Annoying creationists [Archive] - Page 8

articulett

23rd January 2007, 06:53 PM

So far we have "scientist" as your description of yourself, while your profile says "Biology Teacher". Please enlighten us, with the same honesty that John has shown regarding his experience, qualifications and studies....

Thanks.

I have a Masters of Science in Genetic Counseling, and worked in that field for several years before attending law school--during the Dover trial--that case and my first TAM meeting made me feel like I could be doing a lot more good in the world by teaching biology and critical thinking--so, I am.

And I'd really love to see a conversation between you, John, and Kleinman so I can see if you understand and agree with each other or are making sense to any one other than yourselves. Yes, I know you hate me because I pointed out that Yahtzi's assessment of your error in logic was correct--but getting all upset and taking it personally doesn't really help you learn anything.

Yes, I know very well I can be wrong. That's why I look for evidence. That's why I ask specific questions and pay careful attention to the answers. I know you think you are supporting your claims and that anyone can see it--but I don't. To me, you sound like Dann. You make unsupported claims and then sling ad homs when someone points it out. You make up little side issues so everyone is distracted from your error in logic and then try to make it look like I'm a sneer worthy person. Like Hammy you take great offense at anyone who points out your errors while claiming to be the victim of attacks that you started. By the way, I don't think you are a creationist despite your unsupported claim that I think everyone who doesn't agree with me is; and I don't think Dann is either. I just think you have poor dialog and communication skills and that you can't fathom that you could possibly be one to make logical errors. You would be a "skeptoid" to me in reference to the thread of the same title.

You guys are just annoying because you change the topic and move the goalposts and don't seem to get the same meaning from words that others do. You insult people repeatedly and then have tantrums when it comes back. You take offense at the slightest ego bruise and presume that your view of who is a "good bloke" or "a person with an agenda" is the truth that everyone sees.

Hey, I'm guilty too. I thought it was obvious that Hewitt was a creationist--hence my god reference. Apparently others hadn't reached that same conclusion as readily as I had-- I presented evidence when John asked why I believed him to be a creationist, and others seem to have reached the same conclusion. In any case, no one including you seems to know exactly what his theories are. And I still think he is a creationist--he answers questions in the same shifty way that creationists do--it works on people like you; it doesn't work on me.

And I have come to think of you as a skeptoid as defined in the skeptoid thread. It's just an opinion. No need to have a tantrum. It will only make you look like more of a skeptoid. If I am incorrect the evidence should be easily discernible in your posts. If you keep responding with ranting non-sequitars it will only confirm my conclusion to others.

So then, what are your fine references now that I've given you mine?

articulett

23rd January 2007, 07:01 PM

arthurchappell

23rd January 2007, 07:16 PM

THE RULES OF CREATIONISM

1/. Don't take the children to see Jurassic Park - tell them it is
pornography.

2/. Don't even mention the D word.

3/. Take Adam and Eve literally.

4/. The only Darwen for you is a town in Blackburn Lancashire, England of that
name.

5/. Richard Dawkins is the Anti-Christ.

6/. Evolution is really spelt Evil-ution.

7/. Arthur Chappell will burn in Hell for writing this.

Hopefuly this year is when God comes back on the first day of the 4th month to shout 'April Fool'.

kleinman

23rd January 2007, 07:20 PM

Definition of non-existent selection process-a selection process in which a non-existent gene evolves from the first base to the final base by a series of mutations.You are a retard.

THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH SELECTION.

What part of that is too complex for you to understand?
Poor cyborg, it appears I have confused you. Go sit in the corner and repeat to yourself-“mutation-selection”, “mutation-selection”, ... If you do this enough, I’m sure your thinking will evolve properly.
Cyborg, I’ll let you take it from here.You have failed to define it. You have merely engaged in stupid rhetoric.

What part of mathematics is it that scares you precisely? When I say DEFINE I mean DEFINE MATHEMATICALLY.

Your argument is supposedly mathematical. I expect nothing less than mathematical precision.
Selection process to evolve a gene de novo Ç reality = f
Cyborg, you have mastered the self replicating dumb idea. If you discard selection from your theory, you have no chance at all.I repeat again - you are quite a retard.

Selection is irrelevant. It is only the change in state that is relevant here. HOW the change in state occurs is irrelevant. We can have divine selection or whatever it is that you think happened. HOW the gene gets there is irrelevant. The point is merely to modify the program to your parameters so you have a chance of actually proving that the program cannot have that change of state.
I think you are in a state of confusion.
Didn’t you bet your soul on the theory of evolution?No.
Maybe you are not as confused as I thought.

cyborg

23rd January 2007, 07:37 PM

kleinman

23rd January 2007, 08:36 PM

Poor cyborg, it appears I have confused you. Go sit in the corner and repeat to yourself-“mutation-selection”, “mutation-selection”, ... If you do this enough, I’m sure your thinking will evolve properly.Wouldn't I better off praying to Jesus?
What do you think?
process to evolve a gene de novoI see you cannot do it.

How shocking.
Only shocking to an evolutionarian.
I think you are in a state of confusion.No. It's quite simple really. Let's try again.
Only if you want to be annoyed again.
You are banging on about how natural selection is insufficient for creating de novo - that is in non-trying-to-sound-cleverer-than-you-are-talk - NEW genes.
Not quite. What I’m banging on about is that natural selection for evolving a gene de novo is nonexistent.
Defining WHAT the occurrence of a new gene entails is entirely divorced from the sequence of events that leads to it.
The sequence of events that leads to a new gene must be of selective benefit to the creatures in which it is evolving in. Perhaps you would be willing to explain how a partially completed gene would be a selective benefit to these creatures? In particular would you explain to us how the partially completed genes which code for the DNA replicase proteins would be of benefit to the creatures in which these genes would be evolving?
That is to say if you want to claim that only Jesus can make new genes then Jesus must be creating the occurrences of new genes.

Of course the point here is that you cannot catch Jesus in the act so instead you want to eliminate all other possibilities and assume Jesus did it in the absence of those possibilities being satisfactory. Fine. Let's go along with that fallacious reasoning for the moment and just ignore Zeus getting stroppy in the corner.

First you need to define the event that you are saying only Jesus can accomplish.

What part of this is causing you to reach for cross and holy water rather than algebra?
The part you are having trouble grasping is that we are biologic machines and you are having difficulty in seeing design in these machines. You don’t seem to have difficulty in grasping the concept of an archeologist digging up a site and finding artifacts which show signs of intelligence in their construction or the SETI experiment looking for radio signals that do not appear to have a natural origin but for living things, you have rejected the concept of design even when you are confronted with the mathematical impossibility of your own theory.
Is it the fact that you are so woefully incompetent that you think probabilities can exceed 1? Perhaps we should start from 1+1=2 and work you up from there until you reach the necessary mathematical competence to back up your astounding ability to run programs.
I long ago acknowledged my error on this issue. Yet you bring it up again. You will not win this discussion with these tactics. Why don’t we tell everyone what this issue is about?

Early in the discussion of the mathematics of ev, I thought that population had an additive effect of the probability of a mutation occurring at a particular locus. That is, double the population and you double the probability of a mutation occurring at a particular locus. Myriad corrected my assumption on this point on the Evolutionisdead forum and showed that population exhibits less than an additive effect on the probability of a mutation hitting at a particular locus. It turns out this explains why the data from ev shows that increasing populations have a decreasing effect on the rate of convergence as population is increased. I appreciate Myriad correcting me on this issue.
Maybe you are not as confused as I thought.I have no soul to bet you idiot.
What makes you so sure?

kjkent1

23rd January 2007, 11:41 PM

The Atheist

24th January 2007, 12:42 AM

The Atheist

24th January 2007, 01:01 AM

I have a Masters of Science in Genetic Counseling, and worked in that field for several years before attending law school--during the Dover trial--that case and my first TAM meeting made me feel like I could be doing a lot more good in the world by teaching biology and critical thinking--so, I am. Thanks. I'd begun to wonder about your critical thinking as it seemed to be more of the harrassment style than seeking answers, but I'll take your word for it.
And I'd really love to see a conversation between you, John, and Kleinman so I can see if you understand and agree with each other or are making sense to any one other than yourselves.Oh, that's an easy one. I wouldn't understand any of it.
Yes, I know you hate me because I pointed out that Yahtzi's assessment of your error in logic was correct--but getting all upset and taking it personally doesn't really help you learn anything.Now you're just being childish, A - I don't hate you. B - I've never claimed to be an expert on this subject, so if I make mistakes I'm happy to own them and C - the only beef I've had with you is what seems to be hounding a bloke because you disagree with him. If John turns out to be a creationist, I'll bring the matches to the burning.
Yes, I know very well I can be wrong. That's why I look for evidence. That's why I ask specific questions and pay careful attention to the answers. I know you think you are supporting your claims and that anyone can see it--but I don't. To me, you sound like Dann. You make unsupported claims and then sling ad homs when someone points it out.Nope, I sling ad homs all the time, nothing to do with whether I'm right or not.
You make up little side issues so everyone is distracted from your error in logic and then try to make it look like I'm a sneer worthy person. Like Hammy you take great offense at anyone who points out your errors while claiming to be the victim of attacks that you started. By the way, I don't think you are a creationist despite your unsupported claim that I think everyone who doesn't agree with me is; and I don't think Dann is either. I just think you have poor dialog and communication skills and that you can't fathom that you could possibly be one to make logical errors. You would be a "skeptoid" to me in reference to the thread of the same title.I have no problem with making the odd logical error, I'm no slave to logic. As I said, I'm no scientist; sometimes gut instinct is as good as any. You can keep the "skeptoid" label for yourself as well, I make no claim to be a "skeptic". Instead of Occam's Razor I use the bulldozer, sometimes squashing the facts along the way. It probably is frustrating for you, but I always get what I want in the end. Live with it. My language and comprehension skills - take me on anyday. I'll just make sure it's a subject I know something about.
Hey, I'm guilty too. I thought it was obvious that Hewitt was a creationist--hence my god reference. Apparently others hadn't reached that same conclusion as readily as I had-- I presented evidence when John asked why I believed him to be a creationist, and others seem to have reached the same conclusion. In any case, no one including you seems to know exactly what his theories are. And I still think he is a creationist--he answers questions in the same shifty way that creationists do--it works on people like you; it doesn't work on me.Were you a Mother Superior in a previous life?
So then, what are your fine references now that I've given you mine?
I have a B Com in Finance and an MBA in Human Resources. I don't expect to be able to hold a conversation with you on genetics and evolution any more than I'd expect you to know about outplacement. The fact that you're infinitely more knowledgeable than me on the subject doesn't worry me a bit. We each have our specialties.

One last comment. I just noted Dr Richard's post and link. He's just stepped up and placed relevant information without the crusade. You don't think that maybe your style is letting you down a little? Sometimes, sticking to the basics without the histrionics gets more attention.

Just a thought.

John Hewitt

24th January 2007, 03:44 AM

Dr Kleinman, Hewitt, Articulate, Cyborg, et. al.

What is the minimum genome size capable of reproduction/division/replication (or whatever other term you may deem relevant)?

I ask this question because it seems to me that unless we can specify a precise lower limit on the genetic composition of a life form, we can't calculate the odds of its developing by pure chance. However, we only need one life form to develop by chance before natural selection can start influencing future biological changes, so the simpler the initial life form can be, the more likely it can develop by chance.

Any suggestions/evidence?

Concerning the nature of a replicator. In some pedantic formal senses, one could argue that even an organism is not a replicator because living things do not copy themselves completely de novo, they do need inputs. So what one needs to do is begin with a definition and concept of replicator that seems relevant. The following point was made by Grand(e) and Dawkins does agree with it. An organism is only a replicator in the sense that it replicates its pattern. It takes in relatively disordered material from the outside world and imposes onto that material a copy of itself, meaning a copy of its own pattern or structure or its data. It is a matter of thermodynamics that a free energy supply is needed in order to perform this data copying and all organism must make use of an exogenous free energy supply.
For purposes of biological and biochemical discussion, a replicator is something that takes in relatively simple, disordered, low energy molecules, and makes use of an energy supply to impose a replica of its own pattern onto the arrangement of those atoms and molecules.

I believe that the smallest known replicators are cells. The smallest known cells are a matter of debate but some candidates include intracellular parasites, such as the PPLOs (pleuropneumonia like organisms) which, I believe, have just a few hundred genes. However, such things live as parasites within other cells and enjoy a very stable environment. I believe the smallest known free living bacteria have of the order of 1200-1300 genes but that is just from memory. There was a post on this forum, not long ago, which identified it but I don't remember its name.
In any event, a thousand genes would be about 600k base pairs or more. Whatever figure you choose, it is very high and that is not surprising. A cell has to be a Von Neumann machine, a machine which contains the data needed to describe itself, the programs needed to drive its own operations and the physical actuators needed to put those programs into effect. Any such machine is going to involve a large amount of data and some complicated equipment.

The problem is, "How could both the data and the equipment come into being together?" There are really only three general ways in which this could happen.
1. It all happened by chance. The problem with this is that, even on the most generous of assumptions, such a complex machine could not have arisen by chance.
2. It was designed. The problem with this is that it is not really an answer. Whether the designer was God, as the bible suggests, or an alien, as Crick suggests, the designer must himself have been a machine of great complexity and we must still wonder about where that designer came from. Design is, really, a transfer of the problem.
3. Evolution but this too has problems. Evolutionary theory, as presently constructed, describes how one organism can change into another, it does not describe how organisms, as Von Neumann machines, can arise de novo. The task, therefore, is to so construct evolutionary theory that one can describe an evolutionary process in a purely chemical environment and show how that process can lead to the kinds of phenomena we now identify as biology. That is one aspect of what I work on.

However, note that I just said is that one must describe an evolutionary process that does not begin with a replicator. That seems to be Articulett's problem with me. She believes in Dawkins and I don't. I do not believe that replicators, otherwise known as Von Neumann machines, can lie at the base of evolution. I think the base of evolution is data and data flows. I think that it is the sun's data supply, as well as its energy supply, that drove evolution within a chemical environment and which led to life.

John Hewitt

24th January 2007, 04:02 AM

Thanks for the link in the previous post.

Now I'm wondering how it's possible that you can make so much sense in half a dozen lines while all Articulett's done in about 6000 lines is scream "creationist".
I am glad Dr. Richard makes sense to you because he doesn't to me. He posted a bare link and did not explain what relevance he attaches to it. He seems to be insinuating an opinion rather than expressing it.

His link does not describe DNA acting as a replicator but undergoing an autocatalytic reaction. Autocatalysis is a well-known phenomenon that can be demonstrated in school classrooms. It is also a component part of some theories of abiogenesis, including my own.

John Hewitt

24th January 2007, 04:08 AM

In what way do they not exactly decribe a replicator but come close?

Thank you for correcting the false impression I was under i.e. that two researchers in 2003 did not create life on earth billions of years ago.

The problem is that you are now shifting the goalposts. But hey, I can do this.....

RNA
DNA

next problem.....

As a further reply to the above, the link that Dr. Richard provided was of a large polynucleotide fragment autocatalyzing a single rather small change in its structure. This nucleotide fragment already contains all its own data and energy. What can one say? A single autocatalytic event does not amount to a fragment copying itself or making use of an exogenous energy supply from simple molecules. It is a fragment that merely undergoes a minor change in its data and energy content and, as the authors say, this is an example of autocatalysis. Unfortunately it does not come close to being a replicator as described above and I don't think autocatalysis is a big deal. It is a well know phenomenon, even in simple chemistry.

Skeptic Ginger

24th January 2007, 05:36 AM

At least Dr Schneider put some mathematics to his argument about random point mutations and natural selection. So which PROCESS is going to rescue your theory from the mathematical deficiency that is revealed by Dr Schneider’s model?

Do you stamp your foot when you say this?

So you are the evolutionarian who is going to explain what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before this system evolved? In particular, what were helicase and gyrase doing before DNA could be replicated?

These issues raised here are not contrived faults. Data from an evolutionarian written, peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection shows that this process is profoundly slow when using realistic parameters in the model. Why don’t you give us a realistic selection process which corrects the deficiency in the model? Why don’t you describe to us a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo?

Skeptigirl, what you are having trouble understanding is that without random point mutations, how do you transform duplicated genes to new genes? How do you evolve a gene de novo? Random point mutations are the cornerstone for your theory. Unless you can describe a realistic selection process that allows for rapid evolution of new genes by random point mutations, your theory is a flop.

Why don’t you educate us on a selection process that would rescue your theory from the mathematical vortex that it is being sucked into.

Skeptigirl, this discussion is being reduced down to an accounting problem. Dr Schneider thought he had solved this problem but failed to use realistic parameters in his model. You have no way to account for the differences between the genomes of different kinds of creatures based on random point mutations and natural selection. If you think other processes will solve this mathematical deficiency, educate us. Otherwise, your interpretations of your observations will only satisfy devout evolutionarians.I will repeat my two words, genetic science.

Whatever you think you are on to here is silly. But I'll play along for a while. Until I get bored.

Your underlying premise is totally flawed. We already know evolution is the correct theory because one can follow the genetic trail, manipulate genes, and observe evolution occurring. Am I correct in interpreting your position is that what is observed is not true?

Am I correct that you are stating evolution couldn't be correct merely because you are unaware of how the processes work?

I know how the processes work. It isn't hard to learn. So what is it you think is impossible? New genes? How silly. There are 4 different mechanisms new genes occur in organisms we observe today.

gene transfer mechanisms (http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~terry/229sp03/lectures/genetransfer.html)

Horizontal gene transfer (http://opbs.okstate.edu/~melcher/MG/MGW3/MG334.html)

molecular genetics (http://opbs.okstate.edu/~melcher/MG/MG01.html)

genomes in flux (http://opbs.okstate.edu/~melcher/MG/MGW3/MG3.html)

Gene transfer to plants by diverse species of bacteria (http://www.cambia.org/daisy/bios/393/version/live/part/4/data)

There are a multitude of factors you just haven't bothered to learn about here. Unless I have misinterpreted your position. There is a large amount of variation for example in the human genome. When a new selection pressure occurs such as a new epidemic, the genetic diversity assures the genes which may protect some members of the population are already in the population.

The CCR5 deletion is one such example. Persons with 2 copies are highly resistant to HIV yet the mutation arose long before HIV infected humans and being a neutral mutation, there are different percentages in populations based on ancestry alone.

And here you are discussing some nonsense about point mutations being unable to result in new genes? I haven't even begun to discuss the vast amount of knowledge that has been accumulated in genetic science.

Of course, your arguments have been thoroughly discussed both at the Panda's Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/when_ignorance.html) and Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html), but I suppose in 44 pages those citations have already been posted.

Skeptic Ginger

24th January 2007, 05:49 AM

Argument from incredulity (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html)It is inconceivable that (fill in the blank) could have originated naturally. Therefore, it must have been created.

This argument, also known as the argument from ignorance or "god of the gaps," is implicit in a very many different creationist arguments. In particular, it is behind all arguments against abiogenesis and any and all claims of intelligent design.

1. Really, the claim is "I can't conceive that (fill in the blank)." Others might be able to find a natural explanation; in many cases, they already have. Nobody knows everything, so it is unreasonable to conclude that something is impossible just because you do not know it. Even a noted antievolutionist acknowledges this point: "The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results" (Behe 2003).

2. The argument from incredulity creates a god of the gaps. Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning, for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses, for mental illness until we found biochemical causes for them. God is confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking.

Skeptic Ginger

24th January 2007, 05:53 AM

Mutations and new features (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html) 1. Variation of traits is production of novelty, especially where there was no variation before. The accumulation of slight modifications is a basis of evolution.

2. Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following:
* the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
* adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
* the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
* evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
* modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
* evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);

There is evidence for mutations producing other novel proteins:
* Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).

Laboratory experiments with directed evolution indicate that the evolution of a new function often begins with mutations that have little effect on a gene's original function but a large effect on a second function. Gene duplication and divergence can then allow the new function to be refined. (Aharoni et al. 2004)

3. For evolution to operate, the source of variation does not matter; all that matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may have been preexisting in the population originally, but not all of them were, especially considering the creationists' view that the animals originated from a single pair.

Skeptic Ginger

24th January 2007, 06:12 AM

Genome Primer (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/publicat/primer2001/PrimerColor.pdf)What We’ve Learned Thus Far The first panoramic views of the human genetic landscape have revealed a wealth of information and some early surprises. Much remains to be deciphered in this vast trove of information; as the consortium of HGP scientists concluded in their seminal paper, “. . .the more we learn about the human genome, the more there is to explore.” A few highlights from the first publications analyzing the sequence follow.
• The human genome contains 3 billion chemical nucleotide bases (A, C, T, and G).
• The average gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.
• The functions are unknown for more than 50% of discovered genes.
• The human genome sequence is almost (99.9%) exactly the same in all people.
• About 2% of the genome encodes instructions for the synthesis of proteins.
• Repeat sequences that do not code for proteins make up at least 50% of the human genome.
• Repeat sequences are thought to have no direct functions, but they shed light on chromosome structure and dynamics. Over time, these repeats reshape the genome by rearranging it, thereby creating entirely new genes or modifying and reshuffling existing genes.
• The human genome has a much greater portion (50%) of repeat sequences than the mustard weed (11%), the worm (7%), and the fly (3%).
• Over 40% of the predicted human proteins share similarity with fruitfly or worm proteins.
• Genes appear to be concentrated in random areas along the genome, with vast expanses of noncoding DNA between.
• Chromosome 1 (the largest human chromosome) has the most genes (2968), and the Y chromosome has the fewest (231).
• Genes have been pinpointed and particular sequences in those genes associated with numerous diseases and disorders including breast cancer, muscle disease, deafness, and blindness.
• Scientists have identified about 3 million locations where single-base DNA differences (see p. 9) occur in humans. This information promises to revolutionize the processes of finding DNA sequences associated with such common diseases as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, arthritis, and cancers.

Building a “Systems Level” View of Life

The DNA sequences generated in hundreds of genome projects now provide scientists with the “parts lists” containing instructions for how an organism builds, operates, maintains, and reproduces itself while responding to various environmental conditions. But we still have very little knowledge of how cells use this information to “come alive.” The functions of most genes remain unknown. Nor do we understand how genes and the proteins they encode interact with each other and with the environment. If we are to realize the potential of the genome projects, with far-ranging applications to such diverse fields as medicine, energy, and the environment, we must obtain this new level of knowledge.

One of the greatest impacts of having wholegenome sequences and powerful new genomic technologies may be an entirely new approach to conducting biological research. In the past, researchers studied one or a few genes or proteins at a time. Because life doesn’t operate in such isolation, this inherently provided incomplete—and often inaccurate—views. Researchers now can approach questions systematically and on a much grander scale. They can study all the genes expressed in a particular environment or all the gene products in a specific tissue, organ, or tumor. Other analyses will focus on how tens of thousands of genes and proteins work together in interconnected networks to orchestrate the chemistry of life—a new field called “systems biology” (see “Genomes to Life,” p. 10).

How do genetic variations (SNP patterns) differ across populations?

Charting Human Variation

Slight variations in our DNA sequences can have a major impact on whether or not we develop a disease and on our responses to such environmental factors as infectious microbes, toxins, and drugs. One of the most common types of sequence variation is the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). SNPs are sites in the human genome where individuals differ in their DNA sequence, often by a single base. For example, one person might have the DNA base A where another might have C, and so on. Scientists believe the human genome has at least 10 million SNPs, and they are generating different types of maps of these sites, which can occur both in genes and noncoding regions.

Sets of SNPs on the same chromosome are inherited in blocks (haplotypes). In 2002 a consortium of researchers from six countries established a 3-year effort to construct a map of the patterns of SNPs that occur across populations in Africa, Asia, and the United States. Researchers hope that dramatically decreasing the number of individual SNPs to be scanned will provide a shortcut for tracking down the DNA regions associated with common complex diseases such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and some forms of mental illness. The new map also may be useful in understanding how genetic variation contributes to responses to environmental factors. (For more information, see the NIH URL, p. 12.)

Skeptic Ginger

24th January 2007, 06:29 AM

The reason I put this material here, when you are discussing "large polynucleotide fragment autocatalyzing a single rather small change in its structure", is because the underlying premise that whatever "gaps" one finds in any particular piece of evolutionary theory is not evidence the theory is in any doubt. It is simply time to move on.

On the other hand, if you are merely arguing for one mechanism over another or that this or that gap needs filling or testing, then fine. But to think the "gap" is so wide as to actually put the theory of evolution in doubt is absurd in light of what current genetic scientists have been able to accomplish.

Skeptic Ginger

24th January 2007, 06:39 AM

Dr Gerald Joyce, Scripps Institute (http://exobio.ucsd.edu/joyce.htm) has been working on abiogenesis for example.We have been able, for example, to evolve variants of the Tetrahymena group I ribozyme that cleave single-stranded DNA with high efficiency and specificity under physiologic conditions. The starting molecule has barely detectable DNA cleavage activity. But after 27 "generations" of in vitro evolution, individuals isolated from the population had accumulated, on average, 17 mutations relative to the wild type and had improved their ability to cleave DNA by 1O5-fold. These designer ribozymes were expressed in Escherichia coil and used to "immunize" the host cell against infection by M13 single-stranded DNA bacteriophage.

In another study, we carried out directed evolution to change the metal dependence of a group I ribozyme, teaching it to operate in the presence of Ca2+ rather than Mg2+ or Mn2+ as is required by the wild type. We were able to correlate specific genetic changes that arose over evolutionary time with their effect on the catalytic properties of the evolving molecules. Our goal at present is to evolve novel ribozymes that carry out a broader range of chemical reactions, including reactions involving substrates other than nucleic acids.

