. The only reason I get traction in this discussion is that this is an evolutionarian written peer reviewed and published mathematical model. If I were to write any mathematical model, I would be immediately labeled as a biased creationist researcher and the results would be shrugged off. You know what it is to shrug, don’t you? I like it when evolutionarian researchers write mathematical models, I can co-opt their work.

Well, you "are" a biased creationist researcher, aren't you? The reality is that you're annoyed that Dr. Schneider has dismissed your theory as irrelevant. Well, hike up your nuts and show him that you're David and he's Goliath. If you don't, you reject your own faith.

At the moment, I think that the objective evidence shows you are not very confident in your conclusion. If you were really confident, you would put your personal reputation on the line and try to affirmatively prove via your own verifiable research that Dr. Schneider's published research is fatally flawed.
Again, you misunderstand the debate. I believe that Dr Schneider’s model is essentially correct. I think his selection process is unrealistic and accelerates the mutation/natural selection process but even with this advantage, it still doesn’t speed the process sufficiently to support the theory of evolution. Where Dr Schneider’s publication fails the scientific test was when he used the rate of information gain from a 256 base genome with a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation to extrapolate the evolution of a human genome in a billion years. This estimate is off by at least 3 or 4 orders of magnitude. Even if you consider the other factors Dr Schneider raised when he made this estimate, no evolutionarian has shown how these other factors will accelerate the evolutionary process sufficiently to prove their case.
I understand the debate just fine. I also understand that you're too chicken to get in the ring and put the gloves on, because you prefer to spar with Schneider's partners, rather than go toe to toe with the current champ.

Instead you prefer to engage in a juvenile flame war with your opponents.
I look at this as more of squirt guns at 10 paces or like a snowball fight. Unfortunately for you evolutionarians, you don’t have much to squirt except for scatequate who has found something else to sling.
Well, that proves this count.

Dr. Schneider has raised three responses to your assertions on his blog. He claims, among other things, that EV does not consider many process which he did not model and which would increase the performance of EV.
Then his task is simple, include any process he wants in his model and increase the performance of ev. I doubt there is any process he could include in his model that would increase the performance of ev.

You've got it reversed, Alan. Schneider's model is published, and you're the one who needs to advance the science so as to falsify it. If you have a Ph.D, then you know this fact. I think you're just afraid to actually put your reputation on the line.

You claim that none of these process will positively alter EV's behavior. Fine, let's see YOU prove your statement. Model the processes and prove Schneider wrong. Otherwise, you are just another creationist who seeks to force scientists to prove a negative, rather than to put your own faith at risk and conduct a legitimate scientific investigation.

Frankly, if I thought it were possible to prove Evolution impossible, I'd be all over that experiment, because it is absolutely worth a Nobel Prize.
Again your greedy nature reveals itself. You don’t understand the principle of doing something because it is the correct thing to do. It is the responsibility of evolutionarians to prove their own theory. Ev doesn’t do it, in fact, ev contradicts your theory.

Greed isn't a crime -- it's perfectly normal and reasonable behavior. As far as doing something because it's correct, I do ~250+ hours pro bono, per annum. I'll wager that's more than you, bub.

As for what EV does or doesn't do, that's your unsupported opinion at the moment -- and, based on your behavior, thus far, that's all it will ever be.

[Myriad]

If you want to find my PhD thesis, check with University Microfilms, however you will find the mathematics a bit more difficult than what Dr Schneider has done. If you are persistent enough to check, you will find that I am licensed in both engineering and medicine.

Here's Dr. Kleinman, M.D. Ph.D. and master of mathematics more advanced than anything Dr. Schneider has done, lecturing me on probability theory:

Perhaps it would be helpful to review the theorems of probabilities in question. The following is the multiplicative rule.

• If E are independent events in a sample space S and the probabilities of events E are not equal to zero, then the total probability of events E occurring is the product of their individual probabilities.
• PTotal= (E)^n where E is the event and n is the number of independent events.

The addition rule for mutually exclusive events in a sample space S states that the probability of that event occurring is the sum of individual probabilities of each of the exclusive events.

If we apply these rules to the mutation and population case, the mutation is the event “E” and the population is the sample space. The probability of the event “E” must be 0>=P(E)>=1. You are confusing the probability of a particular event occurring which must have a value between 0 and 1 with probability that a particular event may occur by a series of mutually exclusive events which can have probabilities greater than 1.


An example of the correct use of the additive rule is: the probability of rolling any specific number on a die is 1/6. Therefore the probability of rolling a number that's 4 or less -- that is, rolling a 1, rolling a 2, rolling a 3, or rolling a 4 -- is 1/6+1/6+1/6+1/6 = 2/3. It works correctly in this case because on a single die, rolling a 1 is obviously mutually exclusive with rolling a 2, rolling a 3, etc.

The probability of throwing a 1 in either of two rolls of a die is 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3. The probability of throwing two 1’s in two rolls of a die is (1/6)*(1/6) = 1/36. Random mutations are mutually exclusive events. The probability of having a particular mutation at a particular locus in two creatures is 1/G + 1/G = 2/G. The probability of having the same mutation in two creatures is (1/G)* (1/G) = (1/G^2) (emphasis addedd)

If I believed that Kleinman could possibly be telling the truth about being licensed to practice engineering or medicine, I'd be frightened to enter a doctor's office or cross a bridge.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[joobz]

Here's Dr. Kleinman, M.D. Ph.D. and master of mathematics more advanced than anything Dr. Schneider has done, lecturing me on probability theory:

Perhaps it would be helpful to review the theorems of probabilities in question. The following is the multiplicative rule.

• If E are independent events in a sample space S and the probabilities of events E are not equal to zero, then the total probability of events E occurring is the product of their individual probabilities.
• PTotal= (E)^n where E is the event and n is the number of independent events.

The addition rule for mutually exclusive events in a sample space S states that the probability of that event occurring is the sum of individual probabilities of each of the exclusive events.

If we apply these rules to the mutation and population case, the mutation is the event “E” and the population is the sample space. The probability of the event “E” must be 0>=P(E)>=1. You are confusing the probability of a particular event occurring which must have a value between 0 and 1 with probability that a particular event may occur by a series of mutually exclusive events which can have probabilities greater than 1.



An example of the correct use of the additive rule is: the probability of rolling any specific number on a die is 1/6. Therefore the probability of rolling a number that's 4 or less -- that is, rolling a 1, rolling a 2, rolling a 3, or rolling a 4 -- is 1/6+1/6+1/6+1/6 = 2/3. It works correctly in this case because on a single die, rolling a 1 is obviously mutually exclusive with rolling a 2, rolling a 3, etc.
The probability of throwing a 1 in either of two rolls of a die is 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3. The probability of throwing two 1’s in two rolls of a die is (1/6)*(1/6) = 1/36. Random mutations are mutually exclusive events. The probability of having a particular mutation at a particular locus in two creatures is 1/G + 1/G = 2/G. The probability of having the same mutation in two creatures is (1/G)* (1/G) = (1/G^2)
(emphasis addedd)

If I believed that Kleinman could possibly be telling the truth about being licensed to practice engineering or medicine, I'd be frightened to enter a doctor's office or cross a bridge.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Yes, the world that kleinman lives in uses some very strange rules.
BTW, kleinman, in case you were wondering. In our world, the odds of rolling a 1 in a number of throws is equal to 1 minus the odds of not rolling a one in either throw. (1-(5/6)^n) n=number of throws.

[sphenisc]

Yes, the world that kleinman lives in uses some very strange rules.
BTW, kleinman, in case you were wondering. In our world, the odds of rolling a 1 in a number of throws is equal to 1 minus the odds of not rolling a one in either throw. (1-(5/6)^n) n=number of throws.

Except my world, where the odds of rolling a 1 are not the same as the odds of rolling at least one 1.

[joobz]

Except my world, where the odds of rolling a 1 are not the same as the odds of rolling at least one 1.
Sorry bout that, i was going with the assumed "at least 1"

[cyborg]

The probability of throwing a 1 in either of two rolls of a die is 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3.

Haha, what a retard.