Nano-origami (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-02/sri-n021004.php) isn't part of the abiogenesis work but it still advances the science.Scientists at Scripps research create single, clonable strand of DNA that folds into an octahedron A group of scientists at The Scripps Research Institute has designed, constructed, and imaged a single strand of DNA that spontaneously folds into a highly rigid, nanoscale octahedron that is several million times smaller than the length of a standard ruler and about the size of several other common biological structures, such as a small virus or a cellular ribosome.

Making the octahedron from a single strand was a breakthrough. Because of this, the structure can be amplified with the standard tools of molecular biology and can easily be cloned, replicated, amplified, evolved, and adapted for various applications. This process also has the potential to be scaled up so that large amounts of uniform DNA nanomaterials can be produced. These octahedra are potential building blocks for future projects, from new tools for basic biomedical science to the tiny computers of tomorrow.

...Shih and Joyce note that because all twelve edges of the octahedral structures have unique sequences, they are versatile molecular building blocks that could potentially be used to self-assemble complex higher-order structures.

As the evidence for evolution is clearly overwhelming, I see the evolution deniers are switching to the new "gap" of life's beginnings. Trying to find Joyce's work I found all sorts of sites proclaiming in essence, "Oh yeah? Well prove this then."

No worry, mate. Since the evidence is overwhelming it happened, scientific research will eventually provide the evidence of how exactly it occurred.

Skeptic Ginger

24th January 2007, 06:46 AM

RNA-Catalyzed RNA Ligation on an External RNA Template; Kathleen E. McGinness and Gerald F. Joyce; Departments of Chemistry and Molecular Biology and The Skaggs Institute for Chemical Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, 10550 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA (http://www.chembiol.com/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS1074552102001102)Summary

Variants of the hc ligase ribozyme, which catalyzes ligation of the 3′ end of an RNA substrate to the 5′ end of the ribozyme, were utilized to evolve a ribozyme that catalyzes ligation reactions on an external RNA template. The evolved ribozyme catalyzes the joining of an oligonucleotide 3′-hydroxyl to the 5′-triphosphate of an RNA hairpin molecule. The ribozyme can also utilize various substrate sequences, demonstrating a largely sequence-independent mechanism for substrate recognition. The ribozyme also carries out the ligation of two oligonucleotides that are bound at adjacent positions on a complementary template. Finally, it catalyzes addition of mononucleoside 5′-triphosphates onto the 3′ end of an oligonucleotide primer in a template-dependent manner. The development of ribozymes that catalyze polymerase-type reactions contributes to the notion that an RNA world could have existed during the early history of life on Earth.

cyborg

24th January 2007, 06:51 AM

What do you think?

Jesus is a hippy.

Only shocking to an evolutionarian.

Are so you are known as quite the dumbass amongst creationists.

Only if you want to be annoyed again.

Bring it.

Not quite. What I’m banging on about is that natural selection for evolving a gene de novo is nonexistent.

So? I don't give a crap about natural selection. I am interested in divine selection. I want to know how Jesus makes genes.

The sequence of events that leads to a new gene must be ofselective benefit to the creatures in which it is evolving in.

Rubbish. Jesus did it.

Perhaps you would be willing to explain how a partially completed gene would be a selective benefit to these creatures?

Absolutely not. I am with you. Clearly Jesus is responsible.

In particular would you explain to us how the partially completed genes which code for the DNA replicase proteins would be of benefit to the creatures in which these genes would be evolving?

No. Again you seem to fail to grasp the point here.

Then again dementia is an inevitable consequence of ageing. I guess it's really just not possible for you to understand any more. It is nice that the nursing home gives you Internet access though.

That's the only thing that could possibly explain why you are dancing around such a simple question.

I guess you can't tell the difference between a partially completed gene and a 'new' gene then? Is that the problem? You have to resort to flimsy qualitative arguments? Oh, how very persuasive of you. Maybe you'd like to me explain how rubbing the computer is of benefit to the evolving creatures as well?

The part you are having trouble grasping is that we are biologic machines and you are having difficulty in seeing design in these machines.

Speak for yourself. I'm a cyborg you moron.

You don’t seem to have difficulty in grasping the concept of an archeologist digging up a site and finding artifacts which show signs of intelligence in their construction or the SETI experiment looking for radio signals that do not appear to have a natural origin

When the hell did I say I don't have a problem with this? I hate Indiana Jones and Contact was a stupid movie.

but for living things, you have rejected the concept of design even when you are confronted with the mathematical impossibility of your own theory.

Mathematicians don't have the first clue what design looks like. That's all I can conclude from their programming abilities.

You haven't shown the mathematical impossibility of the theory. Namely you haven't got a mathematical definition for the de novo event so you cannot hope to show that it is impossible by any selection method - whatever one it is you want to show it is impossible for. (Free choice! Nothing to do with me! You get to choose the selection!) Merely running simulations is not enough. It is not hard proof and frankly you are not much of a mathematician if you think it is.

You know, algebra and that. Get some formulae together, jiggle them about, see what happens? It is clearly entirely possibly to model the simulation in this way.

I long ago acknowledged my error on this issue. Yet you bring it up again.

Yes. Why not? You refuse to do maths so there's not much left to do than to conclude you are a blow hard who can't. I'm simply presenting the evidence.

You will not win this discussion with these tactics.

I beg to differ.

What makes you so sure?

I'm a cyborg you retard. DUH.

Skeptic Ginger

24th January 2007, 06:52 AM

RNA STRUCTURE: Ribozyme Evolution at the Crossroads; Gerald F. Joyce (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/289/5478/401)

Review: In Search of an RNA Replicase Ribozyme; Kathleen E. McGinness1 and Gerald M. Joyce (http://www.chembiol.com/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS1074552103000036)The theory that an RNA world played a pivotal role in life's evolutionary past has prompted investigations into the scope of RNA catalysis. These efforts have attempted to demonstrate the plausibility of an RNA-based genetic system, which would require RNA molecules that catalyze their own replication. The mechanistic features of modern protein polymerases have been used to guide the laboratory evolution of catalytic RNAs (ribozymes) that exhibit polymerase-like activity. Ribozymes have been developed that recognize a primer-template complex in a general way and catalyze the template-directed polymerization of mononucleotides. These experiments demonstrate that RNA replicase behavior is likely within the catalytic repertoire of RNA, although many obstacles remain to be overcome in order to demonstrate that RNA can catalyze its own replication in a manner that could have sustained a genetic system on the early Earth.I have discussed this work before and the argument was mainly that it hasn't been established yet how the RNA molecules initially occurred. I am not aware if that was a legitimate issue or not since I thought Joyce made a reasonable argument for the occurrence of the molecules. However, it's just one more "gap" and here is an example of it beginning to be filled in.

hammegk

24th January 2007, 07:23 AM

Since the evidence is overwhelming it happened, scientific research will eventually provide the evidence of how exactly it occurred.
"It happened"? :p "exactly"?

Do your unproven and unprovable premises include "I, skeptigirl, am 100% certain god does not exist."? If not, why not? Don't you prefer a logically defensible worldview? :)

John Hewitt

24th January 2007, 07:38 AM

RNA STRUCTURE: Ribozyme Evolution at the Crossroads; Gerald F. Joyce (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/289/5478/401)

Review: In Search of an RNA Replicase Ribozyme; Kathleen E. McGinness1 and Gerald M. Joyce (http://www.chembiol.com/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS1074552103000036)I have discussed this work before and the argument was mainly that it hasn't been established yet how the RNA molecules initially occurred. I am not aware if that was a legitimate issue or not since I thought Joyce made a reasonable argument for the occurrence of the molecules. However, it's just one more "gap" and here is an example of it beginning to be filled in.

I am not sure to whom you are addressing this post but I find it unfortunate that you refer to links without explaining what you find relevant about them. I have explained before the severity of the problems in the RNA world theory.
My work circumvents those problems and I favour the theory that life began in a random primordial soup, not in a pH and temperature controlled test tube full of purified biochemicals purchased from Sigma. I also prefer my assumption that the sun comes up in the morning and goes down at night, over your faith that there is just a tiny, little gap in your theory.

It really is not sensible to believe that an RNA replicator could have emerged, by chance, within the primordial oceans even though nobody can make such a thing in the controlled conditions of a laboratory.

kjkent1

24th January 2007, 07:52 AM

The task, therefore, is to so construct evolutionary theory that one can describe an evolutionary process in a purely chemical environment and show how that process can lead to the kinds of phenomena we now identify as biology. That is one aspect of what I work on.

Sounds reasonable. What do you think of this hypothetical:

http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/harry/bio/lifestart/lifestart.htm#fp_organic

Skeptic Ginger

24th January 2007, 08:08 AM

"It happened"? :p "exactly"?

Do your unproven and unprovable premises include "I, skeptigirl, am 100% certain god does not exist."? If not, why not? Don't you prefer a logically defensible worldview? :)
I am 100% sure gods do not exist. I have presented my case in other threads. The basic premise is the only gods that could exist would need to either not interact with the Universe or hide their tracks. No religion describes such gods. Gods which interact with the Universe would be, by definition, detectable.

There have been no gods detected.

In addition, there is a more plausible explanation for belief in gods. That explanation is gods are a man-made construct.

You don't have to agree. You can also argue semantics or the philosophy of science not testing for gods. I prefer a more pragmatic view. Are you 100% certain there are no invisible pink unicorns in your closet? The semantics argument is with the words 'proof' and 100%. The philosophic argument is with proving a null hypothesis. It's fine to argue those concepts when one is discussing what preceded the Big Bang. But for all intents and purposes, it's useless to leave gods and invisible pink unicorns in one's optional beliefs.

As for evolution, yes it happened. When are you going to accept the overwhelming evidence if you haven't already? The theory of evolution is only being held to some absurd standard of evidence because the Bible believers cannot shift their paradigm. They did the same thing when it was discovered Earth wasn't exactly like the Bible described either.

It's hard to believe in a flat Earth since we can observe directly it's a sphere. I observe evolution in my field every time a drug resistant pathogen emerges.

Skeptic Ginger

24th January 2007, 08:12 AM

I am not sure to whom you are addressing this post but I find it unfortunate that you refer to links without explaining what you find relevant about them. I have explained before the severity of the problems in the RNA world theory.
My work circumvents those problems and I favour the theory that life began in a random primordial soup, not in a pH and temperature controlled test tube full of purified biochemicals purchased from Sigma. I also prefer my assumption that the sun comes up in the morning and goes down at night, over your faith that there is just a tiny, little gap in your theory.

It really is not sensible to believe that an RNA replicator could have emerged, by chance, within the primordial oceans even though nobody can make such a thing in the controlled conditions of a laboratory.I posted the discussion over about 5 posts. The edit feature was not working well so on some posts I edited and some I just added things in the following post. They were all together with one exception.

And the posts were mostly in response to kleinman.

hammegk

24th January 2007, 09:39 AM

I am 100% sure gods do not exist. Nice evasion. I'm 100% certain gods don't exist. The question concerned god.

No religion describes such gods. Gods which interact with the Universe would be, by definition, detectable.
Agreed. My discussion concerns the ontology one associates with the Universe (or Multiverse, perhaps). Are you 100% certain that what we have named matter/energy exists? I'm 100% certain thought exists.

There have been no gods detected.
Unknown. I haven't seen any such detection under the current rubric of science.

In addition, there is a more plausible explanation for belief in gods. That explanation is gods are a man-made construct.
Yup.

Are you 100% certain there are no invisible pink unicorns in your closet? Why yes, I am, knowing the definition of both invisible and pink.

But for all intents and purposes, it's useless to leave gods and invisible pink unicorns in one's optional beliefs.
My question concerned god.

As for evolution, yes it happened. When are you going to accept the overwhelming evidence if you haven't already?
What part of available scientific evidence do you have faith I reject?

The theory of evolution is only being held to some absurd standard of evidence because the Bible believers cannot shift their paradigm. They did the same thing when it was discovered Earth wasn't exactly like the Bible described either.
I have no more faith in the Bible than you do.

It's hard to believe in a flat Earth since we can observe directly it's a sphere.

You're getting sillier as you go along. :)

I observe evolution in my field every time a drug resistant pathogen emerges.
Do you think I dispute those observed facts? I don't.

cyborg

24th January 2007, 09:42 AM

I'm 100% certain thought exists.

I'm 100% sure that's a meaningless statement.

kleinman

24th January 2007, 10:11 AM

What is the minimum genome size capable of reproduction/division/replication (or whatever other term you may deem relevant)?
If you would take the time to study this thread and the related thread on the Evolutionisdead forum you would get these answers and links with more information.

For eukaryotes, the smallest known which Paul posted is Pelagibacter ubique with a genome length of around 1.3 million base pairs. For prokaryotes, Mycoplasma sp. is around 900,000 base pairs. There are symbionts with shorter genome lengths but are not free living organisms and are dependent upon a host.
So then, what are your fine references now that I've given you mine?I have a B Com in Finance and an MBA in Human Resources. I don't expect to be able to hold a conversation with you on genetics and evolution any more than I'd expect you to know about outplacement. The fact that you're infinitely more knowledgeable than me on the subject doesn't worry me a bit. We each have our specialties.
Atheist, you should be able to understand the bookkeeping problem that the theory of evolution has. You can’t balance the evolutionarian checkbook.
Concerning the nature of a replicator. In some pedantic formal senses, one could argue that even an organism is not a replicator because living things do not copy themselves completely de novo, they do need inputs. So what one needs to do is begin with a definition and concept of replicator that seems relevant. The following point was made by Grand(e) and Dawkins does agree with it. An organism is only a replicator in the sense that it replicates its pattern. It takes in relatively disordered material from the outside world and imposes onto that material a copy of itself, meaning a copy of its own pattern or structure or its data. It is a matter of thermodynamics that a free energy supply is needed in order to perform this data copying and all organism must make use of an exogenous free energy supply.
For purposes of biological and biochemical discussion, a replicator is something that takes in relatively simple, disordered, low energy molecules, and makes use of an energy supply to impose a replica of its own pattern onto the arrangement of those atoms and molecules.

I believe that the smallest known replicators are cells. The smallest known cells are a matter of debate but some candidates include intracellular parasites, such as the PPLOs (pleuropneumonia like organisms) which, I believe, have just a few hundred genes. However, such things live as parasites within other cells and enjoy a very stable environment. I believe the smallest known free living bacteria have of the order of 1200-1300 genes but that is just from memory. There was a post on this forum, not long ago, which identified it but I don't remember its name.
I think what kjkent1 is looking for is the minimum size genome for a free living organism which I have posted above. The reason this is important is that the genome length is the dominant parameter in Dr Schneider’s model. Until one obtains a free living organism, one is confined to the concept of abiogenesis which is a weaker theory than the theory of evolution. Evolutionarians can not conceive of a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo in a living organism. What kind of selection process would there be in the primordial soup that would evolve a gene?
The problem is, "How could both the data and the equipment come into being together?" There are really only three general ways in which this could happen.
1. It all happened by chance. The problem with this is that, even on the most generous of assumptions, such a complex machine could not have arisen by chance.
2. It was designed. The problem with this is that it is not really an answer. Whether the designer was God, as the bible suggests, or an alien, as Crick suggests, the designer must himself have been a machine of great complexity and we must still wonder about where that designer came from. Design is, really, a transfer of the problem.
3. Evolution but this too has problems. Evolutionary theory, as presently constructed, describes how one organism can change into another, it does not describe how organisms, as Von Neumann machines, can arise de novo. The task, therefore, is to so construct evolutionary theory that one can describe an evolutionary process in a purely chemical environment and show how that process can lead to the kinds of phenomena we now identify as biology. That is one aspect of what I work on.
Case 1. is easily proved impossible. Case 3. which ultimately becomes a modified version of Case 1. contradicts mathematical and scientific laws as is being shown in this thread. Case 2. fits observation far better than either Case 1. or Case 3. The problem with Crick’s hypothesis of panspermia is that life still had to originate somehow with the aliens who brought it here.
However, note that I just said is that one must describe an evolutionary process that does not begin with a replicator. That seems to be Articulett's problem with me. She believes in Dawkins and I don't. I do not believe that replicators, otherwise known as Von Neumann machines, can lie at the base of evolution. I think the base of evolution is data and data flows. I think that it is the sun's data supply, as well as its energy supply, that drove evolution within a chemical environment and which led to life.
John, I agree that photons flow from the sun but where is the data?
At least Dr Schneider put some mathematics to his argument about random point mutations and natural selection. So which PROCESS is going to rescue your theory from the mathematical deficiency that is revealed by Dr Schneider’s model?

Do you stamp your foot when you say this?

So you are the evolutionarian who is going to explain what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before this system evolved? In particular, what were helicase and gyrase doing before DNA could be replicated?

These issues raised here are not contrived faults. Data from an evolutionarian written, peer reviewed and published mathematical model of random point mutations and natural selection shows that this process is profoundly slow when using realistic parameters in the model. Why don’t you give us a realistic selection process which corrects the deficiency in the model? Why don’t you describe to us a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo?

Skeptigirl, what you are having trouble understanding is that without random point mutations, how do you transform duplicated genes to new genes? How do you evolve a gene de novo? Random point mutations are the cornerstone for your theory. Unless you can describe a realistic selection process that allows for rapid evolution of new genes by random point mutations, your theory is a flop.

Why don’t you educate us on a selection process that would rescue your theory from the mathematical vortex that it is being sucked into.

Skeptigirl, this discussion is being reduced down to an accounting problem. Dr Schneider thought he had solved this problem but failed to use realistic parameters in his model. You have no way to account for the differences between the genomes of different kinds of creatures based on random point mutations and natural selection. If you think other processes will solve this mathematical deficiency, educate us. Otherwise, your interpretations of your observations will only satisfy devout evolutionarians.I will repeat my two words, genetic science.
I have one word which trumps your two words, mathematics.
Whatever you think you are on to here is silly. But I'll play along for a while. Until I get bored.
God forbid that I bore an evolutionarian with facts.
Your underlying premise is totally flawed. We already know evolution is the correct theory because one can follow the genetic trail, manipulate genes, and observe evolution occurring. Am I correct in interpreting your position is that what is observed is not true?
What you are observing are microevolutionary processes and extrapolating these processes to macroevolution. Darwin misinterpreted the variations of bird beaks as mutation and selection when what he was observing was recombination and selection. Gould made the same error when he proposed his concept of punctuated equilibrium which is applicable to recombination and natural selection but not to mutation and selection. Evolutionarians have extrapolated the rapid changes that are possible with recombination and natural selection to mutation and natural selection. Dr Schneider’s computer model reveals the problems with this extrapolation.
Am I correct that you are stating evolution couldn't be correct merely because you are unaware of how the processes work?
No.
I know how the processes work. It isn't hard to learn. So what is it you think is impossible? New genes? How silly. There are 4 different mechanisms new genes occur in organisms we observe today.

gene transfer mechanisms (http://www.sp.uconn.edu/~terry/229sp03/lectures/genetransfer.html)

Horizontal gene transfer (http://opbs.okstate.edu/~melcher/MG/MGW3/MG334.html)

molecular genetics (http://opbs.okstate.edu/~melcher/MG/MG01.html)

genomes in flux (http://opbs.okstate.edu/~melcher/MG/MGW3/MG3.html)

Gene transfer to plants by diverse species of bacteria (http://www.cambia.org/daisy/bios/393/version/live/part/4/data)
So let’s see you apply some mathematics to your genetic science and do the bookkeeping required to account for your theory. Dr Schneider tried this with random point mutations and natural selection and this mechanism does not balance the books.
There are a multitude of factors you just haven't bothered to learn about here. Unless I have misinterpreted your position. There is a large amount of variation for example in the human genome. When a new selection pressure occurs such as a new epidemic, the genetic diversity assures the genes which may protect some members of the population are already in the population.
So choose your mechanism, formulate the mathematics and balance your books. In case you haven’t noticed, there is no selection mechanism that would evolve a gene de novo.
The CCR5 deletion is one such example. Persons with 2 copies are highly resistant to HIV yet the mutation arose long before HIV infected humans and being a neutral mutation, there are different percentages in populations based on ancestry alone.
Why don’t you describe the selection process that would give rise to the HIV virus de novo?
And here you are discussing some nonsense about point mutations being unable to result in new genes? I haven't even begun to discuss the vast amount of knowledge that has been accumulated in genetic science.
Why don’t you give us the benefit of your vast knowledge and describe the selection process that would give rise to a gene de novo?
Of course, your arguments have been thoroughly discussed both at the Panda's Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/when_ignorance.html) and Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html), but I suppose in 44 pages those citations have already been posted.
Anybody on these links describe the selection process that evolves a gene de novo?
The reason I put this material here, when you are discussing "large polynucleotide fragment autocatalyzing a single rather small change in its structure", is because the underlying premise that whatever "gaps" one finds in any particular piece of evolutionary theory is not evidence the theory is in any doubt. It is simply time to move on.
You are missing the point to this discussion. The argument I am raising here is that Dr Schneider’s ev model of random point mutations and natural selection shows that this mechanism is profoundly slow at accumulating genetic information when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used in the model. The rate of information acquisition is far to slow to explain macroevolution by this mechanism. Dr Schneider is the head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute. His model has been peer reviewed and published in Nucleic Acids Research. If you believe that gene transfer mechanisms, horizontal gene transfer, molecular genetics, genomes in flux or gene transfers to plants by diverse species of bacteria will correct the mathematical deficiency that Dr Schneider’s model reveals in your theory, formulate the mathematics and correct your theory. Otherwise, your theory started without a mathematical basis and remains that way.
On the other hand, if you are merely arguing for one mechanism over another or that this or that gap needs filling or testing, then fine. But to think the "gap" is so wide as to actually put the theory of evolution in doubt is absurd in light of what current genetic scientists have been able to accomplish.
What I argue is that random point mutations and natural selection is the cornerstone to your theory. Without this mechanism, all the other mechanisms you describe will not be able to fill the gap left when this mechanism is removed from your theory. Not only does Dr Schneider’s computer model remove random point mutations and natural selection as a viable explanation for macroevolution, it reveals another fatal flaw in your theory, that is a lack of a plausible selection mechanism for the evolution of a gene de novo.
As the evidence for evolution is clearly overwhelming, I see the evolution deniers are switching to the new "gap" of life's beginnings. Trying to find Joyce's work I found all sorts of sites proclaiming in essence, "Oh yeah? Well prove this then."
This is evidence for microevolution or genetic modifications by intelligent scientists. Since evolutionarians like to say that macroevolution is simply a series of microevolutionary steps, I have challenged this view that macroevolution is the de novo evolution of a gene. There is no selection process that would do such a thing.
I have discussed this work before and the argument was mainly that it hasn't been established yet how the RNA molecules initially occurred. I am not aware if that was a legitimate issue or not since I thought Joyce made a reasonable argument for the occurrence of the molecules. However, it's just one more "gap" and here is an example of it beginning to be filled in.
Since joobz won’t tell us how ribose formed in the primordial soup, perhaps you would tell us?

Yahzi

24th January 2007, 10:20 AM

I have the impression that you are asking me to recite and conform to your personal dogma.
What I asked for was a straight answer.

That you chose not to give one is itself sufficient answer for me. However, several other people in this thread are unaware of what your non-answer means, so I feel somewhat compelled to explain it.

Does it? Is it? If Hyparxis was unaware of this, he is not alone.
In other words, you agree with Hyparxis that metaphysical naturalism is not adequate to explain life.

How about "dunno?" Would that be a middle ground?
In other words, you are uncertain as to whether metaphysical naturalism is adequate to explain life.

Am I? Which exception is that?
The exception you are championing is an exception to evolution.

If you feel that my work entails or implies supernatural intervention, then please point out how it does so.
You could, of course, simply state that it does not. But you are too happy to ally yourself with creationists because they are the enemy of your enemy. This, in itself, should be sufficient evidence that you are not metaphysical naturalist.

Before we continue, perhaps we should explain why being a metaphysical naturalist matters. The reason it matters is because if one does not restrict oneself to metaphysical naturalism, then at the end of a very long, tedious conversation one discovers a completely idiotic answer. An answer that makes no sense and contradicts the rest of what we know about the world.

Having read through all of your posts, I see I can provide the perfect example:

I think that it is the sun's data supply, as well as its energy supply, that drove evolution within a chemical environment and which led to life.

The sun's "data supply?" What in seven hells are you talking about? The sun produces no "data." It emits a limited amount of information in several spectrums. However, the only information contained in this data flow are the changing temperature patterns of the sun's radiant surface. Compared to the complexity of self-replicating systems, that is an unbelievable paucity of data.

I predict that your "data supply" will be either a poor restatement of current information and energy theory, or a supernatural concept. In other words, it will be either irrelevant or absurd.

But please; expand; explain to all and sundry what clever insights and sterling wisdom the sun dispenses on us daily.

Yahzi

24th January 2007, 10:21 AM

I'm 100% sure that's a meaningless statement.
The quote is from Descartes; "I doubt, therefore I doubt." It is often taken as the one iron-clad assurance of reality. Even if we are brains in vats, if we think we are doubting, we must actually be doubting.

Whether or not it applies to your discussion, I can't say. I have enough trouble tracking Hewitt and his sun-god. :D

Yahzi

24th January 2007, 10:29 AM

I have said that currently nothing is a plausible explanation of abiogenesis...

I have said many times, and I'll repeat it again, that I'm pushing no barrow, other than the one which demands a fair hearing.
If you are asserting that a non-natural explanation of abiogenesis is possible... then you are pushing the same barrow as the Creationists.

To date, John's been honest in the face of concerted attack on him personally.
You call his many evasions "honest?"

Given that we are discussing evolution with a creationist, it is perfectly fair to ask someone bashing evolution whether or not they are a creationist. To take umbrage at such a request, instead of simply saying, "no," is generally considered "the lady doth protest too much."

All he had to do was say that yes, he restricts his work to the arena of science. But as you can see, he does not think science is itself limited to the material, observable world. Or maybe not - yet another question he finds too personally offensive to answer.