[kleinman]

If you want to find my PhD thesis, check with University Microfilms, however you will find the mathematics a bit more difficult than what Dr Schneider has done. If you are persistent enough to check, you will find that I am licensed in both engineering and medicine. Here's Dr. Kleinman, M.D. Ph.D. and master of mathematics more advanced than anything Dr. Schneider has done, lecturing me on probability theory:
Myriad, you did a good job correcting my error when I thought that population obeyed the additive rule of probability. Population affect is less than additive which only undermines your theory even more so. In return for your correcting my error in probability theory, I will correct your error in the theory of evolution. Maybe you can correct my assertions about what ev shows, but don’t lose too much sleep over it. Have you done any jiggling of the threshold to make ev converge more quickly? Perhaps I should repost your discussion where you say that the reason the ev doesn’t converge quickly is that there is not enough randomness in the model. That’s the kind of hypothesis that an evolutionarian would swallow hook, line and sinker.
If I believed that Kleinman could possibly be telling the truth about being licensed to practice engineering or medicine, I'd be frightened to enter a doctor's office or cross a bridge.
This is one of those cases where the truth is stranger than fiction. It’s kind of like the superficially plausible idea of the theory of evolution turns out to be false when you run the numbers. You better check twice before you enter a doctor’s office or cross a bridge. I told you evolutionarians that I lied only once in these discussions and that is when I told Delphi his statements were not contradictory.
Yes, the world that kleinman lives in uses some very strange rules.
They are not as strange as you might think. 2+2=4, F=ma, energy is conserved, and the soft science theory of evolution is a mathematically deficient theory that fails to add up, ev shows this.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Unfortunately, the fact is that scientific debate tends to be far from the dispassionate model you seem to be claiming here. You may believe that faith is a mindless act of self-deception and immune to reason but that describes science almost as well as it does religion.
Oh please. If this were true, then the technology derived from science would not work any better than practices based on faith. I agree there is a spectrum and science falls somewhere on it, but not in the same place as religion.

~~ Paul

[Dr Adequate]

:dl:

No wonder the poor stupid twat couldn't understand my maths.

Sheesh.

[Hawk one]

And to think that earlier in this very thread, I did in fact put up the correct odds of rolling at least one 1 on two dice.

Just saying this because of the increased irony. :D

[joobz]

For those just tuning in, Kleinman has so far made the following claims:

1.)Thermodynamics is a study of kinetics, "dynamics is in the name!"
2.)Natural Selection is a restatement of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
3.)Probability can exceed 1.
4.)A failure of a model proves that the natural, observed event is impossible.

did I miss anything?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

did I miss anything?
5) Anyone thinks that H. Sapiens evolved from a random gigabase genome with only point mutations.

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

did I miss anything? 5) Anyone thinks that H. Sapiens evolved from a random gigabase genome with only point mutations.
6) ev shows that nothing evolved by random point mutations and natural selection.

[John Hewitt]

Oh please. If this were true, (that faith is hardly more immune to self-deception than science) then the technology derived from science would not work any better than practices based on faith. I agree there is a spectrum and science falls somewhere on it, but not in the same place as religion.

~~ Paul

I hope you are not claiming credit for too many of the acievements of past generations, and more religious eras. Science really is much more like faith than you seem to realise - read Koestler on Galileo for example.

Also, I think you should read some of the comments made on this thread, try to read them as if you haven't already made up your mind whose side you're on.

[Myriad]

Haha, what a retard.

Now, that's a little harsh. The mistake itself is one that many (probably most) people would make. What makes it notable is that it and the other equally absurd errors in the passge occur in the midst of a pagelong harangue on "here's the correct way to calculate probabilities."

And to think that earlier in this very thread, I did in fact put up the correct odds of rolling at least one 1 on two dice.

Again to be fair, that thread on eid is months old. He posted the quoted passage long before this thread began. Also, he seemed willing to learn back then. He accepted the correct calculations after I had explained them a few times (though of course, also immediately claimed that the real rules were more evidence against evolution, like it was a new discovery in mathematics that science was not yet aware of or something).

The question is, was that also before he wrote his dissertation, the one whose title, year, and school he's oddly reluctant to divulge, using mathematics more difficult than Dr. Schneider's? Most likely not. There doesn't seem to have been enough time, at least not if realistic parameters are used.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I hope you are not claiming credit for too many of the acievements of past generations, and more religious eras. Science really is much more like faith than you seem to realise - read Koestler on Galileo for example.
I'm claiming credit for anything that was investigated scientifically, whether by rabid atheists or religious zealots. And the point is precisely that it doesn't matter what sort of arrogant ass Galileo might have been. Science is about process and long-term understanding, about many people working on the same problems, not about individual personalities. This goes a long way to washing out faith, although it doesn't preclude lots of mistakes along the way.

Also, I think you should read some of the comments made on this thread, try to read them as if you haven't already made up your mind whose side you're on.
Surely you're not suggesting I do that experiment in this thread?

~~ Paul

[kleinman]

Again to be fair, that thread on eid is months old. He posted the quoted passage long before this thread began. Also, he seemed willing to learn back then. He accepted the correct calculations after I had explained them a few times (though of course, also immediately claimed that the real rules were more evidence against evolution, like it was a new discovery in mathematics that science was not yet aware of or something).
I’m always willing to learn. Your correction of my error assuming that increasing population increases the probability of an appropriate mutation occurring at the appropriate locus was governed by the additive rule of probabilities explains why ev demonstrates decreasing rates of convergence with increasing population. If I had been correct on this point, the rate of decrease should remain constant with increasing population. Now if you would only be willing to learn what happens with ev when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used.
The question is, was that also before he wrote his dissertation, the one whose title, year, and school he's oddly reluctant to divulge, using mathematics more difficult than Dr. Schneider's? Most likely not. There doesn't seem to have been enough time, at least not if realistic parameters are used.
A Solution of the Inverse Bioheat Transfer Problem, University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI, vol. 42, no. 10, 1981. Have fun reading it.

[articulett]

Unfortunately, the fact is that scientific debate tends to be far from the dispassionate model you seem to be claiming here. You may believe that faith is a mindless act of self-deception and immune to reason but that describes science almost as well as it does religion.

That is a common belief of the faithful, but it's untrue. We don't fly on airplanes built on faith--we don't go to doctors whose medicine is based on faith--if you want to know what is true and what works--you go for the evidence. You factor in the common way that humans are known to fool themselves and submit your information to peer review. You learn from your mistakes. The data is refined and honed and evolves with time. Science is all built upon measurable evidence as much as religion would like to claim it isn't so an refuse to "compute" the evidence while highlighting their own obtuse hypothesis as though they were anywhere near as likely to be as true or useful or valuable as anything mere mortals using the scientific method have discovered.

Where did you get your above claim. Perhaps you and Interesting Ian share a common source. Or maybe your intelligent designer let you in on a little secret than isn't supported by evidence.

I didn't say faith was a mindless act of self deception. It might well be a mindful act of self deception...it might also hit upon a truth on occasions. But faith usually involves belief without evidence or despite evidence or by semantically twisting evidence--it deals with such invisible immeasurable things as gods and souls and afterlives for which there is not a good definition of, much less evidence for...that is is, faith claims that there is "divine" or "special knowledge" one can access--wheras, science doesn't even recognize any supernatural source since not an iota of evidence has been proffered for such beliefs contrasted to lots of evidence about how people come to believe as they do. Faith is not particularly amenable to reason because the faithful believe that "believing" itself is something noble or good. Science doesn't really work by playing that game--it's just, well useless, extremely prone to error and confirmation bias and absolutely centers around concepts that can not be distinguished from the imaginary or delusional.

[articulett]

Aparently, kleinman is a halfwitted sociopath. I wouldn't have made my previous post if that wasn't true.

I like you, you're a nice person, please go and reason with someone amenable to such treatment.

Thanks, my favorite wordsmith--but I wasn't trying to to reason WITH him--(I understand that that would require him responding to questions and not ignoring the ones that threatened his beliefs) I was trying to figure out the reason FOR his imperviousness. I know better than to reason with a creationist--that doesn't stop the fun to be had in goading them, does it? Nor does it mitigate the charge I get in talking ABOUT them. I have no savior delusions, I assure you. I just happen to be very interested in confabulation syndromes, cognitive dissonance, self deception, and the like--PLUS, I have a wicked fondness for provoking the hubris-encumbered. I know it isn't nice--but damn they are so cute when they get all sanctimonious, don't you think?

I sure am glad I don't believe in hell.

[Dr Adequate]

6) ev shows that nothing evolved by random point mutations and natural selection. Kleinman is a halfwitted liar. Fixed that for you.