Why you want to defend someone who refuses to simply answer questions with a single word is beyond me. Apparently you feel Hewitt has a right to question all of evolution, including casting aspersions on the integrity of evolutionary science, and recieve careful and complete answers; but we may not ask a question of his motivation and expect to recieve a single word.

Yahzi

24th January 2007, 10:35 AM

You've also mistaken what I said about John's falsifiability. He's picked a task where if current theory is right, he is going to be shown to be wrong and badly so. IDists have the escape clause of "god made it so". John hasn't given himself that out.
As I understand it, John's peers have examined his theories and rejected them.

Yet he has not given up his theories.

In which of the above premises am I mistaken?

John Hewitt

24th January 2007, 11:14 AM

As I understand it, John's peers have examined his theories and rejected them.

Yet he has not given up his theories.

In which of the above premises am I mistaken?

Yahzi, look I am going to be completely clear in my reply to you here. I do not have the faintest idea what "metaphysical naturalism" is. What is more, and I say this as somebody who has read quite a few philosophy books, the branch of philosophy that interests me is epistemology, particularly scientific philosophy. I have little interest in the verbiage that comes labelled as metaphysics or ontology. So when I say "dunno" I really do mean "dunno" and you can add the implied "don't care" as well.

My work on prebiotic evolution is a physico-chemically consistent description of evolution operating in a purely chemical environment. It is the only such system anybody has come up with yet. I don't know whether "my peers" have examined it or not and, in those circumstances, I can hardly know whether or not they have rejected it.

I may add to that, that I am interested in the opinions of only those peers who choose to attach a coherent argument to their opinions. With the exception of Wowbagger, on another thread, I have yet hear such a considered opinion.

Finally, and this is a reply to Kleinman's "John, I agree that photons flow from the sun but where is the data?"

I presume that you own a computer which has at least one data cable attached. That cable is, in fact, a power cable that delivers its energy flux in a form that is modulated to deliver data also. The data cable delivers a low power signal that is amplified by an "intelligently designed" amplifier in your computer that depends on the actual power supply in your computer.

The sun is a data supply because its energy flux turns on and off once a day. The sun delivers a 0,1 data signal once per day. The sun's data signal is very powerful and can be its own energy supply. As a result, it does not need an amplifier, and its data signal can lead to evolution among the chemical responses. For the details, consider opening
http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk
and follow the prebiotic evolution link.

delphi_ote

24th January 2007, 11:22 AM

Thank you, kleinman, for moving this thread back on topic.

The Atheist

24th January 2007, 11:22 AM

As I understand it, John's peers have examined his theories and rejected them.

Yet he has not given up his theories.

In which of the above premises am I mistaken?Can you provide links or further detail on John's theory being debunked?

Not people who just don't like them, actual refutation of his theories?
If you are asserting that a non-natural explanation of abiogenesis is possible... then you are pushing the same barrow as the Creationists.I'll ask again, did you notice my name?

Since - as far as I'm aware - nobody has even come up with a plausible theory yet to describe abiogenesis, I'll just sit on the sidelines. Maybe you could fill me in on how abiogenesis works, please.
You call his many evasions "honest?"

Given that we are discussing evolution with a creationist, it is perfectly fair to ask someone bashing evolution whether or not they are a creationist. To take umbrage at such a request, instead of simply saying, "no," is generally considered "the lady doth protest too much."I got the impression that John took umbrage at being hounded over a question he'd already answered. He's shown a lot more patience than I would have been capable of. On that basis, I don't blame him a bit for leading you up the garden path.
All he had to do was say that yes, he restricts his work to the arena of science. But as you can see, he does not think science is itself limited to the material, observable world. Or maybe not - yet another question he finds too personally offensive to answer.Did you see what you've written there? Do you know of any christians who would be offended by admission of christianity? All the christian scientists I've seen are proud to state their christian beliefs, especially because they're in a minority.
Why you want to defend someone who refuses to simply answer questions with a single word is beyond me. Apparently you feel Hewitt has a right to question all of evolution, including casting aspersions on the integrity of evolutionary science, and recieve careful and complete answers; but we may not ask a question of his motivation and expect to recieve a single word.How many words John's used to answer questions has little relevance. The answers are what matters and he's either lying or not. I choose not. Doesn't make his theories right, though.

kjkent1

24th January 2007, 11:47 AM

If you would take the time to study this thread and the related thread on the Evolutionisdead forum you would get these answers and links with more information.

For eukaryotes, the smallest known which Paul posted is Pelagibacter ubique with a genome length of around 1.3 million base pairs. For prokaryotes, Mycoplasma sp. is around 900,000 base pairs. There are symbionts with shorter genome lengths but are not free living organisms and are dependent upon a host.

...

I think what kjkent1 is looking for is the minimum size genome for a free living organism which I have posted above. The reason this is important is that the genome length is the dominant parameter in Dr Schneider’s model. Until one obtains a free living organism, one is confined to the concept of abiogenesis which is a weaker theory than the theory of evolution. Evolutionarians can not conceive of a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo in a living organism. What kind of selection process would there be in the primordial soup that would evolve a gene?

Alan, what I'm looking for is not the "known" minimum size genome, but rather the minimum size genome required for a creature to be capable of gaining information via RMNS. This is, admittedly, very difficult theoretical model, but my point is, that without some certain knowledge of the minimum size possible, there's no way to calculate the probability of that creature being produced by random chance, and thereafter evolving into something more complex.

Also, I asked John for his opinion re the following model, that I found on the web. I'll ask you, too. It appears pretty interesting to me. Perhaps you can point out the pros and cons.

http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/h...htm#fp_organic (http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/h...htm#fp_organic)

articulett

24th January 2007, 12:35 PM

I'm totally enjoying Cyborg's smackdown of Kleinman. And Yahtzi's smackdown of Hewitt.

Atheist, is just peeved because Yahtzee pointed out he made a false dichotomy when he stated: "John may have something of value, or he may be one of the greatest BS artists the world ever seen." Certainly, the answer is neither. And when I pointed out that Yatzi's assessment was correct, he want on to illustrate further how unclear he was on the concept of "false dichotomy" by claiming Yatzi's Francis Collins statement was an example of just that. (It wasn't). Then he felt personally attacked and started in with the ad homs and backed himself into a corner with Hewitt whom he is certain is an "honest bloke" just as he's certain Yatzi "must be drinking" and I call all people creationists when they don't agree with me (blah, blah, further insults, have an agenda, hammypseak, etc.)

I think Hewitt's statement "I think that there are flaws in evolutionary theory as it is normally presented and that, for the most part, the scientific community are unaware of those flaws." reveals his leanings rather obviously.
At least to one tuned into "Intelligent Designer-ese"

He's aware of flaws that the scientific community is unaware of. He thinks scientists are liars and cheats. Amazingly enough, no one actually seems to understand what exactly his problems with evolution are since he plays semantic games--nor why scientists are "unaware of these flaws"...moreover, no one can really even seem to sum up what Hewitt is saying or what his theory is nor how it is better than the flawed theory that scientists lie about.

And skepticgirl, heads up, don't even get drawn into conversations with Hammegk. He's got a bad case of "intelligent designer-itis" and almost everything he says is irrelevant and/or a personal attack. He's been on this forum for some time and made tons of posts, but no one seems to even know what the hell he thinks--just that he's a bitter creationist curmudgeon who will not ever change his views, --he hangs out at skeptic forums to tell skeptics how arrogant they are for being materialists or closet dualists or some other philosophical claptrap.

Creationists consume a lot of energy, have a disproportionate sense of their own importance, are very difficult to nail down, never accept any evidence that suggests their alternative "theory" (as if it could be called that) was on shaky ground (see Behe/Kleinman), and just get better at dishonesty and obfuscation as they go along. I agree with Joobz--I have a hard time telling Kleinman and Hewitt apart. And Von Neumann too. They seem smart...they do know a lot in key areas, but their own theories obfuscate rather than clarify and they have imaginary problems with evolution or even the word "memes". They are very good at moving the goal posts and turning the conversation into tangential topics so that you can avoid pinning them down on anything. And even when they are proven wrong, like Kleinman and Behe, they just keep resurrecting like zombies as if the ever accumulating evidence for evolution didn't exist and a smattering of evidence for their claims did.

--Some people seem convinced that they must be saying something important, but they never really seem to be able to say what it is. Their statements just seem so oddly worded...like Kleinman's math claim--as if his forumula was the forumula that we rely on to substantiate evolution... I suspect no scientists have disproven Hewitt's claims because they can't make sense of it. Who uses terms like "free will" in their scientific theory??? To disprove something you have to figure out what the person is claiming. John makes many scientifically accurate statements, a few oddly worded statements (akin to "there's no such thing as memes") and then suggests that he has some alternate better theory that scientists are keeping him from sharing--but he never really says what that theory is--whether it's his "oscillation-genes aren't replicators theory" (for which he Credits Behe for inspiring)--or his sexual selection and the rise of "free will" theory.

I notice that no one seems very clear on exactly what he's saying--why? Because he's not actually saying anything. Scientists can't disprove something they can't decode. There are endless creationists just like him with their own theories and they don't even understand each other (which is obvious on this thread and amongst their few if any interchanges). John has the burden of proof to, not only show the flaws in evolution (he hasn't), but show how his theory is better (he hasn't). Creationists are a waste of time. No amount of evidence in favor of evolution will ever convince them. Ask them. Ask them what they would accept as proof. Then show it to them, and see if they accept it. Scientists are pretty clear as to what constitutes proof--clarity of an idea with a test model is a good starting point. Creationists never even get close to that.

Anyhow, carry on. One day I promise to try and be brief and brutal like Yahtzi and cyborg--but cyberballs are new to me, Atheist. Men seem to enjoy sparring, but women take some time to develop the thick skin required for the game. We're more used to smoothing things out and delineating areas of agreement to key in on issues. My skin is getting thicker. I know you don't believe it, but you made more than 10 personal attacks upon my character when I merely pointed out that Yatzi was correct in saying you were presenting a false dichotomy. I attacked your argument; you attacked me and pretended I was the defamer.

articulett

24th January 2007, 12:53 PM

Thanks for the link in the previous post.

Now I'm wondering how it's possible that you can make so much sense in half a dozen lines while all Articulett's done in about 6000 lines is scream "creationist".

Backpedaling are you? I wasn't screaming creationist, you just couldn't hear anything I wrote once I pointed out your logical "false dichotomy" error. It's you who was hurling insults left and right and anyone who agreed with those whom you feel attacked you (Yahtzi and I for stating the obvious). I believe your comment to him was that he must be drunk. But you saved your real flames for me--unwittingly making yourself into a cheerleader for a creationist while casting aspersions (aspertions--ha) on my character. And, you had actually started with the ad homs long before your silly logic error. You need to examine how your biases are affecting you rather than presuming everyone elses.

John Hewitt

24th January 2007, 12:57 PM

Sounds reasonable. What do you think of this hypothetical:

http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/harry/bio/lifestart/lifestart.htm#fp_organic

I have looked at it. He seems to postulate some kind of analogue quantity, a degree of "rep" one may say that varies at random. At some point or other this rep exceeds a critical value and the molecule becomes a true replicator.

My critique would be that I cannot imagine what physico-chemical quantity rep would correspond to. Can you?

In addition, I think that any actual replicator, with the properties described by Von Neumann, would be much more complex than a single molecule. There is a fairly recent paper here

http://ees.lanl.gov/staff/steen/papers/origins_evol_biosp_published.pdf

that tries to pin down the minimum characteristics of a biological replicator.

In essence, they have a lipid bilayer, which is a boundary to keep everything together, a metabolism to build and power the system and genetic apparatus to transmit and copy the data and the programs that make the whole thing run.

RecoveringYuppy

24th January 2007, 01:02 PM

A summary of the work of Julius Rebek, who I mentioned earlier. A good starting point to find out about replicating systems.

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

John Hewitt

24th January 2007, 01:14 PM

A summary of the work of Julius Rebek, who I mentioned earlier. A good starting point to find out about replicating systems.

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

I did look up some of his work earlier and it is nice chemistry, inspired by nucelotide chemistry. I think you should make it clear that this sort of thing is not a viable theory for the origin of life.

articulett

24th January 2007, 01:15 PM

Can you provide links or further detail on John's theory being debunked?

Not people who just don't like them, actual refutation of his theories?
I'll ask again, did you notice my name?

Since - as far as I'm aware - nobody has even come up with a plausible theory yet to describe abiogenesis, I'll just sit on the sidelines. Maybe you could fill me in on how abiogenesis works, please.
I got the impression that John took umbrage at being hounded over a question he'd already answered. He's shown a lot more patience than I would have been capable of. On that basis, I don't blame him a bit for leading you up the garden path.
Did you see what you've written there? Do you know of any christians who would be offended by admission of christianity? All the christian scientists I've seen are proud to state their christian beliefs, especially because they're in a minority.
How many words John's used to answer questions has little relevance. The answers are what matters and he's either lying or not. I choose not. Doesn't make his theories right, though.

See, that's another false dichotomy--there are many things that don't specifically fall into "lying or not". And no one can falsify Johns theories if they don't understand it. How many words John uses doesn't matter?!, --but I use too many!? Wow, are you blind to your hypocrisy. And I contend that you don't even understand Johns theory--I'm not sure anyone does. It's becoming fun to watch you sucked in by a creationist.

Abiogenesis is not something one can readily explain to someone who doesn't understand the term "false dichotomy" or the way science operates (hint: it doesn't go about disproving all wacko claims especially when there is far stronger evidence along the path we're on...)

Your Christian claims are nonsense; the wedge strategy is all about making religion sound like science by never using religious words and obfuscating. Apparently it works on the egotistical.

And according to Hewitt's own theory--Scientists are outside the realm of judging the work of other scientists:

Evolutionary theory, as Darwin well recognized, was not just a new biological theory, it was a new philosophy. This work would argue that it was an epistemology, where an epistemology is a process that generates knowledge when applied to an information set. In this, its most basic form, evolutionary theory should not be seen as a scientific theory as it is doubtful whether it could ever be practically tested. The concept of an evolved creature, possessed of no knowledge except that from evolution, objectively testing a theory of evolution, contains elements of self-reference that might lead to an infinite regress.

This is a common creationist tactic--god is the ultimate infinite regress (who made god?)--if you can't make faith sound like science; make science sound like faith. Who does he think should test the theory of evolution, philosophers? God?

Put your ego and predetermined conclusions aside for a minute, and quit thinking I'm on a witch hunt for creationists or that you are the fabulous defender of underdogs. I'm using words, not weapons. I don't know if creationists are lying on purpose or if they've convinced themselves and others that they are taking the moral high ground or what. But I do know that it's a waste of time to engage them unless you are doing it for your own mental exercises or amusement. Accordingly, I give a warning and a thumbs up to my fellow skeptics. Sometimes it's nice to know a little bit about the crazy path you are about to embark upon and to keep one's expectations low and to have fun.

If you want to engage a creationist, you need to nail down what their saying first.

The Atheist

24th January 2007, 01:18 PM

If you want to engage a creationist, you need to nail down what their saying first.

This is a person who questioned my English skills?

articulett

24th January 2007, 01:36 PM

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

This first replicator and mathematical probability tactics are well documented attempts to throw a monkey wrench into evolution. I think it's pretty clear where you would need to nail someone down before forumulating aspects of proof or disproof. But ask them what they would accept as proof or disproof first. Otherwise, they'll be vague and move the goal posts while using language that makes them sound pedantic and "on the moral highground". Creationists always get vague and obfuscating as you try to understand; they will act as if YOU are too uneducated to understand their profoundly complex conclusions; wheras, scientists tend to bend over backwards to explain and simpliy (often to a hostile crowd whose religion ensures they will not comprehend.)

John Hewitt

24th January 2007, 01:40 PM

Abiogenesis is not something one can readily explain to someone who doesn't understand the term "false dichotomy" or the way science operates (hint: it doesn't go about disproving all wacko claims especially when there is far stronger evidence along the path we're on...)
<snip>
And according to Hewitt's own theory--Scientists are outside the realm of judging the work of other scientists:
Evolutionary theory, as Darwin well recognized, was not just a new biological theory, it was a new philosophy. This work would argue that it was an epistemology, where an epistemology is a process that generates knowledge when applied to an information set. In this, its most basic form, evolutionary theory should not be seen as a scientific theory as it is doubtful whether it could ever be practically tested. The concept of an evolved creature, possessed of no knowledge except that from evolution, objectively testing a theory of evolution, contains elements of self-reference that might lead to an infinite regress.

This is a common creationist tactic--god is the ultimate infinite regress (who made god?)--if you can't make faith sound like science; make science sound like faith. Who does he think should test the theory of evolution, philosophers? God?

I don't think you understand my comments about infinite regress. They come out of studies into the foundations of logical systems, arithmetic at first, and are due to Frege, Russell, Wittgenstein and, ultimately, Godel. It is sufficient that I say again, what I have said before - as a philosophy, I don't think evolution is testable any more than I think arithmetic is testable.

As a matter of fact, arithmetic does become testable when articulated within a concrete context and, in my opinion, the same is true of evolution.

Nobody, certainly not you, understands abiogenesis. There is no evidence for any mechanism. However, the mechanism I propose is derived from bioepistemic evolution and physico-chemically consistent. It is also far more parsimonious than any published alternative, which is what makes it an attractive theory.
The mechanism I have proposed is perfectly clear and there are many concrete developments that could test it. However, even if those tests failed, and my mechanism of prebiotic evolution proved to be wrong, still that would not constitute a test of evolution per se.

articulett

24th January 2007, 01:41 PM

This is a person who questioned my English skills?

Yeah---typo--"they're"...I was going to say "their theory" but changed it to what "they're saying" instead. And I didn't question your English skills--I asked if English was your first language because you didn't seem to understand the concept of a "false dichotomy" while presuming you did. Dann is Danish and made a similarly flawed argument by confusing correlation with causation. If English isn't one's first language than maybe the order of the wording is responsible for their lack of understanding and not just their egotistical certainty that they already know all possible errors in logic that humans can make coupled with their equally flawed conclusions that all those who point out their errors have hidden agendas, must be drunk, etc.

hammegk

24th January 2007, 01:46 PM

This is a person who questioned my English skills?
And one who purports to be a teacher ... or should I say teechur .... ROFL.:D

articulett

24th January 2007, 01:56 PM

I don't think evolution is testable any more than I think arithmetic is testable.

As a matter of fact, arithmetic does become testable when articulated within a concrete context and, in my opinion, the same is true of evolution.

The mechanism I have proposed is perfectly clear and there are many concrete developments that could test it. However, even if those tests failed, and my mechanism of prebiotic evolution proved to be wrong, still that would not constitute a test of evolution per se.

I got it. Evolution is flawed and can't be tested unless "articulated within a concrete context". You have a testable theory, but even if it's wrong that doesn't mean evolution or other explanations are right.

So, basically, there is no way that anyone can prove evolution is true to you, nor can falsification of your poorly defined theory ever be used to get you to think that evolution is on track. BTW, I can understand the talkorigins link about abiogenesis just fine, it's you that people are having problems understanding from what I can tell. I don't really think my inability to understand you has anything to do with your certainty about my lack of understanding on the topic.

articulett

24th January 2007, 02:01 PM

And one who purports to be a teacher ... or should I say teechur .... ROFL.:D

I just think it's precious when the woo amuses himself. It's adorable the way you use childish acronyms and emoticons in the majority of your posts.

Hint: When I go back and read my posts, I find lots of typos--usually the "sound alike" kind (like "here" and "hear")--so if that makes you happy, I assure you that reading my posts can keep you gleeful for hours--you'll be using really long acronyms about rolling on the floor laughing body parts off and you can work yourself into an orgasm of emoticon abuse.

The Atheist

24th January 2007, 02:21 PM

Backpedaling are you? I wasn't screaming creationist,...Excuse me, but you were doing just that. I don't want to spend the time going back over that many posts to cherry-pick, but you assuredly were.
you just couldn't hear anything I wrote once I pointed out your logical "false dichotomy" error. It's you who was hurling insults left and right and anyone who agreed with those whom you feel attacked you (Yahtzi and I for stating the obvious). I believe your comment to him was that he must be drunk.There's still no question of false dichotomy - unless you want to dispute the "Greatest BS" side of the equation. It's hardly worth getting bogged down in, but John has made statements which leave him to be shown to be lying, there's no doubt but that there are two choices: he's right and everyone else is wrong, or he's wrong and has consistently lied about it, attempting to cover his tracks. There's no middle ground, John himself removed the "I ####ed up from the equation". In all of this, that's the thing I think you've still missed.

It's one of those situations which are so bleeding obvious, I do tend to get a bit lippy when someone misses the point. No doubt it'll happen again.

And if you check back, I'd started with you before that.
But you saved your real flames for me--unwittingly making yourself into a cheerleader for a creationist while casting aspersions (aspertions--ha) on my character.I think I'll claim the lead in the English stakes and leave that subject, eh?

I really don't care who I cheer for. At some stage The TruthTM will be revealed. I said right from the start that I liked John's "up yours" style.

As to creationism, I see it as identical to Flight 77 not hitting the Pentagon and take it as a given that the "theory" (as they try to dignify it with) in both cases is so stupid as to not be worth talking about. You clearly see it as that silly, but use the same approach as do the staunch Defenders of Truth in the Good Fight against CT. They're clearly no threat to anyone with a brain larger than a field-mouse, so why be so vehement about it? It's not as if this matters. Jesus, you're an American (I think), shouldn't you be working to getting the Grand Canyon tourism cards fixed before you worry about John and his theory?

You're a clever woman. Wouldn't you be better served trying to change things like that, which do matter?
And, you had actually started with the ad homs long before your silly logic error. You need to examine how your biases are affecting you rather than presuming everyone elses.There you go, you've just confirmed what I said above about the ad homs starting prior to arguments about logic.

Biases? The only one I still have is a bias towards the underdog. When I see three blokes [metaphorically speaking - this is the internet, after all] kicking
a bloke on the ground, I don't stop to ask what's going on, I just come flying in and nail a couple of them then sort it out afterwards.

Just like we're doing?

See, that's another false dichotomy--there are many things that don't specifically fall into "lying or not".Again, I don't think "I ####ed up/was mistaken/etc." is available.
And no one can falsify Johns theories if they don't understand it. How many words John uses doesn't matter?!, --but I use too many!? Wow, are you blind to your hypocrisy. And I contend that you don't even understand Johns theory--I'm not sure anyone does. It's becoming fun to watch you sucked in by a creationist. There's that "C" word again...

I wouldn't claim to understand his theory based on reading a few dozen pages on his website, but I think I understand what he's saying about selection criteria and how his ideas might work.
Abiogenesis is not something one can readily explain Finally! What harm does it do to look in depth and critically (as I don't genuinely believe that you've done) at John's theory, starting with an open mind.

It's not as though christians haven't made scientific discoveries, is it? I'm talking to a christian PhD in Theoretical Neuroscience on another board and I asked how he'd feel if he was involved in finding the part of the brain responsible for manufacturing the images, visions and voices of christ, along with identifying the gene that caused it to select itself.

He gave an excellent answer as to why god would have put it there. Christians, especially scientists, are not generally afraid of ideas which may challenge their beliefs.

Would that "skeptical" ones were as honest.
[I]Evolutionary theory, as Darwin well recognized, was not just a new biological theory, it was a new philosophy. This work would argue that it was an epistemology, where an epistemology is a process that generates knowledge when applied to an information set. In this, its most basic form, evolutionary theory should not be seen as a scientific theory as it is doubtful whether it could ever be practically tested. The concept of an evolved creature, possessed of no knowledge except that from evolution, objectively testing a theory of evolution, contains elements of self-reference that might lead to an infinite regress.

This is a common creationist tactic--god is the ultimate infinite regress (who made god?)--if you can't make faith sound like science; make science sound like faith. Who does he think should test the theory of evolution, philosophers? God?
Now, I'm pleased you quoted that passage, because we must be reading different things. To me, the bolded part reads that John feels the options of current evolutionary theories are living rocks or god. He's offering an alternative, based on a data-input model with the sun as the first data-provider.

I see it as a bloke who doesn't like any of the current options and has looked for another. God is excluded. I just can't see where you see him offering it as an option in his work.
Put your ego and predetermined conclusions aside for a minute, and quit thinking I'm on a witch hunt for creationists or that you are the fabulous defender of underdogs. I'm using words, not weapons. I don't know if creationists are lying on purpose or if they've convinced themselves and others that they are taking the moral high ground or what. But I do know that it's a waste of time to engage them unless you are doing it for your own mental exercises or amusement. Accordingly, I give a warning and a thumbs up to my fellow skeptics. Sometimes it's nice to know a little bit about the crazy path you are about to embark upon and to keep one's expectations low and to have fun.Based on my comments about CT above, I agree with you on the fun, if just not my type.

I have no pre-determined conclusions on this subject, other than god not being in the answer.

If you're just putting up a warning and thumbs up, why has it taken you a novella-sized amount of words to do so?

articulett

24th January 2007, 02:43 PM

And, John, while I agree that no one understand abiogenesis completely I disagree with your contention about me being especially not up on it. I decided to see if that was true, but I found I could make sense of current scientific understanding on the topic just fine--it's you that makes no sense to anyone. If you want people to take your theory seriously, instead of insulting them, try learning to write with clarity.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061109130729.htm

Science Daily — Over the last half century, researchers have found that mineral surfaces may have played critical roles organizing, or activating, molecules that would become essential ingredients to all life--such as amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) and nucleic acids (the essence of DNA). But which of the countless possible combinations of biomolecules and mineral surfaces were key to this evolution?

kleinman

24th January 2007, 02:53 PM

Thank you, kleinman, for moving this thread back on topic.
Now stop that! I’m supposed to be annoying evolutionarians!
If you would take the time to study this thread and the related thread on the Evolutionisdead forum you would get these answers and links with more information.

For eukaryotes, the smallest known which Paul posted is Pelagibacter ubique with a genome length of around 1.3 million base pairs. For prokaryotes, Mycoplasma sp. is around 900,000 base pairs. There are symbionts with shorter genome lengths but are not free living organisms and are dependent upon a host.

...

I think what kjkent1 is looking for is the minimum size genome for a free living organism which I have posted above. The reason this is important is that the genome length is the dominant parameter in Dr Schneider’s model. Until one obtains a free living organism, one is confined to the concept of abiogenesis which is a weaker theory than the theory of evolution. Evolutionarians can not conceive of a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo in a living organism. What kind of selection process would there be in the primordial soup that would evolve a gene?Alan, what I'm looking for is not the "known" minimum size genome, but rather the minimum size genome required for a creature to be capable of gaining information via RMNS. This is, admittedly, very difficult theoretical model, but my point is, that without some certain knowledge of the minimum size possible, there's no way to calculate the probability of that creature being produced by random chance, and thereafter evolving into something more complex.

Also, I asked John for his opinion re the following model, that I found on the web. I'll ask you, too. It appears pretty interesting to me. Perhaps you can point out the pros and cons.

http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/h...htm#fp_organic (http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/h...htm#fp_organic)
Dr Schneider’s model shows that extremely short genomes such as his published example can evolve binding sites very rapidly (less than 1,000 generations). From existing life forms, you can get a sense of the minimum number of genes required to be free living. Google the word “symbionts” and you we find examples of life forms that have genomes less than 700,000 base pairs but are not free living and are dependent upon a host for crucial metabolic assistance in order to survive.

The probabilities of producing a genome by random chance alone without a selection process become infinitesimally small very quickly. Even Dr Schneider’s small genome has probabilities of 1 in 4^256 of forming a perfect creature by random mutations without selection. This is why it is quite impressive that he was able to simulate the forming of binding sites so quickly with his selection process even on his short genome example.

I took a look at your link and it doesn’t look like a realistic simulation of chemical reactions. At this point, my arguments are quite clear. With Dr Schneider’s selection process which takes into account harmful mutations in the non-binding site region shows that RM&NS becomes profoundly slow when using realistic genomes and mutation rates in his model. I also think that Dr Schneider’s model give a reasonably accurate representation of the effects of population on the rate of convergence. In addition, I think that Dr Schneider’s model shows that Darwin and Gould mistook the rapid changes that can occur with recombination and natural selection for mutation and natural selection. Gould’s postulate of punctuated equilibrium makes sense if you apply the concept to recombination and natural selection but not to mutation and natural selection. The most recent argument I raise is in response to Unnamed’s unrealistic selection process, that is that there is no realistic selection process that would evolve a gene de novo. The theory of evolution has some serious bookkeeping problems.
I'm totally enjoying Cyborg's smackdown of Kleinman.
I’m totally enjoying smacking down your mushy soft, mathematically deficient theory of evolution belief system. Why don’t describe to us the selective process that would evolve a gene de novo? Why don’t you tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated? Do you want to tell us how ribose could form in the primordial soup? Or are these a few minor gaps in your theory?

cyborg

24th January 2007, 06:43 PM

Why don’t describe to us the selective process that would evolve a gene de novo? Why don’t you tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated?

Why don't you tell us the mathematics of de novo?

Oh that's right. You can't. You speak of 'mathematical impossibility' but all you've got is qualitative incredulity.

Which does of course explain why your posts are almost devoid of any semblance of anything that could be considered mathematic.

The problem is that mathematics is precise kleinman, you will get no respect from mathematicians let alone biologists for your bollocks.

kjkent1

24th January 2007, 07:20 PM

Dr Schneider’s model shows that extremely short genomes such as his published example can evolve binding sites very rapidly (less than 1,000 generations). From existing life forms, you can get a sense of the minimum number of genes required to be free living. Google the word “symbionts” and you we find examples of life forms that have genomes less than 700,000 base pairs but are not free living and are dependent upon a host for crucial metabolic assistance in order to survive.OK, so your position is that as 700,000 is the empirical reality of the smallest free living life form, that this is the actual minimum possible genome size.

But, your position is merely speculation -- not science, so we'll just have to toss it out. Which leaves the argument right where it was, with you having to prove that Unnamed's selection mechanism is flawed. Otherwise, he's successfully rebutted your contention that evolution is unreasonably slow.

I took a look at your link and it doesn’t look like a realistic simulation of chemical reactions.I'll send the author an email and ask him to drop in and comment. Maybe we will get lucky.

If not, it appears that we're stuck, because neither side can prove anything with regard to the creation of a gene de novo.

All we know for certain is that we are here -- along with a host of other biological organisms.

articulett

24th January 2007, 07:37 PM

Why don’t describe to us the selective process that would evolve a gene de novo? Why don’t you tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated? Do you want to tell us how ribose could form in the primordial soup? Or are these a few minor gaps in your theory?[/SIZE][/FONT]

Gee, you ought to get out more instead of trying to invent mathematical formulas that prove evolution wrong. De novo mutations happen in genes all the time. Heard of dwarfism?

As for abiogenesis, it turns out that prebiotic forms of life and bacteria are omnipresent--but your intelligent designer forgot to mention it. Now that we have some pretty powerful microscopes we see it in the air we breathe and nestled in air pockets of icebergs--and we see over 20,000 life forms when we scoop up a liter of sea water. And we're just getting our first glimpses at what is at the bottom of the primordial soup. Nevertheless--we have tons of possible theories and lots of evidence. You and Hewitt and Von Neumann and Hammy still have none for whatever alternate theories you pretend to have. The article I references is much simpler than Hewitt's non-theory. Even my 10th graders could get it:

It just so happens that some pre-life forms stick better to surfaces when water evaporates or washes over rocks. These molecules happen to form colonies of sorts due to their interlocking chirality--(gasp!)--the same chirality we see in life origins. (who'd have thunk it?) Some molecules stick to surfaces better when the water washes away--their shape makes them fit snugly sort of like how the sex organs evolved to do the same--get it? I thought not.

As for ribosomes and replicators--well, increasingly it's looking like viruses may have been our first ancestoral life-ish forms...I hate to break it to you.

http://www.virologyj.com/content/2/1/23/abstract

Replication of a circular plasmid lacking specific poxvirus DNA sequences mimics viral genome replication by occurring in cytoplasmic viral factories and requiring all five known viral replication proteins. Therefore, small plasmids may be used as surrogates for the large poxvirus genome to study trans-acting factors and mechanism of viral DNA replication.

See also: http://www.discover.com/issues/mar-06/cover/

And a nice smackdown of Behe here:
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/02/unintelligent_d.html
(though not nearly as good as Judge Jones' opinion.)

And while you creationists are playing on line, the information just keeps piling up:

http://www.eurekah.com/chapter/1255

The transition from the RNA to the DNA world was a major event in the history of life. The invention of DNA required the appearance of enzymatic activities for both synthe- sis of DNA precursors, retro-transcription of RNA templates and replication of single- and double-stranded DNA molecules. Recent data from comparative genomics, structural biology and traditional biochemistry have revealed that several of these enzymatic activities have been invented independently more than once, indicating that the transition from RNA to DNA genomes was more complex than previously thought. The distribution of the different protein families corresponding to these activities in the three domains of life (Archaea, Eukarya, and Bacteria) is puzzling. In many cases, Archaea and Eukarya contain the same version of these proteins, whereas Bacteria contain another version. However, in other cases, such as thymidylate synthases or type II DNA topoisomerases, the phylogenetic distributions of these proteins do not follow this simple pattern. Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain these observations, including independent invention of DNA and DNA replication proteins, ancient gene transfer and gene loss, and/or nonorthologous replacement. We review all of them here, with more emphasis on recent proposals suggesting that viruses have played a major role in the origin and evolution of the DNA replication proteins and possibly of DNA itself.

Now look at that--we have lots of avenues to explore and we are unraveling the tools we need to learn more. Remember when we thought the Neanderthal was our direct ancestor...it turns out abiogenesis seems to have a lot of starts and stops and evolutionary dead ends as life emerged not unlike the tree of life itself--fancy that! It's not like we are clueless--it's just that we have tons of clues and we are piecing them together...just as we are for all the other branches on the tree of life. We have no shortage of puzzle pieces as you creationist suggest--we just haven't figured out where everything goes yet. Your "theorie"s are like a buzzing distraction--they don't further understanding and they are designed to poke holes in evolution without offering anything in return. Good theories, further understanding: bad theories muddy understanding. Now why don't you be a good creationist and go prepare for the rapture...

(The Amish find all this internet play a bit worldly, you know--)

Skeptic Ginger

24th January 2007, 07:41 PM

Hmmm, I had JREF board troubles until an hour or so ago. I see others may not have had problems.

RecoveringYuppy

24th January 2007, 07:52 PM

It's not just you. Someone mentioned it under one of the forum management topics.

Skeptic Ginger

24th January 2007, 07:55 PM

Look Ham, I can post like you do.Nice evasion. I'm 100% certain gods don't exist. The question concerned god.What's your point?

Agreed. My discussion concerns the ontology one associates with the Universe (or Multiverse, perhaps). Are you 100% certain that what we have named matter/energy exists? I'm 100% certain thought exists.That's not what you asked. And you took this sentence out of context.

Unknown. I haven't seen any such detection under the current rubric of science.I didn't ask your opinion.

Yup.We agree, wow!

Why yes, I am, knowing the definition of both invisible and pink. Good for you.

My question concerned god.I answered that.

What part of available scientific evidence do you have faith I reject?"It happened" was the quote of mine you disputed. Did you have "faith" in my quote or not?

I have no more faith in the Bible than you do.What part of the Biblical claims do you have faith I reject?

You're getting sillier as you go along. :) Perhaps analogies are a mystery to you?

Do you think I dispute those observed facts? I don't.What's your point?

kleinman

24th January 2007, 07:59 PM

Why don’t describe to us the selective process that would evolve a gene de novo? Why don’t you tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated?Why don't you tell us the mathematics of de novo?
Is that what you are having trouble understanding, my use of the term “de novo”? It is a Latin term meaning from the beginning. The is/are no selection process(es) that would evolve any gene from the beginning. Nothing that would select the sequence of bases for the genes that code for hemoglobin or insulin or for the numerous genes that code for the enzymes in the Krebs cycle or the proteins needed in the DNA replicase system or the proteins in the coagulation cascade or the tens of thousands of other proteins that are required by living things. Somehow, evolutionarians have convinced themselves by repeating the slogan “mutation and natural selection” that these genes and their resultant polypeptides could evolve. Unless there is some selective advantage in the assembly of these genes, you are dependent solely on random process to generate these genes and their resultant proteins.

There is no mathematics of evolving a gene de novo because there is no selection process to evolve genes from the beginning.
Oh that's right. You can't. You speak of 'mathematical impossibility' but all you've got is qualitative incredulity.
That’s not quite correct. I have the mathematics of one of your own high placed scientist at the National Cancer Institute who wrote a computer simulation of random point mutations and natural selection. This model was peer reviewed and published in Nucleic Acids Research. This is an Oxford University Press scientific journal. I was invited by this scientist to study his model and I did what I have been trained to do with computer simulations. I did a parametric study of his model and obtained quantitative results, not qualitative results. Study this thread and the thread on this topic on the Evolutionisdead forum and perhaps you will understand the ‘mathematical impossibility’ that this computer model demonstrates for your theory. But this is not the worst news for your theory. It is the lack of a selective process to evolve genes de novo that prevents any computer simulation from truly demonstrating your theory.
Which does of course explain why your posts are almost devoid of any semblance of anything that could be considered mathematic.
The mathematics is there for anyone who wants to look for it. After all, you found my error about the effect of population on the probabilities of a mutation occurring at a particular locus. If you look closely, you will find two other algebraic errors I have made on these threads, one of which Dr Schneider corrected and another which Myriad corrected. None of these errors I have made affect the underlying premise of my argument. So study these threads and learn why your theory has at least two fatal mathematical flaws which makes your theory impossible.
The problem is that mathematics is precise kleinman, you will get no respect from mathematicians let alone biologists for your bullocks.
I agree that mathematics is precise, this is why I don’t allow this discussion to diverge too far from the mathematics. Mathematics minimizes the interpretation that you can impose on the data. Mathematics is forcing a structure on your slogan “mutation and natural selection”. Most people can understand balancing a checkbook. This principle is being applied to your concept of evolution based on your own accounting rules and the your books don’t balance. The worst news for you is that you don’t have an accounting rule for the evolution of a gene de novo (that’s from the beginning for you cyborg).
Dr Schneider’s model shows that extremely short genomes such as his published example can evolve binding sites very rapidly (less than 1,000 generations). From existing life forms, you can get a sense of the minimum number of genes required to be free living. Google the word “symbionts” and you we find examples of life forms that have genomes less than 700,000 base pairs but are not free living and are dependent upon a host for crucial metabolic assistance in order to survive.OK, so your position is that as 700,000 is the empirical reality of the smallest free living life form, that this is the actual minimum possible genome size.

But, your position is merely speculation -- not science, so we'll just have to toss it out. Which leaves the argument right where it was, with you having to prove that Unnamed's selection mechanism is flawed. Otherwise, he's successfully rebutted your contention that evolution is unreasonably slow.
You think I would speculate about the length of genomes in living creatures, how could I be so unscientific? You are dreaming if you think that Unnamed’s selection mechanism has any relationship with reality, of course that makes it perfect for your theory of evolution.
Why don’t describe to us the selective process that would evolve a gene de novo? Why don’t you tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated? Do you want to tell us how ribose could form in the primordial soup? Or are these a few minor gaps in your theory?Gee, you ought to get out more instead of trying to invent mathematical formulas that prove evolution wrong. De novo mutations happen in genes all the time. Heard of dwarfism?
Do you care to tell us what gene evolved de novo to lead to dwarfism? I think you are having the same problem understanding the terminology “de novo” that cyborg is having. De novo means “from the beginning”.

articulett

24th January 2007, 08:09 PM

Finally! What harm does it do to look in depth and critically (as I don't genuinely believe that you've done) at John's theory, starting with an open mind.

I did. I have trouble understanding it. I contend that everyone else does as well, since no-one seems to be clarifying. Compare that to this far more simplistic explanation:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061109130729.htm

Even you should be able to sum that up and compare and contrast the furthering of understanding this explanation gives compared to John's oscillation "theory" where cells=true replicators.

And as for your interpretation of me and what is going on in this thread--I will point out that only you seem to be deriving your particular understanding. To me, your claims are as convoluted and unsupported as John Hewitt's and Kleinmans. Moreover, it appears you've had similar issues with others. Instead of worrying about my verbosity, perhaps it would serve you well to look at your own or to plow through Hewitt's and see if you can possibly understand what he is saying and what his problem with evolution is--and then tell the rest of us.

You refer to creationist as the "c-word" while claiming that most Christians would proudly admit their Christianity in the scientific community?! Is there anyone out there other than yourself who gives you credibility on this topic? Have you read anything about Dover and the wedge strategy?

And it was not 3 people ganging up against John. I asserted the god thing, because I thought it was obvious. Others, apparently, had reached similar conclusions. John challenged me--I explained. And now others are trying to pin him down to see if he actually believes life on earth must come from natural sources and trying to tease out what his actual objections to our current understanding of life's origins are as well as his problem with speciation and why he thinks Behe has valid points. Most people do not want to be sucked into a never ending conversation with a creationist, because once or twice is enough. That's why people are ignoring Kleinman. That's why people ignore Hammy.

No one can pin Hewitt down. He obfuscates or ignores. The same tactic as Kleinman. Instead of coming back with new math obfuscations he just ignores questions and comments aimed at furthering understanding of his position. And it works fabulously well on the uniformed as you so readily illustrate.

Call me psychic, but John will not clarify or alter his stance one bit no matter how much people analyze his claims and explain and question him. No one will come to any understanding as to what his theory actually is, and he will claim it's because scientists are lying cheaters with a flawed theory they are too blind to understand. He did this exact thing on the meme thread and Wowbagger carefully held his hand along the way just as Paul did with Kleinman-- He wants everyone to try and disprove his incomprehensible theory rather than to understand or read anything new that shows us how we are very much on the right path without his oscillating-cell-replicating-sex-ethics-free-will whatever-the-hell theory.

articulett

24th January 2007, 08:15 PM

Hmmm, I had JREF board troubles until an hour or so ago. I see others may not have had problems.

I did too. I took it as a sign to get off line and attend to life duties.

articulett

24th January 2007, 08:18 PM

RecoveringYuppy

24th January 2007, 08:21 PM

The is/are no selection process(es) that would evolve any gene from the beginning. Nothing that would select the sequence of bases for the genes that code for hemoglobin or insulin or for the numerous genes that code for the enzymes in the Krebs cycle or the proteins needed in the DNA replicase system or the proteins in the coagulation cascade or the tens of thousands of other proteins that are required by living things. Somehow, evolutionarians have convinced themselves by repeating the slogan “mutation and natural selection” that these genes and their resultant polypeptides could evolve. Unless there is some selective advantage in the assembly of these genes, you are dependent solely on random process to generate these genes and their resultant proteins.
In the first place there is no evidence that any of the processes you've cited were present in the first life form, especially in their current form. And most definitely weren't. And most of the proteins you've mentioned are not encoded by single genes. They are the product of enzymatic reactions from multiple genes which have multiple functions currently and historically. So there would definitely be selection pressures acting on those genes to get them to the state we seen them now.

kleinman

24th January 2007, 08:45 PM

Kleinman--de novo means a new mutation--one that is not inherited. Most forms of achondroplasia are due to a de novo mutations; though achondroplasia itself is autosomal dominant.
De novo is Latin for “from the beginning” or “anew”. When I apply this terminology to a gene, such as “de novo evolution of a gene”, what I am say is the new evolution of an entire gene. For example, at one time the gene which codes for hemoglobin did not exist. If I understand your theory, at some time in the distant past, this gene evolved on creatures for which it served as a selective advantage. So the first base for the sequence mutated on one of these creatures. Since a single base does not code for anything, there was no selective advantage for that creature. So a second base for the sequence of that gene occurred without selection. Still only two bases, not enough to code for a single amino acid therefore no selective advantage. A third base in the sequence occurs by random mutation without selection. Now you can code for a single amino acid but what selective advantage do you have? You continue to have random mutations without selection because what benefit is a partially completed gene that codes for a non-functional protein? There is no selection process that would select for a gene from the beginning. Until the gene has sufficient length to code for some beneficial polypeptide, you have no selection process. Without a selection process, the probabilities of forming a gene de novo by random mutations alone is infinitesimally small. I hope this is not too convoluted for you to understand.
The is/are no selection process(es) that would evolve any gene from the beginning. Nothing that would select the sequence of bases for the genes that code for hemoglobin or insulin or for the numerous genes that code for the enzymes in the Krebs cycle or the proteins needed in the DNA replicase system or the proteins in the coagulation cascade or the tens of thousands of other proteins that are required by living things. Somehow, evolutionarians have convinced themselves by repeating the slogan “mutation and natural selection” that these genes and their resultant polypeptides could evolve. Unless there is some selective advantage in the assembly of these genes, you are dependent solely on random process to generate these genes and their resultant proteins.In the first place there is no evidence that any of the processes you've cited were present in the first life form, especially in their current form. And most definitely weren't. And most of the proteins you've mentioned are not encoded by single genes. They are the product of enzymatic reactions from multiple genes which have multiple functions currently and historically. So there would definitely be selection pressures acting on those genes to get them to the state we seen them now.
Speculate all you want but don’t call it science. Why don’t you speculate on what the selection mechanism was that led to the formation of the very first gene?

RecoveringYuppy

24th January 2007, 08:55 PM

kleinman

24th January 2007, 09:43 PM

For example, at one time the gene which codes for hemoglobin did not exist. If I understand your theory, at some time in the distant past, this gene evolved on creatures for which it served as a selective advantage.Earth to Kleinman: There is no gene for hemoglobin.
Ok RecoveringYuppy, let’s run with this. The protein portion of the hemoglobin complex is composed of two different polypeptide globins. Are your arguing that these globins are not transcribed from their corresponding genes? If not, you only weaken your argument more so since now you have two genes, neither of which have a selection process to evolve them de novo to form the hemoglobin complex.
Speculate all you want but don’t call it science. Why don’t you speculate on what the selection mechanism was that led to the formation of the very first gene?No thanks, I'd rather talk about evolution.
So the first gene didn’t evolve?

Skeptic Ginger

24th January 2007, 09:50 PM

....
I have one word which trumps your two words, mathematics.God forbid that I bore an evolutionarian with facts.What you are observing are microevolutionary processes and extrapolating these processes to macroevolution. Darwin misinterpreted the variations of bird beaks as mutation and selection when what he was observing was recombination and selection. Gould made the same error when he proposed his concept of punctuated equilibrium which is applicable to recombination and natural selection but not to mutation and selection. Evolutionarians have extrapolated the rapid changes that are possible with recombination and natural selection to mutation and natural selection. Dr Schneider’s computer model reveals the problems with this extrapolation.So let’s see you apply some mathematics to your genetic science and do the bookkeeping required to account for your theory. Dr Schneider tried this with random point mutations and natural selection and this mechanism does not balance the books. So choose your mechanism, formulate the mathematics and balance your books. In case you haven’t noticed, there is no selection mechanism that would evolve a gene de novo.Why don’t you describe the selection process that would give rise to the HIV virus de novo?Why don’t you give us the benefit of your vast knowledge and describe the selection process that would give rise to a gene de novo?Anybody on these links describe the selection process that evolves a gene de novo?You are missing the point to this discussion. The argument I am raising here is that Dr Schneider’s ev model of random point mutations and natural selection shows that this mechanism is profoundly slow at accumulating genetic information when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used in the model. The rate of information acquisition is far to slow to explain macroevolution by this mechanism. Dr Schneider is the head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute. His model has been peer reviewed and published in Nucleic Acids Research. If you believe that gene transfer mechanisms, horizontal gene transfer, molecular genetics, genomes in flux or gene transfers to plants by diverse species of bacteria will correct the mathematical deficiency that Dr Schneider’s model reveals in your theory, formulate the mathematics and correct your theory. Otherwise, your theory started without a mathematical basis and remains that way.What I argue is that random point mutations and natural selection is the cornerstone to your theory. Without this mechanism, all the other mechanisms you describe will not be able to fill the gap left when this mechanism is removed from your theory. Not only does Dr Schneider’s computer model remove random point mutations and natural selection as a viable explanation for macroevolution, it reveals another fatal flaw in your theory, that is a lack of a plausible selection mechanism for the evolution of a gene de novo.This is evidence for microevolution or genetic modifications by intelligent scientists. Since evolutionarians like to say that macroevolution is simply a series of microevolutionary steps, I have challenged this view that macroevolution is the de novo evolution of a gene. There is no selection process that would do such a thing.Since joobz won’t tell us how ribose formed in the primordial soup, perhaps you would tell us?You have so many false underlying premises and contradictions here.

Micro evolution only nonsense is one of the weakest arguments of the evolution deniers' debate. It was a last ditch effort. "Oh yeah, well prove this then." "Umm, OK, then prove this." and on and on. Micro evolution only arguments arose when it was clear evolution in real time was indeed observable.

I told you, the genomes trace a map from the earliest organisms (and we know they are early because their genomes are the smallest) to all the other genomes on the tree. A pattern has emerged which shows how Behe's infamous flagellum argument is wrong. The pattern shows exactly how one goes from one species to the next. Just where are your invisible divisions in this tree of Life diagram? (http://www.tolweb.org/tree/)

There's nothing in any mathematical calculation that contradicts what is clearly visible in the DNA and RNA of every living thing on the planet. You are wrong, and outnumbered by the vast majority of scientists and mathematicians. For whatever reason, (I assume it to be you are invested in the outcome of denying evolution because it challenges your existing beliefs), you continue to only look at selective evidence.

No evolution mechanism for de novo gene in your knowledge base, the math fails in your limited selection of evidence, (I'm not even sure I agree with that since there is a lot of rebuttal you are ignoring in the talk origins and Panda's thumb web sites). You keep going on with your selected random point mutations ignoring all the observed mechanisms for gene mixing, gene transfer, segmentation of function which allows a single mutation to produce 6 fully formed and functioning digits instead of 5, and a rabbit embryo 'eye growth initiating gene' to be exchanged with the corresponding gene of a a fruit fly larva resulting in a perfectly normal fruit fly compound eye, and lastly the robustness of function which included the discovery the reason Behe's flagellum precursor was hard to find was the precursor wasn't similar. The flagellum arose from some completely different gene function.

Your single point mutation math was all for naught. "The rate of information acquisition is far to slow to explain macroevolution by this mechanism," because it isn't anything close to the complete process by which evolution occurs. "...formulate the mathematics and correct your theory." No need to, you haven't accounted in your model, or should I say Schneider's model, for the mechanisms which result in genetic change I have already documented. You have a flawed model which the folks at or similar to the folks at the Discovery Institute and AIG have selected (punny :) ) in order to produce a straw argument supporting their preconceived conclusion.

Evolution is observable.
If you can tell me where species divisions occur in organisms' genetics,if you can sufficiently explain why genetic material is precluded from being added or subtracted from DNA molecules which is required if your hypothesis were even remotely correct that genetic material can only be exchanged,and, if you can explain your hypothesis why if genetic material can be exchanged that precludes exchanging enough material to result in a new species (Hint: for such an hypothesis, you would need to show how genomes differ from macro-species to macro-species.)

Going on that last point, it comes back to my two words, genetic science. If you had a better understanding of genetic science, you would already know thatthe difference in species is not related to the number of genes,that diverse species share an incredible amount of genetic materialand, that many many examples of transitional species as well as transitional organs like eyes exist in real time.