[Dr Adequate]

ev demonstrates decreasing rates of convergence with increasing population. Kleinman is a halfwitted liar. Always glad to be of service.

[Mashuna]

Always glad to be of service.

I wasn't quite following the original post, but it's much clearer now. Thanks for the clarification.

[Dr Adequate]

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

ev demonstrates decreasing rates of convergence with increasing population. No comment is necessary.

:dl:

Joobz, add this one to your list, it's priceless.

[Dr Adequate]

PLUS, I have a wicked fondness for provoking the hubris-encumbered. I know it isn't nice--but damn they are so cute when they get all sanctimonious, don't you think? I guess that's why I still look at this thread now and then.

He's mostly a bore, 'cos he keeps reciting the same lies over and over, but when he comes out with a new lie, his self-righteous self-importance does make it funny.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No comment is necessary.
I'll comment anyway, just to recap. Here is the data I've collected, which includes multiple experiments at p=4096 and above. The last three points are Kleinman's.

genome size 1024
16 sites
1 mutation per genome

population, generations
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, 1144
23100, 1275
32768, 1288
46200, 1709
65536, 922
92680, 718
110000, 856
262000, 702
524000, 642
1048000, 438

Taken all together, the data fits 57686p^-.37. Starting with p=1024, it fits 13173p^-.24. Starting with p=8192, it fits 18595p^-.26. Starting with p=32768, it fits 31572p^-.31. Starting with p=110000, it fits 13072p^-.24.

So there doesn't appear to be a decreasing rate of convergence after p=1024. I'll see if the faster rate at the low population end is due to the lack of multiple experiments.

Edited to add: Starting with p=64, it fits 25793p^-.30. The faster decline in rate occurs only in the smallest populations.

~~ Paul

[John Hewitt]

I'm claiming credit for anything that was investigated scientifically, whether by rabid atheists or religious zealots. And the point is precisely that it doesn't matter what sort of arrogant ass Galileo might have been. Science is about process and long-term understanding, about many people working on the same problems, not about individual personalities. This goes a long way to washing out faith, although it doesn't preclude lots of mistakes along the way.

I agree with you that science should be about process and debate but my point is that it isn't. What one sees is people taking sides and saying "my side, right or wrong."

Surely you're not suggesting I do that experiment in this thread?

~~ Paul
Yes, I am absolutely suggesting that you read some of these postings as if you hadn't made up your mind on the issue. It would be a worthwhile exercise anyway and might be something to do in your role as moderator.

For example, I know of no evidence that would or could possibly justify calling one member of this thread "a half-witted sociopath." My theory, right or wrong, and it does not matter what I do to the other side.

It seems to me that this line of thought might lead, ultimately, to the building of additional facilities in Guantanamo Bay.

[John Hewitt]

If you want to know what is true and what works--you go for the evidence.

I do, and the evidence is that scientific knowledge is socially constructed.

Where did you get your above claim. Perhaps you and Interesting Ian share a common source. Or maybe your intelligent designer let you in on a little secret than isn't supported by evidence. No I get it from observational reports, try for example, Mitroff, "The Subjective Side of Science." [/quote]

Faith is not particularly amenable to reason because the faithful believe that "believing" itself is something noble or good. Science doesn't really work by playing that game--it's just, well useless, extremely prone to error and confirmation bias and absolutely centers around concepts that can not be distinguished from the imaginary or delusional.
I don't advocate faith but I do advocate replying to the other side. Some postings on this thread have done so (including those by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos) but I do not think that is true of the field as a whole. The social posturing of leading "evolutionary theorists" is to refuse to share a platform with the creationists who disagree with them.

In other words they, quite as much their opponents, are intent on socially constructing this part of science.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I agree with you that science should be about process and debate but my point is that it isn't. What one sees is people taking sides and saying "my side, right or wrong."
But my point is that it doesn't matter if individuals do that, because the process will wash it out in the long run. The same cannot be said for faith-based initiatives, because there is no process.