The HIV virus didn't arise de novo, if you had done your homework you'd know the origin has been traced back to a place where the SIV and the HIV viruses diverged.

"Since evolutionarians like to say that macroevolution is simply a series of microevolutionary steps, I have challenged this view that macroevolution is the de novo evolution of a gene." No you haven't. You have selected (punny !) a single process for genetic change and claimed it was the main if not the only process. That is a patently false underlying premise in your version of reality.

You have a poor understanding of what genomes actually consist of. You are using the typical concept of evolution deniers, that of the results of the genome. A dog has features that differ from a cat and they cannot mate. But in the blueprints, the two have surprisingly similar genomes. Not only that, but you can map the genetic changes to determine how long ago the two species split from a common ancestor.

Genetic scientists are so far past those basics. Where the research is now being concentrated is in identifying what all the genes do, identifying how the genetic code results in the construction of proteins, how those proteins fold to make structures, how the codes are turned on and off, how much play there is in the system which means you can have a lot of 'single point mutations' without interfering with the function of the gene, and how to repair genetic errors by inserting new genes via viruses.

Do you really think we could do all that and still not understand the most basic means organisms evolve? But you in your mathematical wisdom see the folly in a science you know so little about?

Let me give you one more thing to think about. Do you think it is possible you've been duped? Have you read anything about the Discovery Institute and the wedge strategy? Are you aware this Christian think tank is not full of scientists like Behe (though they do rely heavily on any scientist ally they can find)? Instead, the DI is staffed by marketers and dare I say it, propaganda experts.

They would have you believe evolution scientists are all atheist activists. But there are many many theist evolution scientists. The Pope has acquiesced. The DI would have you accept Intelligent Design but the Bible says Creation. So there is an argument among theists. Theists argue over the literal interpretation of the age of the Earth. Some have gone with the science, some have not.

What is my point? Science is the stability factor here. Theists pick and choose which interpretations of the Bible they are going to buy. Scientists follow the evidence. Evolution theory has nothing to do with the Bible. No scientist cares if Bible myths are close or far from observed reality unless maybe they are investigating the myth. Science has no reason to ignore supporting evidence if it is there. If there were true evidence making the theory of evolution in doubt, why wouldn't you see an army of theist scientists supporting serious doubt in evolution theory?

The DI would have you believe there is anti-Bible bias in science. Why wouldn't the army of theist scientists be protesting the covering up of such evidence? And scientists buck existing consensuses in droves when the evidence bucks the consensus. The world is much too diverse, with theist and atheist, American, European, Asian, and Oceanic, male and female, young and old, gay and straight scientists out there. For 5 decades this diverse group of scientists has been researching every aspect of the theory of evolution.

If the theory were flawed, evidence would be mounting against the theory. Instead, all the evidence has led to one conclusion. And genetic science provided massive, overwhelming evidence filling the gaps in the theory of evolution. It could not have stood up to this scrutiny were it not correct. You wouldn't need the DI and a straw argument which selected (punny :) ) a single strand (punny!) of evidence to attack. The evidence would speak for itself. To you, the evidence speaks. To me, you've been duped by whoever sold you the straw, and they were likely duped by whoever sold it to them.

As to, "There is no selection process that would do such a thing.Since joobz won’t tell us how ribose formed in the primordial soup, perhaps you would tell us?", is your premise that because all the details of abiogenesis remain to be discovered, the whole theory of evolution fails? Why is something undiscovered in any way, evidence it will not or cannot be discovered?

[not proof read, expect corrections and maybe some links if I have time.]

RecoveringYuppy

24th January 2007, 10:10 PM

The protein portion of the hemoglobin complex is composed of two different polypeptide globins. Are your arguing that these globins are not transcribed from their corresponding genes? If not, you only weaken your argument more so since now you have two genes, neither of which have a selection process to evolve them de novo to form the hemoglobin complex.
No, none of the genes involved in hemoglobin (and it's not just two as you may be implying) has to evolve "de novo". All the genes involved have close relatives. There are many, many globins.

articulett

24th January 2007, 10:53 PM

Earth to Kleinman (or should I say Dr. Behe):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am2.html

This stuff has been addressed again and again; creationists just can't compute (and this goes for your reference to Darwin's Black Box too, Hewitt).

"Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." Judge John Jones--transcript of trial above.

And more of Judge Jones opinion:

p64 We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

p71 ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed.

Look, Atheist--another FALSE DICHOTOMY!

[Conclusion]
...
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

...As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

...Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

And check out the irreducible complexity evolver applet--a model of how irreducible complexity evolves:

http://www.stellaralchemy.com/ice/

Go tell your silly lies to your gullible congregation, Kleinman. We have examples of hemoglobin evolving and devolving again. I guess you never checked out the ice fish link I gave many pages ago. Why is that, Kleinman? So you can continue to pretend that your not comprehending the facts means that goddidit?

Religion makes you arrogant and ignorant--the proof is on this thread. At least unwitting children are protected from this breathtaking inanity in public schools for now. You nutcakes propose incomprehensible "theories" while making a big stink out of knowledge we don't yet know and then pretend to yourself and others you are too deep and profound for mere scientists and the public to understand. Scientists don't take you seriously because your intelligent designer has made you a poor scientist and too stupid to realize it.

And though, you may be a little better, Hewitt--don't you think you ought to brush up on both your communication skills and your own theory as well as current scientific understanding. I don't think your Darwin's Black Box book reference is a very good source as it's been thoroughly discredited for it's inanity. And your reference to "free will" reveals your biases. No matter how many problems you have with evolution (still not clear) your opposing theory (s)? explains nothing. And the rejection of your idea is due to it's uselessness as well as it's complete incomprehensibility--not because you see something deep that no other scientists can comprehend.

It's dishonest to pretend that your deep theories are too complex for scientists and others to understand or that scientists are keeping you silent when the truth is you haven't really proposed anything while insulting those who have quite a bit of evidence in support of them. And it's also dishonest to obfuscate so that people don't know of your allegiance to intelligent design.

Anyone interested in the wedge strategy can read about it here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/wedge.html

articulett

24th January 2007, 11:00 PM

articulett

24th January 2007, 11:03 PM

http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1641%2F0006-3568(2005)055%5B0280%3AIDEBEB%5D2.0.CO%3B2

Intelligent design is a throwback to William Paley's 19th-century “argument from design.”Instead of claiming the improbability of organs such as eyes and bird wings, as the old school did (developmental biologists have rendered that view silly), ID supporters like Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe (1996) adopt a modern facade by invoking the improbability of biochemical pathways and subcellular structures arising through natural selection. Instead of asking what function half a bird wing could serve, Behe belittles the utility of half a biochemical pathway. In other words, he argues that complex biochemical systems like the blood-clotting cascade could not have been selected stepwise by Darwinian mechanisms. In Behe's world, such pathways exhibit “irreducible complexity.” Add mathematician William Dembski's statistical arguments about the impossibility of chance accounting for design in nature, and the ID creed is complete.

Today's evolution deniers try to avoid mentioning God, because the Supreme Court soundly trounced “scientific” creationism—the previous incarnation foisted on our school systems—as patently religious in nature and a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Intelligent design merely invokes some sort of master architect. He, she, or it could even have been (wink, wink) an extraterrestrial, adherents coyly offer.

The Atheist

24th January 2007, 11:06 PM

I did. I have trouble understanding it. I contend that everyone else does as well, since no-one seems to be clarifying. Compare that to this far more simplistic explanation:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061109130729.htm

Even you should be able to sum that up and compare and contrast the furthering of understanding this explanation gives compared to John's oscillation "theory" where cells=true replicators.Interesting but speculative. I hope they find the right match, there must be an immense amount of combinations. Then they just have to hope that something spontaneous happens from there which will provide the spark of life. It still looks pretty Dr Frankenstein to me, right down to the lightning.

Certainly quite clear, but not hell of a revealing.
And as for your interpretation of me and what is going on in this thread--I will point out that only you seem to be deriving your particular understanding. To me, your claims are as convoluted and unsupported as John Hewitt's and Kleinmans. Moreover, it appears you've had similar issues with others. Instead of worrying about my verbosity, perhaps it would serve you well to look at your own or to plow through Hewitt's and see if you can possibly understand what he is saying and what his problem with evolution is--and then tell the rest of us.I might give it a crack when I have a few spare hours.
You refer to creationist as the "c-word" while claiming that most Christians would proudly admit their Christianity in the scientific community?! Is there anyone out there other than yourself who gives you credibility on this topic?All I can suggest is to check out some of the better christian sites. I am presently conversing with several scientists, all of whom are openly and cheerfully christian.
Have you read anything about Dover and the wedge strategy? I was discussing exactly this strategy the other day. Very popular.
He wants everyone to try and disprove his incomprehensible theory rather than to understand or read anything new that shows us how we are very much on the right path without his oscillating-cell-replicating-sex-ethics-free-will whatever-the-hell theory.

Well, as I've said, time will tell.

Skeptic Ginger

24th January 2007, 11:13 PM

Nice job, skepticgirl--but you know that Kleinman only reads for information that supports his silly beliefs. He cannot comprehend anything that conflicts with his "death to evolution" mathematical nonsensical theories. Notice that other creationists are even distancing themselves from him--none of them wants to be seen as being like each other.That's why I added the last half of the post, thought I'd try a different approach.

My guess is k will fade away when the arguments are too difficult to face up to, based on what other people do when they can't shift their paradigms back into sync with reality. My hope is he/she takes a look at the wedge strategy and recognizes the difference between wishful thinking the evidence supports Biblical myths and the reality the evidence does not.

Skeptic Ginger

24th January 2007, 11:19 PM

Atheist, I didn't get to edit my post last nite when the forum crashed. What I had added was maybe it was you I discussed Joyce with. It sounds familiar. I have no tie to any hypothesis. I posted Joyce's as an example. Articulett's science daily link is another and I like the fact it says, "This vexing question has stumped scientists for years because of the sheer volume of possibilities." Your ideas are great as well. Time will tell how it occurred. My guess is there won't be anything mysterious involved, just fantastic.

John Hewitt

24th January 2007, 11:43 PM

Skeptic Ginger

24th January 2007, 11:54 PM

For kleinman re de novo gene emergence:

Duplication and divergence: the evolution of new genes and old ideas. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15568988&dopt=Abstract)

* Taylor JS,
* Raes J.

Department of Biology, University of Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3N5, Canada. taylorjs@uvic.ca

Over 35 years ago, Susumu Ohno stated that gene duplication was the single most important factor in evolution. He reiterated this point a few years later in proposing that without duplicated genes the creation of metazoans, vertebrates, and mammals from unicellular organisms would have been impossible. Such big leaps in evolution, he argued, required the creation of new gene loci with previously nonexistent functions. Bold statements such as these, combined with his proposal that at least one whole-genome duplication event facilitated the evolution of vertebrates, have made Ohno an icon in the literature on genome evolution. However, discussion on the occurrence and consequences of gene and genome duplication events has a much longer, and often neglected, history. Here we review literature dealing with the occurrence and consequences of gene duplication, beginning in 1911. We document conceptual and technological advances in gene duplication research from this early research in comparative cytology up to recent research on whole genomes, "transcriptomes," and "interactomes."

The ghost of selection past: rates of evolution and functional divergence of anciently duplicated genes. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=11675603)

* Van de Peer Y,
* Taylor JS,
* Braasch I,
* Meyer A.

Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, 78457 Konstanz, Germany. yvdp@gengenp.rug.ac.be

The duplication of genes and even complete genomes may be a prerequisite for major evolutionary transitions and the origin of evolutionary novelties. However, the evolutionary mechanisms of gene evolution and the origin of novel gene functions after gene duplication have been a subject of many debates. Recently, we compiled 26 groups of orthologous genes, which included one gene from human, mouse, and chicken, one or two genes from the tetraploid Xenopus and two genes from zebrafish. Comparative analysis and mapping data showed that these pairs of zebrafish genes were probably produced during a fish-specific genome duplication that occurred between 300 and 450 Mya, before the teleost radiation (Taylor et al. 2001). As discussed here, many of these retained duplicated genes code for DNA binding proteins. Different models have been developed to explain the retention of duplicated genes and in particular the subfunctionalization model of Force et al. (1999) could explain why so many developmental control genes have been retained. Other models are harder to reconcile with this particular set of duplicated genes. Most genes seem to have been subjected to strong purifying selection, keeping properties such as charge and polarity the same in both duplicates, although some evidence was found for positive Darwinian selection, in particular for Hox genes. However, since only the cumulative pattern of nucleotide substitutions can be studied, clear indications of positive Darwinian selection or neutrality may be hard to find for such anciently duplicated genes. Nevertheless, an increase in evolutionary rate in about half of the duplicated genes seems to suggest that either positive Darwinian selection has occurred or that functional constraints have been relaxed at one point in time during functional divergence.

Rapid evolution through gene duplication and subfunctionalization of the testes-specific alpha4 proteasome subunits in Drosophila. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15579695&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum)

* Torgerson DG,
* Singh RS.

Department of Biology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada. togerdg@mcmaster.ca

Gene duplication is an important mechanism for acquiring new genes and creating genetic novelty in organisms. Evidence suggests that duplicated genes are retained at a much higher rate than originally thought and that functional divergence of gene copies is a major factor promoting their retention in the genome. We find that two Drosophila testes-specific alpha4 proteasome subunit genes (alpha4-t1 and alpha4-t2) have a higher polymorphism within species and are significantly more diverged between species than the somatic alpha4 gene. Our data suggest that following gene duplication, the alpha4-t1 gene experienced relaxed selective constraints, whereas the alpha4-t2 gene experienced positive selection acting on several codons. We report significant heterogeneity in evolutionary rates among all three paralogs at homologous codons, indicating that functional divergence has coincided with genic divergence. Reproductive subfunctionalization may allow for a more rapid evolution of reproductive traits and a greater specialization of testes function. Our data add to the increasing evidence that duplicated genes experience lower selective constraints and in some cases positive selection following duplication. Newly duplicated genes that are freer from selective constraints may provide a mechanism for developing new interactions and a pathway for the evolution of new genes.

There are hundreds of research papers looking at the specific events which result in genetic shifts from one species to another. These are a sample. Just about anything you search for in the field of genetics gets you volumes of research papers. A few years ago a door swung wide open when new laboratory techniques allowed inexpensive PCR DNA production. It made the study of genetic material easier and less expensive on a logarithmic scale. The revolution in genetic research took another leap forward when the new lab techniques were combined with the new computer science of bioinformatics, ie writing computer programs to deal with biology questions involving analysis of billions of bits of data.

The sheer volume of research in this new field is incredible. But the potential for what developments will result from it is beyond astounding. For those left behind because they crave the stability of rigid beliefs, there will be no biology and maybe even no science careers for them and medical careers will require adjusting to constant cognitive dissonance as the genetic research is most profound in medicine.

Other than that, who cares. ;)

Skeptic Ginger

25th January 2007, 12:03 AM

This is just a bit of journalism. Mineral catalysis may be a factor in creating the organic soup but it presumes far more than you seem to think. These catalysis reactions are performed on chemically cleaned up surfaces and that seems too designed to me. I just assume the existence of chemical equilibria, which is hardly an assumption at all.There are the most technical aspects of medicine, of molecular physics, astronomy, computer science, you name it. I couldn't hold an intelligent conversation with a microbiologist studying the metabolic pathways of T-cell inhibitor proteins blah blah blah.

But that hardly means I don't understand what, for example, the above citations are generally about. It doesn't mean I don't have a thorough understanding of virology and microbiology. If you only enjoy conversations on the intense levels of science such as one with an astrobiophysicist then your criticisms of Articulett are poorly worded. If you think, on the other hand, one cannot grasp the concepts if one isn't a PhD physicist or better, you are mistaken.

And, BTW, your quoted post doesn't have any concepts I am not familiar with.

Perhaps I might ask you and Atheist to briefly state what your positions of dispute are, (or give the post # that best describes your issues) for those of us coming late to the thread. Are you only questioning the maturity of the abiogeneis hypotheses and that they are still at very speculative stages? Or are you claiming current hypotheses are off track as I believe my discussion with someone about Joyce's RNA hypotheses was about?

Kotatsu

25th January 2007, 12:31 AM

Do you think I dispute those observed facts? I don't.

Again, as my last post appears to have escaped you, do you consider the paper by Song et al. to be a possible observation of speciation in the lab, regardless of the fact that they do not term it as such in the paper? To remind you, the allopolyploid progeny --- which represent the karyotypes of three forms of Brassica previously described as species in their own right, distinct from the parent Brassica species of the experiment --- showed extensive genetic differences, differences in fertility and differences in at least five morphological characters after just five generations, when compared to the original parent plants. Also: if you do not consider it to be such, for what reason do you come to that conslusion?

The Atheist

25th January 2007, 12:50 AM

Perhaps I might ask you and Atheist to briefly state what your positions of dispute are, (or give the post # that best describes your issues) for those of us coming late to the thread. Are you only questioning the maturity of the abiogeneis hypotheses and that they are still at very speculative stages? Or are you claiming current hypotheses are off track as I believe my discussion with someone about Joyce's RNA hypotheses was about?I'm a bad person to ask - I'm a recruiter, not a scientist, but to me, abiogenesis is obviously the key. Everything else seems almost straightforward by comparison. He makes some interesting points as well on selection, which as far as my limited knowledge goes, are unique.

I'm just here as the train wreck - see under avatar. You could class me as the "bovver boy" who's been "sucked in by John the Creationist". I have no particluar axe to grind.

Just having a further bit of fun with this whole thing, I'm trying to find if there's any whiff of christianity about John via the internet.

Very cool name, John A Hewitt! Could be a saint (http://www.catholic-forum.com/saintS/saintj9m.htm) (were you educated at Cambridge, John?), or maybe he's a sinner (http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-drhewitt.html)! A Dr John A Hewitt!

There's no link to him with religion in any way available, if there are any. One of the sites which links to his work is a christian site, the others appear to be a mix of all theories, or, in a couple of cases, non/anti-ID sites. He is noted as non-ID here (http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1708) by someone. Then again, the guy's an Aussie. We colonials are much easier to confuse.

I did find this interesting question on some obscure site. From 2003 (http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/cellbiol/2002-February/014537.html):

Dear All,

I would like to pick some brains.

What suggestions have been made about the biological role of intervening
sequence DNA?
Is this phenomenon confined to diploid organisms? Are their any diploid
organisms where it does not occur?

--
Yours Sincerely

John A. Hewitt
http://freespace.virgin.net/john.hewitt1/
"A Habit of Lies - How Scientists Cheat."

So, we can confirm that he's capable of seeking others' opinions when needed.

John Hewitt

25th January 2007, 12:54 AM

There are the most technical aspects of medicine, of molecular physics, astronomy, computer science, you name it. I couldn't hold an intelligent conversation with a microbiologist studying the metabolic pathways of T-cell inhibitor proteins blah blah blah.

But that hardly means I don't understand what, for example, the above citations are generally about. It doesn't mean I don't have a thorough understanding of virology and microbiology. If you only enjoy conversations on the intense levels of science such as one with an astrobiophysicist then your criticisms of Articulett are poorly worded. If you think, on the other hand, one cannot grasp the concepts if one isn't a PhD physicist or better, you are mistaken.

And, BTW, your quoted post doesn't have any concepts I am not familiar with.

Perhaps I might ask you and Atheist to briefly state what your positions of dispute are, (or give the post # that best describes your issues) for those of us coming late to the thread. Are you only questioning the maturity of the abiogeneis hypotheses and that they are still at very speculative stages? Or are you claiming current hypotheses are off track as I believe my discussion with someone about Joyce's RNA hypotheses was about?
I have some troubling understanding what Articulett is going on about since she basically just calls me names all the time or provides irrelevant links and references.
So far as I can understand her claims, it is
1. Evolution is an inviolable truth.
2. All evolution is based on replicators.
3. Anyone who doesn't accept her view of evolution is a "creationist."
4. She is free to abuse anyone she deems a "creationist."

My position is
1. I do think evolution is correct but I do not consider any one articulation of it to be inviolable.
2. A correct view of evolution should not be based on replicators, it should be based on replicating data flows. Replicating data can be achieved by an actual replicator but that could not have been the situation in prebiosis. In that instance, the sun provides a much more reliable and plausible replicating data source that can lead to a purely chemical evolution and so produce early life forms.
3. Many other forms of evolution also do not involve replicators, for example social evolution, where memes are a figment of Dawkins imagination.

John Hewitt

25th January 2007, 01:20 AM

I'm a bad person to ask - I'm a recruiter, not a scientist, but to me, abiogenesis is obviously the key. Everything else seems almost straightforward by comparison. He makes some interesting points as well on selection, which as far as my limited knowledge goes, are unique.

I'm just here as the train wreck - see under avatar. You could class me as the "bovver boy" who's been "sucked in by John the Creationist". I have no particluar axe to grind.

Just having a further bit of fun with this whole thing, I'm trying to find if there's any whiff of christianity about John via the internet.

Very cool name, John A Hewitt! Could be a saint (http://www.catholic-forum.com/saintS/saintj9m.htm) (were you educated at Cambridge, John?), or maybe he's a sinner (http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-drhewitt.html)! A Dr John A Hewitt!

There's no link to him with religion in any way available, if there are any. One of the sites which links to his work is a christian site, the others appear to be a mix of all theories, or, in a couple of cases, non/anti-ID sites. He is noted as non-ID here (http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1708) by someone. Then again, the guy's an Aussie. We colonials are much easier to confuse.

I did find this interesting question on some obscure site. From 2003 (http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/cellbiol/2002-February/014537.html):

So, we can confirm that he's capable of seeking others' opinions when needed.
Gosh, Atheist, you have been busy. I was educated in Cambridge but not Caius, I did Natural Sciences at Trinity - Darwin's College. My BA specialized in physical chemistry, then I did a PhD in molecular biology and I was in research labs for some time too. I do not remember posting on the Aussie blog but that post fairly reflects my opinion.

All this stuff about ribozymes and the RNA world seems to me just piece of fallacious groupthink emerging from a social organization that prohibits dissent. The basic rule, laid down by its senior figures, will be, "don't criticise our work or you will regret it." I am sure that there are many people who understand the problems with ideas like the RNA world but they keep quiet out of fear for their careers.

Skeptic Ginger

25th January 2007, 02:14 AM

Thank you both for your summaries. I don't think anyone is a bad person. As one who pisses people off (hopefully on rare occasions) and who on occasion has to remind myself not to get pissed off, I've just started noticing how easy it is to get annoyed at people in our kind of forum discussions.

I was just hoping, without blaming anyone, to get the discussion back on track. I really wasn't positive what positions you both were arguing from.

I don't know what definition of replicators you are referring to. I'll have to find it in past posts. I think it's safe to say evolution deniers are either poorly informed or hold some kind of religious bias which has influenced them to select straw evidence to battle. I am quite serious when I say genetic science has gone so far past basic evolutionary theory as to render arguments against the theory absurd.

As to hypotheses upon which to base a theory of abiogenesis, evolution does not depend on them. I don't know many biologists who hold that view. On the other hand, evolution provides very strong evidence abiogenesis occurred somewhere. Once you have confirmed the theory of evolution, and we have, then there are only 2 means of abiogenesis, natural processes or magic. I'm confident in the former.

The mechanisms by which abiogenesis occurred are just not confirmed. So you should be able to present any hypothesis and Articulett and I are capable of considering them. But if those hypotheses are so convincing as to be as assured as say, John's ideas, then the evidence will win the argument. That's why there is no need to get mad at people who don't believe you or accept your expertise on the subject.

John, your web site is quite revealing. You are angry before you've even started.

One who dismisses the scientists who dismissed one's hypotheses by claiming the scientists lie and deceive certainly isn't using a very persuasive tactic. It raises immediate suspicion that one's case was not made and rather than debate the points of contention, one attacks the messenger.

Feel free to attack my preachy post. I'm not mad at anyone, even the annoying Hamme.

The Atheist

25th January 2007, 02:30 AM

Feel free to attack my preachy post. I'm not mad at anyone, even the annoying Hamme.

Doubt anyone's going to attack it, a model of clarity and calmness and hardly arguable.

I'll take your word on evolutionary theory, with just one question. John, as I understand it, posits that there are insufficient changes in DNA to cope with the knowledge differential between an amoeba and a human. As I don't have 7-10 years spare to study the subject, I'd be interested to know whether you have a view on it.

See how easy things are when we've all been doing our breathing exercises?

Cheers.

John Hewitt

25th January 2007, 02:51 AM

John, your web site is quite revealing. You are angry before you've even started.

One who dismisses the scientists who dismissed one's hypotheses by claiming the scientists lie and deceive certainly isn't using a very persuasive tactic. It raises immediate suspicion that one's case was not made and rather than debate the points of contention, one attacks the messenger.

Feel free to attack my preachy post. I'm not mad at anyone, even the annoying Hamme.
I have no wish to attack you but I do want to make it clear that my work, as described in "A Habit of Lies" is one thing and my work as described in "Sex and Philosophy" is another.

So far as the former is concerned - that is not the topic I discuss on this thread but neither does accusing me of anger reply to or invalidate the points I make. Reporting three as two in the scientific literature is false reporting - it is not the expression of an opinion that is worthy of discussion. Continuing to so report the field into the teeth of protest is deliberate lying. I began by trying to be persuasive with such people but I stopped some time ago. I now just think that lying is an endemic fact of scientific life and that it should be acknowledged and recognized for what it is.

So far as my work on evolution is concerned, I have never accused anyone of lying in that field. I do think there are some exaggerated reputations around and a lot of claims that do not stand up to even a simple examination - such as the RNA world.

Dr Adequate

25th January 2007, 02:58 AM

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

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

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

De novo DNA synthesis by yeast DNA polymerase I associated with primase activity. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6395659&dopt=Abstract)

De Novo synthesis of DNA-like molecules by polynucleotide phosphorylase in vitro (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g6af4blfqjxekm4k/)

De Novo Initiation of RNA Synthesis by the RNA-Dependent RNA Polymerase (NS5B) of Hepatitis C Virus (http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/74/2/851)

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

De novo RNA synthesis by a recombinant classical swine fever virus RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (http://content.febsjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/270/24/4952)

De novo RNA synthesis catalyzed by HCV RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10679285&dopt=Abstract)

Template-free, polymerase-free DNA polymerization (http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/CC/article.asp?doi=b501132a)

Template-Free Primer-Independent DNA Synthesis by Bacterial DNA Polymerases I Using the DnaB Protein from Escherichia coli (http://www.springerlink.com/content/h24132172v62l7j8/)

articulett

25th January 2007, 03:04 AM

That's why I added the last half of the post, thought I'd try a different approach.

My guess is k will fade away when the arguments are too difficult to face up to, based on what other people do when they can't shift their paradigms back into sync with reality. My hope is he/she takes a look at the wedge strategy and recognizes the difference between wishful thinking the evidence supports Biblical myths and the reality the evidence does not.

You're too nice. He won't take any look. I was suckered in earlier in the thread. He is not a one of the duped--he is one of the dupers. And I have never seen a creationist change their stripes. They are the only people whose thinking just never evolves--at least not the ones all invested in their alternate theories. They just pretend that the scientists are afraid of them or can't understand their fabulous and depthful analogies. Your explanation was very good--but the creationists only insult--they have no interest in learning that their "intelligent designer" may be an illusion.

At least Hewitt is less insulting. Check out his links--Talking to Kleinman is like talking to Kurious Kathy--nothing gets beyond their impermeable god shield. It must suck when your intelligent designer doesn't conform to the evidence. Kleinman just trolls waiting for new people to come along and engage him, and when they give up, he feels like he has won a point for his "side". Hammy's worse--totally tangential and off on his philosophy rant as soon as he feels the need to interject a big word rather than silly winking emoticons and acronyms. Hewitt and Von Neumann are at least more intelligent to engage--but they are creationists too. They have big problems with evolution, but it's hard to really get them to state what they are--and they pretend to have alternating theories, but no one seems clear as to what they are talking about or whether their theories have any evidence in support of them or can be falsified. They disappear for a while and then come back to try and engage people who haven't wearied of their not so intelligently designed arguments.

On the other hand, you've got to admire Paul...he starts a thread called "annoying creationist" and they flock-- I guess they've already duped their fellow believers and they are trying to hone their sciency sounding theories at a more challenging site.

articulett

25th January 2007, 03:14 AM

Skeptic Ginger

25th January 2007, 03:22 AM

I have no wish to attack you but I do want to make it clear that my work, as described in "A Habit of Lies" is one thing and my work as described in "Sex and Philosophy" is another.

So far as the former is concerned - that is not the topic I discuss on this thread but neither does accusing me of anger reply to or invalidate the points I make. Reporting three as two in the scientific literature is false reporting - it is not the expression of an opinion that is worthy of discussion. Continuing to so report the field into the teeth of protest is deliberate lying. I began by trying to be persuasive with such people but I stopped some time ago. I now just think that lying is an endemic fact of scientific life and that it should be acknowledged and recognized for what it is.

So far as my work on evolution is concerned, I have never accused anyone of lying in that field. I do think there are some exaggerated reputations around and a lot of claims that do not stand up to even a simple examination - such as the RNA world.Your web site paints with a broad brush and it uses words which imply immoral motive and behavior rather than just not seeing things your way. I might be less skeptical if you had addressed specific incidents with specific people rather than the plural "scientists".

The points you make are irrelevant if no one reads the material. And the method of presenting your points closes the book before it is read. That's just another reflection on human nature. Sometimes I write stuff and never send it. I feel better. But I persuaded no one I was right.

Lying is not an endemic fact except with young children. People selectively believe some things over others and can also look for facts which support their beliefs. We ALL do it but to varying degrees. It's extreme when one denies all the research supporting evolution or the evidence supported age estimates for the Earth and Universe. I doubt anyone is free from this aspect of human nature completely.

Why, if you failed to persuade do you resort to rationalizing "scientists" are liars and lying is endemic? Are these people somehow abnormal? If so, why and more importantly why homogeneously across the board?

Skeptic Ginger

25th January 2007, 03:29 AM

Dr A's citations are very nice examples of the level of complexity genetic research has reached. My money is still on Kleinman fading away rather than addressing those or my post and citations.

Skeptic Ginger

25th January 2007, 03:40 AM

John Hewitt

25th January 2007, 03:54 AM

Your web site paints with a broad brush and it uses words which imply immoral motive and behavior rather than just not seeing things your way. I might be less skeptical if you had addressed specific incidents with specific people rather than the plural "scientists".

I am unsure which site you are referring to. My site on scientific lying deals, in referenced detail, with individuals and individual incidents.

The points you make are irrelevant if no one reads the material. And the method of presenting your points closes the book before it is read. That's just another reflection on human nature. Sometimes I write stuff and never send it. I feel better. But I persuaded no one I was right.

Lying is not an endemic fact except with young children. People selectively believe some things over others and can also look for facts which support their beliefs. We ALL do it but to varying degrees. It's extreme when one denies all the research supporting evolution or the evidence supported age estimates for the Earth and Universe. I doubt anyone is free from this aspect of human nature completely.
I consider that lying is an endemic fact of adult behaviour. I do not understand how you can believe otherwise and I do include scientific behaviour. From an evolutionary point of view, the idea that lying is a natural phenomenon is supported by ideas such as "Machiavellian Intelligence." Also, I believe Robert Trivers is currently writing a book on deception.

Why, if you failed to persuade do you resort to rationalizing "scientists" are liars and lying is endemic? Are these people somehow abnormal? If so, why and more importantly why homogeneously across the board? As I said before, I don't think I should need to persuade somebody about the difference between two and three.
There are a great many documented examples of scientific deception and such facts should be accepted, not denied. You seem to be, if I may coin a phrase, a "deception denier." If the question is, "is lying abormal?" I think probably not. If the question is, "should examples of scientific lying be recognized and corrected?" I invite you to give your own answer.

I think this is sort of off-topic. Do you want to move it elsewhere?

Skeptic Ginger

25th January 2007, 04:11 AM

It's hard to get a handle on this, John. Your book titled, "A Habit of Lies - How Scientists Cheat" appears to make claims that you are correct and everyone else is lying, making your work look incorrect.

If you read my post, you see no statement denying lying. And I could understand a book that discussed the habit of taking credit for work done by juniors at Cambridge, or perhaps within many university systems. Certainly physicians have an "old boys club" where they refuse to address serious breaches among peers and whatnot.

Where I find your paper suspect is in the personal nature of the criticisms. If your hypotheses were valid and supportable, why is there no avenue outside of the Cambridge system? Are you claiming every editor of every peer reviewed journal to be in on the conspiracy? Has publicizing your data or position on the Internet found its way to any other scientists not subject to the same biases as a scientist in competition with you or in cahoots with them might be?

As far as a thread topic, I don't plan to make a long discussion of this. I'm curious and wonder how it does impact your thread comments.

articulett

25th January 2007, 04:16 AM

I have some troubling understanding what Articulett is going on about since she basically just calls me names all the time or provides irrelevant links and references.
So far as I can understand her claims, it is
1. Evolution is an inviolable truth.
2. All evolution is based on replicators.
3. Anyone who doesn't accept her view of evolution is a "creationist."
4. She is free to abuse anyone she deems a "creationist."

My position is
1. I do think evolution is correct but I do not consider any one articulation of it to be inviolable.
2. A correct view of evolution should not be based on replicators, it should be based on replicating data flows. Replicating data can be achieved by an actual replicator but that could not have been the situation in prebiosis. In that instance, the sun provides a much more reliable and plausible replicating data source that can lead to a purely chemical evolution and so produce early life forms.
3. Many other forms of evolution also do not involve replicators, for example social evolution, where memes are a figment of Dawkins imagination.

1. No, I don't think evolution is an invioable truth; it's just the theory which is gaining massive amounts of supporting evidence daily. We see what Darwin could only imagine.

2. I never said all evolution is based on replicators; that's another one of your weird wordings. I said the replicator is DNA/RNA--you said repeatedly it's the "cell" as described Behe's Black Box.

3. No, I don't think people who don't accept my views are creationists--I only note that those who seem to have problems with evolution (that are poorly defined) and an equally poorly defined alternate theory are creationists. It's only creationists that see the problems with evolution. The rest of us understand it just fine.

4. Words are not abuse. Lying and obfuscating for your intelligent designer are unethical. You asked me why I brought God into the equation--I answered. That is not abuse. You need to thicken your skin if you want to hear peoples opinions about your opinions.

As for you--

1. You have already stated that you have problems with evolution, speciation, Dawkins, and the idea of DNA/RNA being the replicator. Moreover, you note that evolution can't account for "ethics" and "free will". When asked point blank if you are a creationist, you obfuscate. You post on a noted Creationists Forum, namely William Demski sulking about lying cheating scientists without offering the slightest bit of proof.

2. I can't decode what you mean by #2, but maybe someone else can. If not, then you might want to tighten your explanations a bit.

3. Yes, there are social replicators--memes are not a figment of Dawkins imagination, but your knee jerk attacks of him are common for creationists. Memes are a tool for understanding the passing of social information. They make more sense than your sex and humor theory that invokes the idea that humans have something beyond other animals that can't be described naturalistically--"free will". Just say it. You believe humans have souls--your theory is trying to account for something that scientists can't account for because it's a "philosophy" outside the "infinite egress" of evolved creatures discussing evolution. Moreover, they are unethical for reasons you never nail down.

Here are more questions to dodge.

1. What is your main problem with evolution? Could any amount or type of evidence clear that problem up for you?
2. Do you believe that consciousness can exist outside of a non-living brain--whether it be in data streams, souls, gods, or some other nebulous immeasurable entity?
3. Why would a scientist be posting at a known creationists site to complain about scientists exhibiting "groupthink"?
4. How exactly am I abusing you?
5. Can you sum up your theory or theories since no-one else has?
6. Is there a way to falsify your claims?
7. How does your claims fit in with what we know about prebiotic life as in the recent links?
8. Why do you find Darwin's Black Box a credible source?
9. Why would you mention "free will" without any further explanation in a supposed scientific treatise?
10. How can you keep insisting that the cell is the main replicator, not the DNA after multiple posts showing quite clearly that is not the case--in fact, viruses may have been the first pre-life. What about Dr. Adequate's posts. It is just such a weird claim--like saying "memes don't exist". It's like it could sort of be true, but it's more of a semantic game. Why the obfuscation instead of clarity?
11. You have your website and theory--do people seem to understand it? Can anyone sum it up. See we can sum up evolution pretty readily--and even the best contenders for abiogenesis--we are just getting the pieces, but they are falling into place rather extraordinarily. Where does your theory fit and how is it better than what we have? It certainly isn't more clear?
12. What do you mean that there is information not accounted for in the genes. Remember, genes direct phenotype, including the brain development via interaction with the environment? Social behavior is accounted for in evolution--it's just that you can't seem to register that fact while promoting your far more confusing data stream theory.

If you think I'm abusing you, you aren't quite ready for any peer review. Because there would be the above questions that need to be addressed, and ignoring questions or giving answers that only confuse people more is rather frowned upon. Sure, you can use that as a sign that scientists are against you, but that would be another lie you are telling yourself.

hammegk

25th January 2007, 05:12 AM

Look Ham, I can post like you do.What's your point?

That's not what you asked. And you took this sentence out of context.

I didn't ask your opinion.

We agree, wow!

Good for you.

I answered that.

"It happened" was the quote of mine you disputed. Did you have "faith" in my quote or not?

What part of the Biblical claims do you have faith I reject?

Perhaps analogies are a mystery to you?

What's your point?
I agree that smoke screens are the best defense of your position available to you.

hammegk

25th January 2007, 05:32 AM

.... the allopolyploid progeny --- which represent the karyotypes of three forms of Brassica previously described as species in their own right, distinct from the parent Brassica species of the experiment --- showed extensive genetic differences, differences in fertility and differences in at least five morphological characters after just five generations, when compared to the original parent plants. Also: if you do not consider it to be such, for what reason do you come to that conslusion?
For the same reason I consider great danes and chihuahuas to be dogs, and all corn plants corn.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th January 2007, 06:49 AM

I'm 100% certain thought exists.
You should be 100% certain that the "external world" exists, too. When you look at a tree and think about it, then go away for awhile, then come back, the tree is still there, in a consistent state. You did not think about the tree when you were gone. Therefore, there is something over and above your thoughts about the tree.

~~ Paul

Ivor the Engineer

25th January 2007, 06:50 AM

Ivor the Engineer

25th January 2007, 06:51 AM

You should be 100% certain that the "external world" exists, too. When you look at a tree and think about it, then go away for awhile, then come back, the tree is still there, in a consistent state. You did not think about the tree when you were gone. Therefore, there is something over and above your thoughts about the tree.

~~ Paul

Don't forget about the evil scientist...

Dr Adequate

25th January 2007, 06:52 AM

For the same reason I consider great danes and chihuahuas to be dogs, and all corn plants corn. Would that be the same reason why you consider this to be a whale?

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/ambulocetus.gif

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th January 2007, 06:56 AM

For eukaryotes, the smallest known which Paul posted is Pelagibacter ubique with a genome length of around 1.3 million base pairs. For prokaryotes, Mycoplasma sp. is around 900,000 base pairs. There are symbionts with shorter genome lengths but are not free living organisms and are dependent upon a host.
Don't forget Nanoarchaeum equitans at 491,000 bases.

~~ Paul

hammegk

25th January 2007, 07:17 AM

hammegk

25th January 2007, 07:23 AM

Would that be the same reason why you consider this to be a whale?

I consider it to be a nice reconstruction, and for all either of us know it could be a whale. A bit more extreme change in phentotype than Eohippus to Percheron, I agree. Er, are those both still touted as horses?

How many good examples of Ambulocetus did you say are available for study?

John Hewitt

25th January 2007, 09:43 AM

A continuous, repetitive signal e.g. sine wave, square wave (...010101...), night/day etc. transmits no information. For most intents and purposes they can be considered infinite energy sources. They are therefore classed as power (energy per unit time) signals.

I suppose clouds and other atmospheric disturbances, along with variations in the earths rotation would randomly modulate the signal, but how you could reasonably tie that into evolution, other than providing the energy for chemical reactions to take place, I have no idea.

Some time ago, while I was searching for sex (and philosophy) on the internet, I read a few sections of Johns work and got the impression his theory is more about social psychology than evolution.

Or are you going for a "grand theory of everything" theory of life?

The sun's signal 0,1,0,1 etc. is a data signal, not an information signal (whatever you might interpret that to be). The sun transmits very little data. If a signal transmits little energy its is a weak, low powered, data signal and if it transmits a lot of energy, then it is a strong, high powered data signal.
The sun delivers a very high powered data signal. The spin of the earth will generate a very regular modulation, stable enough to have evolutionary effects. Atmospheric effects will be somewhat randomizing but I see no reason why that should nullify my argument.

There are aspects of my work that touch on social psychology but that is because my work is a more general theory of evolution than is usually discussed. As a theory, bioepistemic evolution is a superset of genetics and I am basically looking for phenomena that do not fit into the genetic framework and therefore link to other ranks of evolution besides genetics. I chased prebiotic evolution specifically because it could not fit into the genetic mould. The prebiotic evolution work has been on my site for only a few months, so you may not have seen it when you last visited.

I do not understand your last question. For what must be the tenth time of saying, I am going for a theory of evolution based on data, not genes.

Dr Adequate

25th January 2007, 09:46 AM

I consider it to be a nice reconstruction, and for all either of us know it could be a whale. With functioning legs? A whale that walks?

A bit more extreme change in phentotype than Eohippus to Percheron, I agree. Er, are those both still touted as horses? Eohippus is an equid, not a horse.

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Park/7841/horse_evol/eoskele.jpg

http://www.valpo.edu/organization/psme/pics/instruments/horse.jpg

How many good examples of Ambulocetus did you say are available for study? I don't know. How many do we need? (Hint: 1).

kleinman

25th January 2007, 09:53 AM

Micro evolution only nonsense is one of the weakest arguments of the evolution deniers' debate. It was a last ditch effort. "Oh yeah, well prove this then." "Umm, OK, then prove this." and on and on. Micro evolution only arguments arose when it was clear evolution in real time was indeed observable.
You evolutionarians are always whining about my supposed moving of goal posts, so I set up the de novo evolution of a gene as an example of macroevolution. Show us the selection process that would take a series of microevolutionary steps to produce a gene de novo.
I told you, the genomes trace a map from the earliest organisms (and we know they are early because their genomes are the smallest) to all the other genomes on the tree. A pattern has emerged which shows how Behe's infamous flagellum argument is wrong. The pattern shows exactly how one goes from one species to the next. Just where are your invisible divisions in this tree of Life diagram? (http://www.tolweb.org/tree/)
You see what you want to see in your evolutionarian Rorschach test. Show us the pattern for the evolution of the DNA replicase system.
There's nothing in any mathematical calculation that contradicts what is clearly visible in the DNA and RNA of every living thing on the planet. You are wrong, and outnumbered by the vast majority of scientists and mathematicians. For whatever reason, (I assume it to be you are invested in the outcome of denying evolution because it challenges your existing beliefs), you continue to only look at selective evidence.
You must be another evolutionarian who went to MathIsHard University. If you study Dr Schneider’s ev model, you will see that random point mutations and natural selection is profoundly slow, too slow to account for the evolution of anything on a realistic size genome with a realistic mutation rate. This occurs even with Dr Schneider’s unrealistic selection process. You have no selection process that would evolve the thousands of genes required to evolve a living creature.
No evolution mechanism for de novo gene in your knowledge base, the math fails in your limited selection of evidence, (I'm not even sure I agree with that since there is a lot of rebuttal you are ignoring in the talk origins and Panda's thumb web sites). You keep going on with your selected random point mutations ignoring all the observed mechanisms for gene mixing, gene transfer, segmentation of function which allows a single mutation to produce 6 fully formed and functioning digits instead of 5, and a rabbit embryo 'eye growth initiating gene' to be exchanged with the corresponding gene of a a fruit fly larva resulting in a perfectly normal fruit fly compound eye, and lastly the robustness of function which included the discovery the reason Behe's flagellum precursor was hard to find was the precursor wasn't similar. The flagellum arose from some completely different gene function.
There is no evolution mechanism for the de novo formation of gene in your knowledge base either, otherwise you would have presented it to end this discussion.

I contacted Professor Miller at Brown University who formulated the Flagellum Unspun argument and asked him to apply this argument to the DNA replicase system and what were the purpose for gyrase and helicase before DNA could replicate. His response, “It’s a great question”, do you care to answer it?
Your single point mutation math was all for naught. "The rate of information acquisition is far to slow to explain macroevolution by this mechanism," because it isn't anything close to the complete process by which evolution occurs. "...formulate the mathematics and correct your theory." No need to, you haven't accounted in your model, or should I say Schneider's model, for the mechanisms which result in genetic change I have already documented. You have a flawed model which the folks at or similar to the folks at the Discovery Institute and AIG have selected (punny) in order to produce a straw argument supporting their preconceived conclusion.
I do not take credit for this math. This is the mathematics of devout evolutionarian Dr Tom Schneider at the National Cancer Institute. He is the author of the peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection. Your very own moderator on this forum, Paul Anagnostopoulos, wrote the online java version of this computer simulation. Paul used to call this computer simulation realistic until close scrutiny revealed it produces data that shows the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible by random point mutations and natural selection.

So, I take no credit for the formulation of this evolutionarian mathematical model. I only plugged in realistic values in the model and out popped the results. I do like co-opting evolutionarian ideas though, the problem is there are so few worth co-opting.
Evolution is observable.
Microevolution is observable. You evolutionarians love to extrapolate these microevolutionary processes to macroevolution.
Going on that last point, it comes back to my two words, genetic science. If you had a better understanding of genetic science, you would already know that
To bad you don’t have a better understanding of mathematics. If you did, you would understand my arguments. Your theory has a bad bookkeeping problem.
The HIV virus didn't arise de novo, if you had done your homework you'd know the origin has been traced back to a place where the SIV and the HIV viruses diverged.
What was the selection process for the precursor virus for SIV and HIV?
The protein portion of the hemoglobin complex is composed of two different polypeptide globins. Are your arguing that these globins are not transcribed from their corresponding genes? If not, you only weaken your argument more so since now you have two genes, neither of which have a selection process to evolve them de novo to form the hemoglobin complex.No, none of the genes involved in hemoglobin (and it's not just two as you may be implying) has to evolve "de novo". All the genes involved have close relatives. There are many, many globins.
What was the selection process for the precursor gene(s) for hemoglobin?
For kleinman re de novo gene emergence: Duplication and divergence: the evolution of new genes and old ideas. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15568988&dopt=Abstract)
Skeptigirl, how do you get the original gene to be duplicated?
Evidence for de novo production of self-replicating and environmentally adapted RNA structures by bacteriophage Qbeta replicase. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=432262&tools=bot) …
So you have proved that you can plug “de novo” and “RNA” into google. Too bad that none of these links have anything to do with the de novo evolution of a gene. Perhaps you can use your skills as a PhD in scatematics to describe the selection process that would evolve a gene de novo?
Evidence for de novo production of self-replicating and environmentally adapted RNA structures by bacteriophage Qbeta replicase. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=432262&tools=bot) …Oopsy--while Kleinman has been doing his math and Hewitt has been obfuscating, Dr. Adequate has posted refutations of both Kleinman's de novo claims and Hewitts--"cells are the true replicators" claim...Will it register--somehow, I think not.
Obviously you didn’t read any of these links. You evolutionarians think that posting a URL constitutes an argument. Read the links that scatequate has posted and tell me which one address the de novo evolution of a gene.
Dr A's citations are very nice examples of the level of complexity genetic research has reached. My money is still on Kleinman fading away rather than addressing those or my post and citations.
Your depth of analysis of these links is as thorough as articullet’s (nonexistent). Did you even read one of these links? You and articullet are so verbose, I feel like I’ve been slimed when I try to wade through your posts. Try some brevity so I don’t have to struggle so much to get through your convoluted thinking.
For eukaryotes, the smallest known which Paul posted is Pelagibacter ubique with a genome length of around 1.3 million base pairs. For prokaryotes, Mycoplasma sp. is around 900,000 base pairs. There are symbionts with shorter genome lengths but are not free living organisms and are dependent upon a host.Don't forget Nanoarchaeum equitans at 491,000 bases.
Paul, you are an expert at telling half a story. The following is taken from the URL: http://www.ebi.ac.uk/2can/genomes/genomes.html?http://www.ebi.ac.uk/2can/genomes/archaea/Nanoarchaeum_equitans.html (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/2can/genomes/genomes.html?http://www.ebi.ac.uk/2can/genomes/archaea/Nanoarchaeum_equitans.html)
It has also been discovered that Nanoarchaeum equitans lives in co-culture with the microbe Ignicoccus, it is parasitic and entirely dependent on its host for survival.

Dr Adequate

25th January 2007, 09:58 AM

I do not take credit for this math. This is the mathematics of devout evolutionarian Dr Tom Schneider at the National Cancer Institute. He is the author of the peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection. Your very own moderator on this forum, Paul Anagnostopoulos, wrote the online java version of this computer simulation. Paul used to call this computer simulation realistic until close scrutiny revealed it produces data that shows the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible by random point mutations and natural selection.

So, I take no credit for the formulation of this evolutionarian mathematical model. I only plugged in realistic values in the model and out popped the results. I do like co-opting evolutionarian ideas though, the problem is there are so few worth co-opting. Why don't you just have the word "liar" tattooed on your forehead and have done with it?

It would save a lot of time.

So you have proved that you can plug “de novo” and “RNA” into google. Too bad that none of these links have anything to do with the de novo evolution of a gene. .

Hello? These are examples of entire replicating environmentally adapted genomes being produced de novo.

kleinman

25th January 2007, 10:06 AM

I do not take credit for this math. This is the mathematics of devout evolutionarian Dr Tom Schneider at the National Cancer Institute. He is the author of the peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection. Your very own moderator on this forum, Paul Anagnostopoulos, wrote the online java version of this computer simulation. Paul used to call this computer simulation realistic until close scrutiny revealed it produces data that shows the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible by random point mutations and natural selection.

So, I take no credit for the formulation of this evolutionarian mathematical model. I only plugged in realistic values in the model and out popped the results. I do like co-opting evolutionarian ideas though, the problem is there are so few worth co-opting.Why don't you just have the word "liar" tattooed on your forehead and have done with it?

It would save a lot of time.
I keep telling you scatequate, I find the truth a much better way to annoy you. Did you read any of those links that you posted? I doubt it. Your post of those URLs was an example of sloppy, lazy evolutionarian analysis.

kleinman

25th January 2007, 11:33 AM

So you have proved that you can plug “de novo” and “RNA” into google. Too bad that none of these links have anything to do with the de novo evolution of a gene.Hello? These are examples of entire replicating environmentally adapted genomes being produced de novo.
All right scatequate. If you are willing to take your nose out of your diaper long enough to analyze one of your links let’s go through the one that you believe best makes your point. Choose the link and point out where it shows the evolution of a gene de novo. Otherwise, stick with posting gifs and jpegs to make your arguments.

articulett

25th January 2007, 11:39 AM

A continuous, repetitive signal e.g. sine wave, square wave (...010101...), night/day etc. transmits no information. For most intents and purposes they can be considered infinite energy sources. They are therefore classed as power (energy per unit time) signals.

I suppose clouds and other atmospheric disturbances, along with variations in the earths rotation would randomly modulate the signal, but how you could reasonably tie that into evolution, other than providing the energy for chemical reactions to take place, I have no idea.