For example, I know of no evidence that would or could possibly justify calling one member of this thread "a half-witted sociopath." My theory, right or wrong, and it does not matter what I do to the other side.
And Kleinman is doing precisely the same thing. So when I review the thread, I will wash out the name-calling and come to the same conclusion, based on the facts of the matter.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't advocate faith but I do advocate replying to the other side. Some postings on this thread have done so (including those by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos) but I do not think that is true of the field as a whole. The social posturing of leading "evolutionary theorists" is to refuse to share a platform with the creationists who disagree with them.

In other words they, quite as much their opponents, are intent on socially constructing this part of science.
I guess we have a different definition of social construction. You appear to think that social interactions between scientists and nonscientists constitute social construction of science.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Here are a couple of clues about what is going on with the small populations in the above experiment.

A population of 2 never converges.

I watched the convergence of population 4. The number of mistakes decreases for awhile, then jumps back up a bit, then decreases, and so on, eventually reaching 0.

My guess is that very low populations don't sustain enough genetic diversity to allow smooth convergence. So increases in population at low population counts make a big difference.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Interesting commentary about formal debates with creationists:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/274/5295/1993b


Paul R. Gross (Letters, 6 Sept., p. 1321), Michael J. Erpino (Letters, 8 Nov., p. 904), and David Edge (Letters, 8 Nov., p. 904) all take issue with my position against formal debates with creationists. I find the "duty to defend science" argument pales next to that of "above all else, do no harm."

Our goal in such debates is quite different from creationists' goal to inspire their adherents to proselytize teachers about how evolution is a "theory in crisis" and how it would be great if we could introduce this new "science" of creationism into our schools. More people will come to a debate than to a lecture in a church basement so, of course, creationists will try to get a scientist to oppose them. After the debate, citizens influenced by the creationist position proceed to write letters to the editor, talk to their kids' teachers, and so forth. This intimidates many teachers, who then may be tempted to "skip evolution this year." Hardly our side's goal.

My position is not to ignore creation science, but to confront these ideas in the proper forum, which is not a formal debate.

I have had many productive exchanges with creationists on radio, television, or panels, where it is possible to stop my opponent and correct errors before they pile up uncontrollably. This accomplishes Erpino's goal of educating the general public in science and evolution, but a formal debate does not. The vast, vast majority of formal debates decrease public support for evolution, which discourages teachers from teaching it. I suggest that we put our egos aside and, above else, do no harm.


Eugenie C. Scott
Executive Director,
National Center for Science Education

~~ Paul

[Mr. Scott]

Dr. Kleinman, do you believe that an intelligent creator designed the AIDS virus to punish homosexuals?

No.

Dr. Kleinman, you've said you believe in the Bible, and I understand believers in the Bible believe it answers all the big questions.

My question is, why did God design life? Why did He design the AIDS virus, the tube worms surrounding the underwater volcanic vents, the apes that look just like relatives of humans, the hippos that now look like relatives of whales, and the mudskipper fish that walk on all fours on land? If the answer is in the Bible, please cite chapter and verse. I will read it.

Thanks!

[kleinman]

Unfortunately, the fact is that scientific debate tends to be far from the dispassionate model you seem to be claiming here. You may believe that faith is a mindless act of self-deception and immune to reason but that describes science almost as well as it does religion. That is a common belief of the faithful, but it's untrue. We don't fly on airplanes built on faith--we don't go to doctors whose medicine is based on faith …
You obviously have no experience with the placebo and nocebo effect. Why do you think medical research studies are double blinded?
No comment is necessary. I'll comment anyway, just to recap. Here is the data I've collected, which includes multiple experiments at p=4096 and above. The last three points are Kleinman's.
Surprise me; produce some data from ev that contradicts my assertions. Make any progress on the p=2 meg case?
I'm claiming credit for anything that was investigated scientifically, whether by rabid atheists or religious zealots. And the point is precisely that it doesn't matter what sort of arrogant ass Galileo might have been. Science is about process and long-term understanding, about many people working on the same problems, not about individual personalities. This goes a long way to washing out faith, although it doesn't preclude lots of mistakes along the way. I agree with you that science should be about process and debate but my point is that it isn't. What one sees is people taking sides and saying "my side, right or wrong."
Paul, you never investigated ev before I raised these issues. You saw something that fit in with your belief system and took it on face value. You did not bother to run the numbers or as you have put it “attend to the details” with ev and now you find yourself trying to defend Dr Schneider’s speculations. Paul, you have your own set of beliefs and doctrines and try to cloak them with the title “science”. You and the other evolutionarians who post on this forum are proving yourselves to be pseudo-intellectual snobs who have gotten so used to bullying anyone who doesn’t agree with you that you have lost the ability to do good scientific research. I’m not afraid of your bullying; I will continue to shove the data from your own computer program right in to your face which shows how foolish your theory is. Let scatequate throw whatever he finds in his diaper. I will not stop until you acknowledge what your computer program shows.
My question is, why did God design life? Why did He design the AIDS virus, the tube worms surrounding the underwater volcanic vents, the apes that look just like relatives of humans, the hippos that now look like relatives of whales, and the mudskipper fish that walk on all fours on land? If the answer is in the Bible, please cite chapter and verse. I will read it.
Why not ask; why did God design gravity because of it we can fall? If you want a biblical answer to your first question, try John 3:16. For the rest of your questions, read the Bible yourself and seek your answers.