Some time ago, while I was searching for sex (and philosophy) on the internet, I read a few sections of Johns work and got the impression his theory is more about social psychology than evolution.

Or are you going for a "grand theory of everything" theory of life?

I have a hard time following it. I think it might be a theory like Dawkins' memes (which Hewitt contends is rubbish--saying that it's not "scientific" and that "memes don't exist"). He has an odd way of wording things so that what he says could sort of be true, but they really just add less clarity, and you can't pin him down, and he avoids questions that attempt to do so while accusing scientists, in general, of being cheaters and unethical, and unqualified to judge evolution because of an "infinite egress"--? I'm pretty sure he's just a creationist--his attacks upon evolution, scientists, and Dawkins without any clarity as to why he thinks these subjects have blatant flaws makes me even more certain along with the inability for anyone to cogently explain his theory. The more I read him, the more confused I am. Certainly, clarity in communication is not his strong point. But because he does know some science, he does impress some people--they presume they can't understand what he's saying because it's "beyond" them. I contend that no-one can really understand what he's saying or how his theories differ from or are better than what we have. I can't even figure out his real problem with evolution except that he thinks cells should be considered the true replicators rather than DNA/RNA for reasons similar to those in Behe's Black Box and that we should think in terms of Data streams and oscillations encoding information rather than genes... or something like that. He clearly states that his theory could be tested, but then seems to say it can't be falsified and that, regardless, no test would make him conclude that evolutionary theory wasn't flawed.--at least I think that's what he said.

He believes that scientists are ignoring his theory because they are overly focused on evolution and abiogenesis and their own confirmation bias--but I think people are ignoring his theory because it doesn't make cogent sense and is hardly a recipe for furthering understanding.

John Hewitt

25th January 2007, 11:52 AM

A further look at your bio, John (http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/author.htm) paints a rather bitter picture of someone with impressive credentials who changed at some point in his life.

I've had experiences with people lying about me at work. It can be quite a bizarre experience. And there are always researchers here and there who fake their work or steal credit for someone else's. But I have a hard time buying it to be as widespread as your paper implies. What makes that field so problematic?

I am not sure how to reply to this. Much of "A Habit of Lies" just reports the facts. I never had any doubt that my work was correct because, in physical and evolutionary respects it made more sense than the alternatives. Nonetheless I don't deny other people the right to a viewpoint, my objection is to ignoring alternatives, not to disagreeing with them. The lie is not disagreeing with my work, it is the act of reporting two theories despite the knowledge that three have been published.

I went into science as somebody who believes in rational scientific method and I was shocked at some of the behaviours I saw, which are just deceit - the instance I describe is not the only instance I have seen. I was shocked also at the refusal of the scientific authorities to address such matters. There is a book called "A Rum Affair" by Karl Sabbagh about John Heslop Harrison (HH), a well known Professor in the mid 20th century at, I think, at Newcastle University. He was a powerful and well connected scientist and he was a liar. The greater part of his scientific output consisted of fabricated observations and fabricated interpretations. Not only that, but his behaviour was known to the scientific hierarchy during his later career. A private report was commissioned, from a Cambridge don, Simon Raven. It documented the evidence against HH. The report was then lodged in Trinity College library and no action was taken.

Behaviour like this, both the frauds and the cover up are much more common than you are acknowledging and it is continuing today. In the case of "A Habit of Lies," I can show that scientists in Cambridge and elsewhere have falsely reported their field, I can show that their departments and institutes know about these fabrications and refuse to act. I can show the same of journals - notably "Nature" and "Science" - basically, just the same behaviour as 40 years before.

Let me be clear - fraud is a crime and scientific fraud is not a victimless crime. I find it bizarre that you, and others like you, choose to comment on the anger of the victim of fraud but do not comment on the fraud. Victims of are entitled to express their anger at such behaviour and I make no apology for writing "A Habit of Lies," in part as an expression of my own, righteous anger. However, "A Habit of Lies" is more than just anger. It is in the interests of the entire scientific community, the entire community, that scientific frauds should be corrected. "A Habit of Lies" remains the only correction of the frauds to which I refer.

My subsequent work arose from "A Habit of Lies," particularly from Popper's evolutionary approach to scientific method. I think it is an interesting piece of work; indeed, I think bioepistemic evolution and its applications have proven to the most interesting pieces of scientific work I have ever done. However I do not intend to forget its roots. I am not willing, in my presentation of it, to wipe the slate clean and posture as if everything in science is rosy.

Now, as when I worked in science, there is far too much institutionally validated deception calling itself science. There is far too much shallow rubbish masquerading as deep thought, imposed from above and immunized from any criticism. I, at least as much as anyone else, have both the right and the expertise needed to point those things out.

cyborg

25th January 2007, 12:00 PM

Kleinman are you ever going to educate me as to how your theory of Jesus selection works or what? Inquiring minds need to know. When can we catch Jesus in the act of creating a new gene?

articulett

25th January 2007, 12:03 PM

For the "love of god", Kleinman, you quoted articullet repeatedly...I am articulett (one 1 L; 2 ts)--but those are not my quotes; I think they are skeptic girl's.

At least rant at the right person. I've stopped talking to you. Skeptic girl may be your only audience member at this point, so at least get the person you are addressing correct. You are tiresome, and there a few left who are willing to entertain your clap trap, deception, hubris, creationist mumbo-jumbo, and mathematical formulae for disproving that which hardly needs mathematical forumulae to substantiate in the first place--because we can SEE what you are trying to prove cannot be. All your formula do is make evolution unlikely in your own head so you can insert your "intelligent designer". Go back to your hole.

I'm through being your advocate. Like Dr. Adequate, I am now convinced you are a purposeful liar...not a poor, deceived believer lied to by his preacher man. I guess your intelligent designer likes them arrogant, deceitful, and ignorant. Creationist thinking evolves much slower than average.

Dr Adequate

25th January 2007, 12:08 PM

Dr Adequate

25th January 2007, 12:14 PM

I find the truth drooling out halfwitted lies a much better way to annoy you humiliate myself in public. Fixed that for ya.

The Atheist

25th January 2007, 12:43 PM

3. Why would a scientist be posting at a known creationists site to complain about scientists exhibiting "groupthink"?See, here you go again. Firing off rounds, even though your gun is only half-cocked.

John didn't post that! I explained that the post was made by an Australian.

Thanks, however, for proving beyond any shadow of doubt that you read half of something, decide "creationist" and jump on in.

Good work.

kleinman

25th January 2007, 01:06 PM

All right scatequate. If you are willing to take your nose out of your diaper long enough to analyze one of your links let’s go through the one that you believe best makes your point. Choose the link and point out where it shows the evolution of a gene de novo. Otherwise, stick with posting gifs and jpegs to make your arguments.Hello? Earth to stupid guy, can you hear me?
You don’t have the math to argue with, you don’t have the science to argue with and you don’t have the data to argue with. Speculationitis, denialophilia, hyperextraplopia, and amathematica sciencea, scatequate, you fit the diagnostic criteria.
Hello? These are examples of entire replicating environmentally adapted genomes being produced de novo.Which part of that did you not understand?

Hello?
I always understand you whining. You either want your bottle or have your diaper changed.
I find the truth drooling out halfwitted lies a much better way to annoy you humiliate myself in public.Fixed that for ya.
I can tell when I have hit the target, the whining level goes up a few decibels.

Paul, you should have warned me how wise the evolutionarians are on the James Randi Educational Forum before you invited me to discuss ev here.

You still don’t have a selective mechanism to evolve a gene de novo. You don’t have an explanation for what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated and Dr Schneider’s and Paul’s computer model refutes your own theory. So you evolutionarians do what you are good at, speculate, deny, extrapolate and ignore mathematics for your theory, it only shows the impossibility.

kjkent1

25th January 2007, 01:30 PM

Dr Adequate

25th January 2007, 01:44 PM

You don’t have the math to argue with, you don’t have the science to argue with and you don’t have the data to argue with. Speculationitis, denialophilia, hyperextraplopia, and amathematica sciencea, scatequate, you fit the diagnostic criteria.

I always understand you whining. You either want your bottle or have your diaper changed.

I can tell when I have hit the target, the whining level goes up a few decibels.

Paul, you should have warned me how wise the evolutionarians are on the James Randi Educational Forum before you invited me to discuss ev here.

You still don’t have a selective mechanism to evolve a gene de novo. You don’t have an explanation for what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated and Dr Schneider’s and Paul’s computer model refutes your own theory. So you evolutionarians do what you are good at, speculate, deny, extrapolate and ignore mathematics for your theory, it only shows the impossibility. The parts of that which meant anything were lies. Most of it just appears to be lunatic ranting, though.

Dr Adequate

25th January 2007, 01:49 PM

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

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

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

That took me all of two minutes, but of course for someone with kleinman's mental problems it would take a little longer.

kleinman

25th January 2007, 02:05 PM

You think I would speculate about the length of genomes in living creatures, how could I be so unscientific? You are dreaming if you think that Unnamed’s selection mechanism has any relationship with reality, of course that makes it perfect for your theory of evolution.You keep referring to me as being an adherent to the modern theory of evolution. I don't actually subscribe to that theory, so please don't include me in that group.

My theory is: that no matter how improbable any particular event may be, that if the event is at all possible, then given enough time, the event will absolutely occur -- if not in this universe, then in some other.
The crucial part of your statement is “given enough time”. Without a selection process to accelerate the random mutation process you don’t have enough time. Even with Dr Schneider’s contrived selection process, it reveals how slow random point mutations and natural selection is for accumulating information. The evolutionarians on this site are slow to understand this principle but I am patient. This does not represent a minor gap in the theory of evolution, this goes to the core of the theory. Notice how the evolutionarians that inhabit this site are not willing to address this issue. I read all the links that scatequate posted and not one addresses the issue of a selection process for evolving a gene de novo.
Thus, we are all here to argue about our evolution, because no matter how unlikely it might seem in retrospect, it is nevertheless possible, therefore it absolutely occured -- and our existence is proof.

Nutty, huh?
Not necessarily nutty but it doesn’t qualify as a scientific proof. I can just as easily say that our existence is proof of creationism but I don’t because I don’t believe this qualifies as a scientific proof. Instead, I have examined the mathematics that have been developed to support the theory of evolution and it reveals the books don’t balance. In addition, mathematics constrains the debate from too much speculation and hand waving. Without mathematics, the theory of evolution has become a collection of speculations and contorted interpretations and extrapolations of observations. What is nutty is calling the theory of evolution science.

Scatequate seems to have mastered the selection process for evolving a new gene de novo but doesn’t want to tell Paul or Dr Schneider how to mathematically model this process and correct ev’s deficiency. I guess his PhD in scatematics is failing him.

Dr Adequate

25th January 2007, 02:19 PM

kleinman

25th January 2007, 02:30 PM

Scatequate seems to have mastered the selection process for evolving a new gene de novo but doesn’t want to tell Paul or Dr Schneider how to mathematically model this process and correct ev’s deficiency. I guess his PhD in scatematics is failing him.Reciting halfwitted lies does not make them true. It does, however, make you look like a pitiful, snivelling halfwit trapped in your own fantasy world.

How's that working out for you?
Oh! You mean to say you haven’t mastered the selection process for evolving a gene de novo? Thank you for correcting my error. Somebody check scatequate’s diaper, I think it is time for it to be changed.

kjkent1

25th January 2007, 05:22 PM

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th January 2007, 05:46 PM

Nothing was said about "my" thought ... or "your" thought, either. But *I* think *you* knew that.
But "my thought" is implied, because you can't be certain about anyone else's thoughts at all. That's why you used to say "*I* think." Now you could admit that you acknowledge something exists that is over and above your thoughts, but you don't know that that thing is thought, because you don't experience it.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th January 2007, 06:01 PM

Perhaps when Kleinman says "evolve a gene de novo," he really means "evolve a gene ex nihilo." Is he talking about the evolution of the very first gene? Maybe that's why he keeps mentioning gyrase and helicase.

It's an appeal to ignorance, Alan. By the way, DNA helicase IV can unwind both DNA and RNA.

If you study Dr Schneider’s ev model, you will see that random point mutations and natural selection is profoundly slow, too slow to account for the evolution of anything on a realistic size genome with a realistic mutation rate. This occurs even with Dr Schneider’s unrealistic selection process.
Alan, give it up, man. You're saying "I'm using Ev to prove that TPMNS is too slow, even though Ev doesn't use a realistic selection process." It just sounds plain dumb.

~~ Paul

hammegk

25th January 2007, 06:02 PM

But "my thought" is implied, because you can't be certain about anyone else's thoughts at all. That's why you used to say "*I* think." Now you could admit that you acknowledge something exists that is over and above your thoughts, but you don't know that that thing is thought, because you don't experience it.
Sorry. Those statements don't compute, or dare I say ... are ill-behaved.;)

Guess again. :)

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th January 2007, 06:15 PM

Sorry. Those statements don't compute, or dare I say ... are ill-behaved.
Something is maintaining the consistency of the external world, and it's not your conscious thoughts. You don't know what it is. So when you say "[my] thought exists" you are, at best, saying "thought, at least, exists." But that statement is so unprofound that it's hardly worth saying.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th January 2007, 06:26 PM

Something is maintaining the consistency of the external world, and it's not your conscious thoughts. You don't know what it is. So when you say "[my] thought exists" you are, at best, saying "thought, at least, exists." But that statement is so unprofound that it's hardly worth saying.
But perhaps you mean to say "thought is the only thing I'm sure exists." That's somewhat more profound, but still not all that exciting, since you know that there is something else you can't explain.

~~ Paul

articulett

25th January 2007, 06:33 PM

See, here you go again. Firing off rounds, even though your gun is only half-cocked.

John didn't post that! I explained that the post was made by an Australian.

Thanks, however, for proving beyond any shadow of doubt that you read half of something, decide "creationist" and jump on in.

Good work.

Sorry dear--it sure does sound like him...all about the scientific conspiracy--John A. Hewitt--same assertions without any support; man, you are one gullible dude.

And it's true, I've stopped reading you, and apparently most other people have as well--it seems like you are the one firing rounds with your gun half cocked.

articulett

25th January 2007, 06:47 PM

Not enough time? Why, that's jess' plain silly, Alan. There's more than enough time, because under my definition, where everything that can happen, must happen in one universe or another, the mere probability, however unlikely, that 3 billion base pairs can come together at random to produce the entire human genome, means that the event, will absolutely happen in some universe somewhere.

And, if we're here talkin' about it, then we just happen to inhabit that happy little universe (or, one of those happy universes).

This sort of thinking, bothered Einstein. But, it didn't bother Heisenberg, and it doesn't bother Leonard Susskind -- nor me (not that I'm including myself in that category of elite theoretical physicists).

No, you can't say that just as easily, because if God/Jesus is limitless, then he is unmeasurable by any scientific process, and therefore impossible. And, if God is impossible, then no matter how much time, probability or universes are available, God ain't gonna happen -- under my theory, that is.

Humans, however, are an absolutel certainty.

And evolution isn't just random--mutations have a randomness component, but fitness is selected--the opposite of random and built upon. Kleinman is trying to get us to plug in his formula to prove that the earth is flat, even though the rest of the world has been living in a spherical world just fine.

Quacks want you to disprove their "disproof of evolution". Actual scientists present facts in support of their theories which are open to falsification. Since there are no facts to support "goddidit", creationists turn gaps in knowledge (often long since filled) into "evolution can't be true", and then promptly insert their nonsense, non-testable, non-theory and tell everyone the scientists can't answer their (insert babble)-- they insinuate this is because scientists are cheating liars who haven't got a clue. Meanwhile, scientists are busy decoding genomes and filling in the details of one of the most profoundly supported theories of all time and learning the facts about how life evolved on this planet.

Alan is fun to toy with, but temper all expectations. Creationist thinking seldom evolves. When you teach people that faith is a good way to know something, you end up with some pretty ignorant individuals who are arrogant beyond belief while crying that everyone is abusing them. Kleinman cannot compute.

The Atheist

25th January 2007, 10:34 PM

Sorry dear--it sure does sound like him...all about the scientific conspiracy--John A. Hewitt--same assertions without any support; man, you are one gullible dude.
Rather be gullible than plain stupid.

If you'd even read it before you jumped to the wrong conclusion - just for a change - you would have seen that the comment was posted by an Aussie after he had cut and pasted from John's site.

Who's posting assertions without facts? Let's play "spot the teacher"!

John Hewitt

26th January 2007, 12:25 AM

Sorry dear--it sure does sound like him...all about the scientific conspiracy--John A. Hewitt--same assertions without any support; man, you are one gullible dude.

And it's true, I've stopped reading you, and apparently most other people have as well--it seems like you are the one firing rounds with your gun half cocked.
No, Atheist is quite right, I didn't put that post to the Dembski blog but that would only have been through lack of time or initiative or whatever on my part. I would have had no objection to doing so in principle. As I have said before, the ID critigue of evolutionary theory seems to me much more valid than the scientific community is willing to acknowledge. I do think evolutionary theory would be improved if their arguments were more sensibly addressed.
Incidentally, I do not accept that I make unsupported assertions - my web sites document my assertions in some detail. You, on the other hand, document nothing, preferring to gush endless and repeated ad hominems that address nothing sensibly.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 01:56 AM

I agree that smoke screens are the best defense of your position available to you.So that's why you post so much nonsense. You are hiding.

You couldn't name one thing I have posted in this thread that you can show with supporting evidence is wrong let alone indefensible. In fact, I don't recall a single post of yours that has ever had a logical argument or a citation.

Your posts remind me of lint. It shows up on things but has no relevance other than it can be annoying if it becomes too frequent.

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 04:02 AM

Well this thread has certainly deteriorated again. But some of the quips are quite clever.

Klienman do you even know what a gene is? Humor me here.

There are ~3 Billion base pairs (http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/VL/GG/basePair1.html), (nucleotides (http://www.genome.gov/glossary.cfm?key=nucleotide)) in the human genome.

Base pairs have been discovered to be in codons (http://www.genome.gov/glossary.cfm?key=codon) which constitute "Three bases in a DNA or RNA sequence which specify a single amino acid". Genes are then divided into exons (http://www.genome.gov/glossary.cfm?key=exon) which contain the expressive codons and introns (http://www.genome.gov/glossary.cfm?key=intron) which have an unknown function. Though the introns don't have an identified function, it is believed they do something because they are conserved from generation to generation. If they had no function, you might expect to see lots of random variation. Something is selecting for consistent patterns.

And the genes are contained in chromosomes (http://www.genome.gov/glossary.cfm?key=chromosome) of which humans have 23 pairs.

This site (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/genenumber.shtml) says, "researchers have confirmed the existence of 19,599 protein-coding genes in the human genome and identified another 2,188 DNA segments that are predicted to be protein-coding genes."

So, with 25,000 genes divided on to 46 chromosomes, just what is it you think happens as an organism evolves? Do you think a whole gene must form and be added on? Genes are merely sequences of DNA. There are triggers which signal the end and beginning of a segment of DNA that will constitute a gene. But a single mutation which involves adding or losing base pairs can change codons in a cascade effect. The results however, turn out to be very robust, meaning there is a lot of give in the system. If you take the time to look at the work that refutes Behe's irreducible complexity hypothesis, you'd see that the precursor was some completely different function.

It really isn't miraculous that DNA and RNA strands can pick up new base pairs. Everything isn't merely one for one mutation exchanges.

I'm pretty sure genetic scientists understand exactly how a new gene arises, or if not exactly, they have a pretty good idea. You seem to prefer avoiding educating yourself in the scientific advances in this field. What are you afraid of? Will it really shake the foundations of your faith to find out Genesis is a myth? Aren't you curious to see if the one concept you are clinging to stands up to scrutiny?

Ivor the Engineer

26th January 2007, 04:05 AM

The sun's signal 0,1,0,1 etc. is a data signal, not an information signal (whatever you might interpret that to be). The sun transmits very little data. If a signal transmits little energy its is a weak, low powered, data signal and if it transmits a lot of energy, then it is a strong, high powered data signal.
The sun delivers a very high powered data signal. The spin of the earth will generate a very regular modulation, stable enough to have evolutionary effects. Atmospheric effects will be somewhat randomizing but I see no reason why that should nullify my argument.

There are aspects of my work that touch on social psychology but that is because my work is a more general theory of evolution than is usually discussed. As a theory, bioepistemic evolution is a superset of genetics and I am basically looking for phenomena that do not fit into the genetic framework and therefore link to other ranks of evolution besides genetics. I chased prebiotic evolution specifically because it could not fit into the genetic mould. The prebiotic evolution work has been on my site for only a few months, so you may not have seen it when you last visited.

I do not understand your last question. For what must be the tenth time of saying, I am going for a theory of evolution based on data, not genes.

The reason I came up with the quote “Grand theory of everything” theory of evolution is because of the generality of it. Most scientists focus on narrow (today extremely narrow) aspects included in it, such as social psychology or genetics. What are you hoping for? A new area of study to be created based on your theory?

Excuse me if I'm being thick, but don't genes contain the data your theory is based on? So once genes turned up (however that may have occurred), they became the fundamental units of data that can practically be used to understand evolution.

So your theory, as far as I understand, would only have use before genes came to exist or if you could find a life form that reproduces without genes.

As for people lying in science, don't worry. If they've lied and are wrong, it will eventually be corrected. If they've lied and are correct, they'll get a Nobel prize.

Dr Adequate

26th January 2007, 04:53 AM

Oh! You mean to say you haven’t mastered the selection process for evolving a gene de novo? Thank you for correcting my error. Somebody check scatequate’s diaper, I think it is time for it to be changed. So, did you not read the links, or did you not understand them?

cyborg

26th January 2007, 05:48 AM

Is that what you are having trouble understanding, my use of the term “de novo”?

Yes clearly. Because Latin is so hard.

The is/are no selection process(es) that would evolve any gene from the beginning.

Irrelevant. I am assuming your Jesus based selection mechanism.

Now state the mathematics of Jesus.

Nothing that would select the sequence of bases for the genes that code for hemoglobin or insulin or for the numerous genes that code for the enzymes in the Krebs cycle or the proteins needed in the DNA replicase system or the proteins in the coagulation cascade or the tens of thousands of other proteins that are required by living things.

Qualitative argument again. I could care less.

Somehow, evolutionarians have convinced themselves by repeating the slogan “mutation and natural selection” that these genes and their resultant polypeptides could evolve. Unless there is some selective advantage in the assembly of these genes, you are dependent solely on random process to generate these genes and their resultant proteins.

Qualitative argument again. I could care less.

There is no mathematics of evolving a gene de novo because there is no selection process to evolve genes from the beginning.

Provide proof by contradiction then.

I'll even explain how this works:

1) Assume there is a mathematics of evolving a gene de novo - don't worry, Jesus won't hate you for doing this; so you can suspend your loathing hate for a few seconds at least I assume
2) Show that it cannot be constructed in a logically consistent way

I was invited by this scientist to study his model and I did what I have been trained to do with computer simulations.

And I have invited myself to provide you with the actual possibility of showing mathematical impossibility. You clearly wouldn't have a clue where to start - I think 4^G is just about the limit of your cognition here.

The mathematics is there for anyone who wants to look for it. After all, you found my error about the effect of population on the probabilities of a mutation occurring at a particular locus.

No I didn't. I was just being an annoying evolutionist.

So study these threads and learn why your theory has at least two fatal mathematical flaws which makes your theory impossible.

It's not my theory.

Now when are you going to explain Jesus based selection?

I agree that mathematics is precise, this is why I don’t allow this discussion to diverge too far from the mathematics.

Haha. Very funny.

Most people can understand balancing a checkbook.

Some people can even understand that evolution isn't economics.

Argument by analogy is the refuge of the creationist.

Kotatsu

26th January 2007, 06:16 AM

For the same reason I consider great danes and chihuahuas to be dogs, and all corn plants corn.

And all Brassica are still Brassica...?

John Hewitt

26th January 2007, 06:16 AM

The reason I came up with the quote “Grand theory of everything” theory of evolution is because of the generality of it. Most scientists focus on narrow (today extremely narrow) aspects included in it, such as social psychology or genetics. What are you hoping for? A new area of study to be created based on your theory?

Excuse me if I'm being thick, but don't genes contain the data your theory is based on? So once genes turned up (however that may have occurred), they became the fundamental units of data that can practically be used to understand evolution.

So your theory, as far as I understand, would only have use before genes came to exist or if you could find a life form that reproduces without genes.

As for people lying in science, don't worry. If they've lied and are wrong, it will eventually be corrected. If they've lied and are correct, they'll get a Nobel prize.
I do not claim my work as a grand theory of everything. However, and as a general principle, scientific theories should be expressed in their most general available form. Fisher notwithstanding, genetics is not and cannot be the most general expression of evolution as a theory. Even in Darwin's time people talked about social evolution which does not depend upon genetic change.
That being so, the question arises as to what "thing" is necessarily present in all forms of evolution. I argue that that "thing" is data. Data is about pattern or arrangement and I do not see how evolution could ever apply without data. Evolution is about how data can be selectively changed and about the processes that bring about those selective changes. Data is present in social evolution, in knowledge (linked to evolutionary epistemology), in immune responses (linked to the Darwinian machine of clonal selection), in sensory processing (where data from the senses are processed by the Darwinian machine that is the brain), and in genetic (more correctly evolutionary) algorithms, which you, as an engineer, may have come across.
So, when I look at genetic evolution, I note that genetics has problems describing even biology. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think Fisher's analysis is capable of telling anyone why genes are arranged in the order they are, or why they are located on one chormosome rather than another. My point is that genetics, as described in terms of Fishers atoms of evolution does not contain that kind of "gene arrangement" data. Even so, such data does have biological consequences. Sensory data, social data and ethically selected data (professional knowledge if you like) are simply not in genetics at all.