[fishbob]

I agree with you that science should be about process and debate but my point is that it isn't. What one sees is people taking sides and saying "my side, right or wrong."


Sometimes, but the process of science works in spite of that, not because of it.

[fishbob]

You obviously have no experience with the placebo and nocebo effect. Why do you think medical research studies are double blinded? To evaluate actual effectiveness of treatments.
You obviously have no experience separating fact from wackazoolian nonsense.

[joobz]

To evaluate actual effectiveness of treatments.
You obviously have no experience separating fact from wackazoolian nonsense.
I have a new word to add to my insultilexicon wackazoolian! great word! :D

[kleinman]

You obviously have no experience with the placebo and nocebo effect. Why do you think medical research studies are double blinded?To evaluate actual effectiveness of treatments.
You obviously have no experience separating fact from wackazoolian nonsense.
That’s the point of doing a double blind study. For example, you want to test the effectiveness of a new antidepressant and you do it with a double blind study. However you find that the placebo has helped some of the participants. Was the placebo effective?

I do have experience separating fact from wackazoolian nonsense, that is what I am doing with the ev computer model. I post the data from the model and evolutionarians say that I am abusing the model because I am using realistic input parameters. If you look back at all of my posts, not once have I had to use censorship to make my case. This is how weak your case has become.

Again, I tell you the gooey soft theory of evolution started out without a mathematical basis and remains that way. When evolutionarians try to apply mathematics to the theory, it contradicts the theory. The auditors are looking at the evolutionarian books and they don’t balance. Yes fishbbob, I am getting it both ways.

By the way, congratulations, you have added a word to joozb vast grammatically challenged vocabulary. To bad joozb can’t tell us how ribose was formed in the primordial world, I guess he is spending his time turning lead into gold.

[Mr. Scott]

Why not ask; why did God design gravity because of it we can fall? If you want a biblical answer to your first question, try John 3:16. For the rest of your questions, read the Bible yourself and seek your answers.

I'm not asking about gravity because this thread is a discussion about evolution.

By citing John 3:16* you seem to be saying that God designed life because he loved the world. If you please, characterize His love just before He designed life, and describe the lifeless world He loved so much that He designed life for it.

The time-honored evasion "read it yourself" says to me you have no idea what the Bible has to say in answer to any of my other questions about life on Earth. God loved the world so much that He designed AIDS and the myriad other parasites that torment the innocent? Doesn't sound like love to me.

You claim to be an intellectual, but your thinking is child-like. I've noticed that people who were taught religious dogma as tiny children still think about religion, as grown adults, like tiny children, though they may have mature intelligence in most other matters. Have you considered examining the Bible from an adult, intellectual perspective, the way you think about civil engineering projects, or modern medicine?

* "For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." - John 3:16

PS: Here's another question I hope the Bible answers: Why did God create dinosaurs? Why, later, flying dinosaurs? Why, still later, flying dinosaurs with feathers? Why today's birds, for which all the physical evidence points to their being descended from dinosaurs (clickable photo of dino-bird fossil below for article)? Why did God do these things?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/67364581a18aa009b.jpg (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1170278.htm)

[kleinman]

Why not ask; why did God design gravity because of it we can fall? If you want a biblical answer to your first question, try John 3:16. For the rest of your questions, read the Bible yourself and seek your answers. I'm not asking about gravity because this thread is a discussion about evolution.
Then why did you ask the following?
Why did He design the AIDS virus …
Is that a question about evolution?
By citing John 3:16* you seem to be saying that God designed life because he loved the world. If you please, characterize His love just before He designed life, and describe the lifeless world He loved so much that He designed life for it.
God’s love is eternal and unchanging. It is the same now as it was before He created the world.
The time-honored evasion "read it yourself" says to me you have no idea what the Bible has to say in answer to any of my other questions about life on Earth. God loved the world so much that He designed AIDS and the myriad other parasites that torment the innocent? Doesn't sound like love to me.
Is this why you believe in the theory of evolution? You think if God were truly loving there would be no suffering in this world?
You claim to be an intellectual, but your thinking is child-like. I've noticed that people who were taught religious dogma as tiny children still think about religion, as grown adults, like tiny children, though they may have mature intelligence in most other matters. Have you considered examining the Bible from an adult, intellectual perspective, the way you think about civil engineering projects, or modern medicine?
I don’t recall ever claiming to be an intellectual. The only thing I have claimed (aside from my academic credentials) is that I am the annoying creationist. I do examine the Bible from an adult perspective. It is by far the most important book ever written. I am not doing this as an evasion, read the book and find out why it is so important.
PS: Here's another question I hope the Bible answers: Why did God create dinosaurs? Why, later, flying dinosaurs? Why, still later, flying dinosaurs with feathers? Why today's birds, for which all the physical evidence points to their being descended from dinosaurs (clickable photo of dino-bird fossil below for article)? Why did God do these things?
The Bible does have reference to creatures such as leviathan and behemoth but I don’t think you will get the kind of answers for these questions you are looking for from the Bible. You need to understand that the creation story occupies 2 chapters in the book of Genesis while the story of Joseph takes about 14 chapters in that book. Your priorities and God’s priorities do not seem to coincide.

There are many creatures that have gone extinct. The issues I have raised here about the ev program is that your contention that these creatures are evolving from one to the next does not have a mathematical basis. You are extrapolating the similarities of animals to your concept of evolution. If you are correct about the theory of evolution, you must have some mechanism(s) that allow the transformation of genomes from one species to the next. Ev shows that the process of random point mutation and natural selection is profoundly slow, too slow to account for these changes. Hard science requires this type of accounting and it doesn’t appear that the theory of evolution can pass this type of test.

[kjkent1]

There are many creatures that have gone extinct. The issues I have raised here about the ev program is that your contention that these creatures are evolving from one to the next does not have a mathematical basis. You are extrapolating the similarities of animals to your concept of evolution. If you are correct about the theory of evolution, you must have some mechanism(s) that allow the transformation of genomes from one species to the next. Ev shows that the process of random point mutation and natural selection is profoundly slow, too slow to account for these changes. Hard science requires this type of accounting and it doesn’t appear that the theory of evolution can pass this type of test.

If not by evolution, then by what process which satisfies the rigorous mathematical basis which you apparently require, have the myriad of past and present lifeforms come to exist on Earth?

State your hypothesis and supporting mathematics.

[cyborg]

Is this why you believe in the theory of evolution?

No, it's why I believe Zeus is playing a big game of chess with me and making me slay mythical beasts and shagging my mother in the form of a goat.

You think if God were truly loving there would be no suffering in this world?

That's pretty much how it works.

Proceed with ******** about how great a gift free-will because the greatest thing to do with the gift of free-will is to obey a higher force's will.

read the book and find out why it is so important.

It is a nice set of writings about the crazy ideas people came up with before science.

Damn right it's important. Wouldn't want to go back to believing in talking snakes and building people from dust - how silly right?

Your priorities and God’s priorities do not seem to coincide.

"IT'S A MYSTERY YOU SILLY SKEPTIC!"

[fishbob]

Again, I tell you the gooey soft theory of evolution started out without a mathematical basis and remains that way. When evolutionarians try to apply mathematics to the theory, it contradicts the theory. The auditors are looking at the evolutionarian books and they don’t balance. Yes fishbbob, I am getting it both ways.

That is a violation of something or other - the 2nd Law of Thermo-Dianetics, I think.