So, I set out to describe evolution in terms of data. Bioepistemic evolution, which is a multilevel system of evolution, is the result and it takes each cycle of evolution as beginning with data. In my analysis of prebiotic evolution, I simply took the the most powerful data source on the prebiotic earth - the sun - and endeavoured to analyse its consequences in terms of organic chemistry, using bioepistemic evolution as a guide.

Finally, I take exception to your comments about scientific lying. As I said to skeptigirl earlier "fraud is a crime and scientific fraud is not a victimless crime;" implying otherwise merely adds insult to injury. The victims of crime are entitled to express their anger and I make no apology expressing my own, justified anger. I suggest that there is more to responding to scientific fraud than patronizing the victims by telling them that one day science will get it right.

kleinman

26th January 2007, 07:47 AM

The crucial part of your statement is “given enough time”. Without a selection process to accelerate the random mutation process you don’t have enough time. Even with Dr Schneider’s contrived selection process, it reveals how slow random point mutations and natural selection is for accumulating information. The evolutionarians on this site are slow to understand this principle but I am patient. This does not represent a minor gap in the theory of evolution, this goes to the core of the theory. Notice how the evolutionarians that inhabit this site are not willing to address this issue. I read all the links that scatequate posted and not one addresses the issue of a selection process for evolving a gene de novo.Not enough time? Why, that's jess' plain silly, Alan. There's more than enough time, because under my definition, where everything that can happen, must happen in one universe or another, the mere probability, however unlikely, that 3 billion base pairs can come together at random to produce the entire human genome, means that the event, will absolutely happen in some universe somewhere.
It just isn’t happening in the universe that we live in.
I can just as easily say that our existence is proof of creationism but I don’t because I don’t believe this qualifies as a scientific proof.No, you can't say that just as easily, because if God/Jesus is limitless, then he is unmeasurable by any scientific process, and therefore impossible. And, if God is impossible, then no matter how much time, probability or universes are available, God ain't gonna happen -- under my theory, that is.
We may not be able to put God in the laboratory but we can put God’s creation in the laboratory.
Perhaps when Kleinman says "evolve a gene de novo," he really means "evolve a gene ex nihilo." Is he talking about the evolution of the very first gene? Maybe that's why he keeps mentioning gyrase and helicase.

It's an appeal to ignorance, Alan. By the way, DNA helicase IV can unwind both DNA and RNA.
I am not saying evolve a gene from nothing by mutation and natural selection, I am saying evolving a gene from the beginning by mutation and natural selection and there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning by mutation and natural selection.

Ok, what were the components of the RNA replicase system doing before RNA could be replicated?
If you study Dr Schneider’s ev model, you will see that random point mutations and natural selection is profoundly slow, too slow to account for the evolution of anything on a realistic size genome with a realistic mutation rate. This occurs even with Dr Schneider’s unrealistic selection process.Alan, give it up, man. You're saying "I'm using Ev to prove that TPMNS is too slow, even though Ev doesn't use a realistic selection process." It just sounds plain dumb.
How about if I phrase it like this? If you study Dr Schneider’s ev model, you will see that random point mutations and natural selection is profoundly slow, too slow to account for the evolution of anything on a realistic size genome with a realistic mutation rate. This occurs despite Dr Schneider’s unrealistic selection process.
Klienman do you even know what a gene is? Humor me here.
You have blue, faded and if your old enough, you will remember bell bottoms.
Oh! You mean to say you haven’t mastered the selection process for evolving a gene de novo? Thank you for correcting my error. Somebody check scatequate’s diaper, I think it is time for it to be changed.So, did you not read the links, or did you not understand them?
I read every one of your links and none of them had anything to do with the evolution of a gene de novo by mutation and natural selection.

You all have a good weekend.

RecoveringYuppy

26th January 2007, 08:13 AM

John Hewitt

26th January 2007, 08:45 AM

Kleinman has remarked I am not saying evolve a gene from nothing by mutation and natural selection, I am saying evolving a gene from the beginning by mutation and natural selection and there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning by mutation and natural selection.
Ok, what were the components of the RNA replicase system doing before RNA could be replicated?Don't know. Can you prove that they components, or similar, have no other uses?

P.S. Given your track record, I'm not ruling out that someone already knows of alternative uses.
In answer I suggest that this is a question about prebiotic evolution. There are suggestions about how genes or other data carrying molecules emerged. You might look up words like "ribozymes," "the RNA world," "Cairns Smith" and they often involve catalysis on clay surfaces etc. However, I cannot grace those suggestions by applying words such as "theory" or "hypothesis" to them. Neither, for that matter, can I honestly try to defend them.

RecoveringYuppy

26th January 2007, 09:00 AM

Could be, but my points to Kleinman would be these: Not knowing now is not the same not ever knowing; and nothing I'm familiar with in current evolutionary theory depends on knowing how the RNA replicase system evolved. Not knowing where the RNA replicase system came from is no more a problem for evolutionary theory than not knowing where electrons came from is a problem for Ohm's law. If we were to find out today that the RNA replicase system was invented by God we'd have to change nothing in the theory of evolution.

I've looked up those keywords before and have at least one Cairns Smith book. Thanks.

kjkent1

26th January 2007, 09:00 AM

It just isn’t happening in the universe that we live in.Au contraire. We are here in this universe, therefore it absolutely happened.

We may not be able to put God in the laboratory but we can put God’s creation in the laboratory.Doesn't matter. You can never scientifically prove any act of God, without limiting his almighty power and thereby rendering God, not almighty.

However, as I've shown, we can scientifically exclude God from any possible probability of existence, and simultaneously prove the evolution of human life. The only required assumption is an acceptance of the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics.

We are here, and God is not. Therefore, no matter how improbable our existence may seem, we must have been produced by some natural process -- otherwise, we wouldn't be here.

Of course, this doesn't rule out the possibility that DNA is a "designer" molecule created by some superintelligent alien. But, that answer always begs the question of who designed the designer. So, at some point, we are back to an intelligence formed via a natural process.

Assuming you accept modern quantum mechanics, the conclusion is unavoidable, and mathematically certain.

We evolved.

The Atheist

26th January 2007, 11:27 AM

Now state the mathematics of Jesus.

12 disciples - 1 traitor + 3 nails^cross = corpse.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

26th January 2007, 06:45 PM

I am not saying evolve a gene from nothing by mutation and natural selection, I am saying evolving a gene from the beginning by mutation and natural selection and there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning by mutation and natural selection.
Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Are you claiming there is no path by which genes as we know them could evolve ex nihilo?

Ok, what were the components of the RNA replicase system doing before RNA could be replicated?
Other things. Or similar things. Simpler related things.

http://arep.med.harvard.edu/biophysics/faculty/Szostak96.html

How about if I phrase it like this? If you study Dr Schneider’s ev model, you will see that random point mutations and natural selection is profoundly slow, too slow to account for the evolution of anything on a realistic size genome with a realistic mutation rate. This occurs despite Dr Schneider’s unrealistic selection process.
Sorry, sounds the same to me: I'm using Ev to prove that TPMNS is too slow, even though Ev doesn't use a realistic selection process.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

26th January 2007, 06:47 PM

If we were to find out today that the RNA replicase system was invented by God we'd have to change nothing in the theory of evolution.
Well, we could stop researching the origin of the RNA replicase system. Consider how much work god could save us!

~~ Paul

Skeptic Ginger

26th January 2007, 09:26 PM

....I read every one of your links and none of them had anything to do with the evolution of a gene de novo by mutation and natural selection....Just as I thought, you don't know what a gene is.

How is it you chose to latch on to this single point mutation as if there were no other mechanisms of evolving DNA?

How do you know whether a new gene can arise in an organism when you don't know what the molecular structure of a gene is?

Are you happy ignoring 3 decades of science? I am too curious, myself.

Yahzi

26th January 2007, 11:08 PM

Yahzi, look I am going to be completely clear in my reply to you here.
Oh joy!

One does wonder why you couldn't start out that way. I'm not sure what to make of a scientist who doesn't like answering questions as straightforwardly as possible the first time around.

I do not have the faintest idea what "metaphysical naturalism" is.
Do you even read our posts? Surely by now you should have a clue.

Materialism, naturalism, whatever you want to call it: the basic idea was expressed by me several times, and no doubt many others. To wit, the notion that the material world - matter and energy - is sufficient to explain all of human experience.

What is more, and I say this as somebody who has read quite a few philosophy books, the branch of philosophy that interests me is epistemology, particularly scientific philosophy.
I find it difficult to believe that one could be well-versed in epistemology without having encountered the notion of metaphysical naturalism. Plato's Theory of Forms, one of the earliest (if not the earliest) attempts at epistemology, touches upon the issue quite directly.

I have little interest in the verbiage that comes labelled as metaphysics or ontology. So when I say "dunno" I really do mean "dunno" and you can add the implied "don't care" as well.
This sounds nice; but given the context - we are in the midst of a long discussion with a god-breathing creationiod - a certain amount of dealing with the issue does not seem to constitute an undue burden.

I don't know whether "my peers" have examined it or not and, in those circumstances, I can hardly know whether or not they have rejected it.
You have not published in a peer-reviewed journal? Your have not have submitted your work to the internet sazmidat? You haven't applied for funding?

I may add to that, that I am interested in the opinions of only those peers who choose to attach a coherent argument to their opinions.
Given the difficulty of extracting simple, straightforward answers from you - or sparking your interest in questions that are relevant to others - this would seem to be asking a lot.

Nonetheless, one might find a number of coherent arguments attached to this post, and indeed many of posts. That those arguments happen to disagree with you does not necessarily render them incoherent.

The sun is a data supply because its energy flux turns on and off once a day.
I'll try to ignore the unnerving parellel that sentence has with "Time Cube," and simply address it.

Even if we concede this as a data signal, it hardly seems important. As an example, there are life-forms in volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean which are absolutely insulated from the sun. They can't see it. They don't know it exists. Ditto for caves and other underground biomes.

Secondly, one wonders why simple visual stimulus would matter. Surely the thermal energy from the constant stream of photons outwieghs the optical effect, in both energy level and frequency (do chemicals react over such a long period of time that they can "remember" the state of the sun for so many hours?)

Finally, do you pretend to show how this binary blinking has any significant impact, over the much larger inputs like the immediate local environment? Not all attractors in a neural net are equal, or even signficant: how do you identify this particular signal (particularly given its weakness compared to all the other inputs) as important?

For the details, consider opening http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk
and follow the prebiotic evolution link.
You have not, as yet, described your theory sufficiently in general enough terms to justify the effort of checking the details.

Yahzi

26th January 2007, 11:40 PM

Can you provide links or further detail on John's theory being debunked?
I think I concluded it from his complaint that evolutionary scientists lie, and therefore refused to even consider his theory.

But I confess - I have trouble keeping Klienman and Hewitt straight. Even though I have Klienman on ignore.

I'll ask again, did you notice my name?
Claus Larsen publishes a web zine called "The Skeptic Report," but if you click on the link in my sig line, you'll see his acquaintence with skepticism is only superficial. Thus, I find self-assigned labels to be somewhat unconvincing.

Maybe you could fill me in on how abiogenesis works, please.
I can tell you this much - it doesn't work by magic.

Abiogenesis occurred by exactly the same rules of physics and chemistry as every other process on Earth, before and after. If you consider this position to be a statement of faith, then you're selling a religion.

I got the impression that John took umbrage at being hounded over a question he'd already answered.
If John does not wish to answer questions, perhaps John should not post on a discussion board.

If you're suggesting he had answered clearly a sufficient number of times, and I'm just too stupid or lazy to have noticed, then I submit your argument requires no further rebuttal.

He's shown a lot more patience than I would have been capable of.
Not, perhaps, the sterling recommendation you might think.

On that basis, I don't blame him a bit for leading you up the garden path.
And here it is. Blame the victim. Anyone who dares to question the great leader - no matter how honestly - deserves what they get.

Did you see what you've written there?
Did you see what you've written up there? After busting my ass for calling Hewitt evasive, you've gone and admitted that he was being evasive.

Do you know of any christians who would be offended by admission of christianity? All the christian scientists I've seen are proud to state their christian beliefs, especially because they're in a minority.
Argument from incredulity. It's not convincing.

Of course, it could be refuted by citing a single Christian who choses to cloak his message in words that his audience will react favorably to. Oh, I don't know, let's start with Paul.

The answers are what matters and he's either lying or not.
I didn't say he was lying, I said he was being evasive.

Do you think it is possible for him to "lead me up the garden path" without being evasive?

Yahzi

26th January 2007, 11:46 PM

As I have said before, the ID critigue of evolutionary theory seems to me much more valid than the scientific community is willing to acknowledge.
And we're discussing Hewitt's creationist leanings... why?

I do think evolutionary theory would be improved if their arguments were more sensibly addressed.
Such as?

Could you suggest a single creationist critique you find compelling, and explain why "Goddidit" is a theoretical challenge to evolution?

Yahzi

26th January 2007, 11:52 PM

For what must be the tenth time of saying, I am going for a theory of evolution based on data, not genes.
Thank you for repeating it. However, I still don't understand it.

Are you asserting that evolution proceeds according to information exterior to genetic encoding?

On the one hand, that would seem to be trivial; of course environment matters.

On the other hand it would seem to be supernatural; cosmic data guiding the path of life.

I can't quite figure out what the third hand would be.

John Hewitt

27th January 2007, 12:27 AM

Materialism, naturalism, whatever you want to call it: the basic idea was expressed by me several times, and no doubt many others. To wit, the notion that the material world - matter and energy - is sufficient to explain all of human experience.

Do you even read our posts? Surely by now you should have a clue. I have read no posts about philosophical naturalism except from you. I have read much of Plato but I agree with Popper about him – he was an authoritarian and an enemy of the open society. In my opinion, materialist naturalism, as expressed by you, is an exercise in dogmatism, a demand that everyone else will begin by accepting your premises.

I do not know all possible human experiences, all possible explanations or whether or not you can explain them all and I do not believe you do either. I see no point trying to reason with someone who believes otherwise.

Kleinman does not demand that I follow his faith – you do. Who is the authoritarian bully? You are free to follow whatever irrational faith you will; you are not free to demand that I follow it.

My epistemology is that of rationalism and of evolutionary epistemology as described by Popper. My work simply uses evolutionary epistemology to generalize evolutionary theory. My work on prebiotic evolution shows that the generalization can apply to the origin of life while still being consistent with chemistry and physics.

Even if we concede this as a data signal, it hardly seems important. As an example, there are life-forms in volcanic vents at the bottom of the ocean which are absolutely insulated from the sun. They can't see it. They don't know it exists. Ditto for caves and other underground biomes.

Secondly, one wonders why simple visual stimulus would matter. Surely the thermal energy from the constant stream of photons outwieghs the optical effect, in both energy level and frequency (do chemicals react over such a long period of time that they can "remember" the state of the sun for so many hours?)

Finally, do you pretend to show how this binary blinking has any significant impact, over the much larger inputs like the immediate local environment? Not all attractors in a neural net are equal, or even signficant: how do you identify this particular signal (particularly given its weakness compared to all the other inputs) as important? Thank you for providing your feedback but you show no evidence of having read my work and your comments seem trite and empty. I do not wish to engage with them.

The Atheist

27th January 2007, 12:41 AM

I think I concluded it from his complaint that evolutionary scientists lie, and therefore refused to even consider his theory.Each to their own.
Claus Larsen publishes a web zine called "The Skeptic Report," but if you click on the link in my sig line, you'll see his acquaintence with skepticism is only superficial. Thus, I find self-assigned labels to be somewhat unconvincing.Well, lucky I don't class myself as either sceptic or "skeptic". Atheist is really easy. A = no. Theos = god. Atheist = No god.
Abiogenesis occurred by exactly the same rules of physics and chemistry as every other process on Earth, before and after. If you consider this position to be a statement of faith, then you're selling a religion.Read what you wrote, here. According to that paragraph, accepting the rules of physics and chemistry is a statement of faith.

Now, I know what you mean (or I think I do). See how easy it is to make ambiguous statements?
If John does not wish to answer questions, perhaps John should not post on a discussion board.

If you're suggesting he had answered clearly a sufficient number of times, and I'm just too stupid or lazy to have noticed, then I submit your argument requires no further rebuttal.See the above ambiguity. Couple that with the fact that it could have been in a different thread and you're nearly there. Nobody reads all the posts (outside of an insane asylum) so it could simply be that you missed it.

Plus, the questions about John's christianity or not had just gone far enough. Have no christian scientists ever made discoveries relevant to evolution?
Not, perhaps, the sterling recommendation you might think.:dl:

Correct. I never said I was patient.
And here it is. Blame the victim. Anyone who dares to question the great leader - no matter how honestly - deserves what they get.Since I have no "leader", I can only assume you're talking about evolutionists blithely following some leader or other.
Did you see what you've written up there? After busting my ass for calling Hewitt evasive, you've gone and admitted that he was being evasive.He was evasive in the face of a concerted attack. It's funny. I asked Gravy a while back why he didn't just admit to either being a Freemason or not in a recent thread. He said that it didn't matter because CTists would think what they like regardless of what he said or didn't say. To a large extent, that's been the case with John - he stated his position and still cops questions. That's when I'd start being silly as well. Hell, I do, all the time.
Argument from incredulity. It's not convincing.Let me fix that for ya:
Argument from incredulity fact. It's not convincing.
Of course, it could be refuted by citing a single Christian who choses to cloak his message in words that his audience will react favorably to. Oh, I don't know, let's start with Paul.
Now, you see here, you really have proved that you don't read before you answer. How would any christian prove that? I said, christian scientists I know are proud to tout their heritage and beliefs.

But don't let that stop you.

Which Paul are you talking about? Paul in this thread? St. Paul?

The Atheist

27th January 2007, 12:55 AM

Popper Glad you mentioned one of New Zealand's most famous exports! We taught him all he knew, down in Canterbury during WWII.

I'm even driven to paraphrase one of his more memorable quotes (originally about christians, but if the cap fits, wear it.)

"This claim with its gentle allusion to those who do not possess "skepticism', this attack upon the potential spiritual unity of mankind, is, in my opinion, as pretentious and anti-skeptic, as it believes itself to be humble and skeptic."

articulett

27th January 2007, 01:52 AM

Well, we could stop researching the origin of the RNA replicase system. Consider how much work god could save us!

~~ Paul

Good point...(you'd have thunk his almighty invisibleness would have mentioned something about it in that book he is said to have authored.)

John Hewitt

27th January 2007, 01:57 AM

Glad you mentioned (Popper) one of New Zealand's most famous exports! We taught him all he knew, down in Canterbury during WWII.

I'm even driven to paraphrase one of his more memorable quotes (originally about christians, but if the cap fits, wear it.)
Yes, its quite true that Popper spent some considerable time in New Zealand and was not John Eccles from there? - another man of considerable intelect much influenced by Popper.

As chance would have it, I believe Popper was in New Zealand when he wrote "The Open Society and its Enemies," which contains a whole volume detailing his fully justified response to Plato's philosophy.

Dr Adequate

27th January 2007, 01:58 AM

It just isn’t happening in the universe that we live in.

We may not be able to put God in the laboratory but we can put God’s creation in the laboratory.

I am not saying evolve a gene from nothing by mutation and natural selection, I am saying evolving a gene from the beginning by mutation and natural selection and there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning by mutation and natural selection.

Ok, what were the components of the RNA replicase system doing before RNA could be replicated?

How about if I phrase it like this? If you study Dr Schneider’s ev model, you will see that random point mutations and natural selection is profoundly slow, too slow to account for the evolution of anything on a realistic size genome with a realistic mutation rate. This occurs despite Dr Schneider’s unrealistic selection process.

You have blue, faded and if your old enough, you will remember bell bottoms.

I read every one of your links and none of them had anything to do with the evolution of a gene de novo by mutation and natural selection.

You all have a good weekend. "You all have a good weekend" is an excellent riposte to the facts you've been shown.

Why don't you send that off to some peer-reviewed scientific journal?

articulett

27th January 2007, 02:37 AM

Right on, Yahzi. Boy, that John does doublespeak. And I'd heard that Atheist was a dick from a few people, but he's also, apparently, an apologist who thinks that people who don't leave room for "magic" in scientific explanation have faith! (In what?!--reality?). Anyhow I think John once again made his leanings clear as can be. And Atheist has got to be one of the dumbest non-theists (if he is one) that I've ever known. I wonder if he's into quantum woo like undercover elephant/justgeoff? According to John Hewitt and Atheist, if one accepts evolution (as does anybody who understand it), then that person is "dogmatic". If you believe in naturalism, then you are preventing the voices of supernaturalism from being heard according to them. And John certainly knows what naturalism is despite his pleading of ignorance and silly obfuscations.

As my sig link shows--the most socially incompetent are the ones most likely to overestimate their competence...

I'm putting Hewitt, Kleinman, and Atheist on my "three stooges list". It's good to know who not to waste time reading.
__________________________________________________ ___

John--no one takes your ideas seriously because you are verbose and unclear and completely uninterested in current understanding and readily dismissive of links such as the one's I've posted--which I think are much more comprehensible then your "data stream" theoretoid of zero comprehensibility.

You've had a number of intelligent people plow through your writings and give you advice and tell you that they really can't figure out what your saying or what your theory is useful for. Attempts at clarification, have been met with petulance and evasiveness. Moreover, you have this notion that the "Intelligent Design" movement has validity--but you haven't said what it is. You've asserted that science isn't letting your voice be heard or theirs (the creationists). And you are deceptive about your theistic leanings...pretending it has nothing to do with your scorn for the facts of evolution and how widely useful and profound the knowledge is becoming. I believe that is "sinning by omission" ...evasiveness ...or in the simpleton world of your simpleton friend who has yet to explain this theory of yours--you are a liar. You advocate obfuscation and stupidity and lies in the favor of actual, useful, profound knowledge.

You don't make sense. You don't answer questions with clarity. You obfuscate, mislead, ignore, or claim ignorance when asked about your beliefs,
and then you tell yourself that people don't respond to your theory because they have "faith in science"--those evil sorts who don't give creationists a voice (heck--you guys can't even understand each other...or explain each other's arguments to us...and we're supposed to wade through yours?!) You want people to read your stuff, but you don't even read their posts carefully, much less their links--you have no curiosity to see how our knowledge has progressed--you dismiss it when forced to look at it. You are pressing people to read your stuff until you can find someone to buy it. Well, you've got your advocate--Atheist...and his name is "Atheist"--that ought to throw them off the scent, eh? Why don't you boys go solidify your theory and clarify it so that it at least can be summed up like the article on the origins of life I linked. Then get some data. Show scientists why it's useful. Get some actual data regarding the problems you have with evolution. You seem like you are just pouting because no one takes your theory seriously.

We can't. No on understands it but you... It's as useless as you claim the concept of memes are.

John Hewitt

27th January 2007, 04:11 AM

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th January 2007, 07:19 AM

My epistemology is that of rationalism and of evolutionary epistemology as described by Popper. My work simply uses evolutionary epistemology to generalize evolutionary theory. My work on prebiotic evolution shows that the generalization can apply to the origin of life while still being consistent with chemistry and physics.
Popper, a rationalist?

http://www.geocities.com/Krishna_kunchith/dcs/popper/

~~ Paul

John Hewitt

27th January 2007, 09:10 AM

Popper, a rationalist?

http://www.geocities.com/Krishna_kunchith/dcs/popper/

~~ Paul
The meaning of this query is unclear.

John Hewitt

27th January 2007, 10:33 AM

Alan, what I'm looking for is not the "known" minimum size genome, but rather the minimum size genome required for a creature to be capable of gaining information via RMNS. This is, admittedly, very difficult theoretical model, but my point is, that without some certain knowledge of the minimum size possible, there's no way to calculate the probability of that creature being produced by random chance, and thereafter evolving into something more complex.

Also, I asked John for his opinion re the following model, that I found on the web. I'll ask you, too. It appears pretty interesting to me. Perhaps you can point out the pros and cons.

http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/h...htm#fp_organic (http://www.cogsci.indiana.edu/farg/h...htm#fp_organic)

The question of the minimum genome size is authoritatively discussed in the links coming off this page.
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/nanomenu.html

The Atheist

27th January 2007, 11:53 AM

Right on, Yahzi. Boy, that John does doublespeak. And I'd heard that Atheist was a dick from a few people, but he's also, apparently, an apologist who thinks that people who don't leave room for "magic" in scientific explanation have faith! (In what?!--reality?). Anyhow I think John once again made his leanings clear as can be. And Atheist has got to be one of the dumbest non-theists (if he is one) that I've ever known. I wonder if he's into quantum woo like undercover elephant/justgeoff? According to John Hewitt and Atheist, if one accepts evolution (as does anybody who understand it), then that person is "dogmatic". If you believe in naturalism, then you are preventing the voices of supernaturalism from being heard according to them. And John certainly knows what naturalism is despite his pleading of ignorance and silly obfuscations.

As my sig link shows--the most socially incompetent are the ones most likely to overestimate their competence...

I'm putting Hewitt, Kleinman, and Atheist on my "three stooges list". It's good to know who not to waste time reading.
__________________________________________________ ___

:dl:

I am lmfao, you're one of the funniest posters on here. I take it you liked the little clippet I included in my post to John, recognised yourself and now you're burning up. I bet you are just the best teacher and that your kids really love you. :dl:

Such outrage.

Just for the sheer hell of it, as I did to Yahzi yesterday, I'm going to dissect your post to show you how feeble you actually are.

And I'd heard that Atheist was a dick from a few people,...I bet you have. It's a little group who have their collective tails well and truly between their legs.
... but he's also, apparently, an apologist who thinks that people who don't leave room for "magic" in scientific explanation have faith! (In what?!--reality?).Now, having established that I'm a "dick" by a fallacious appeal to unnamed authority, you embark on outright lies. Hey, a scientist lying? Nah, only creationists do that.

I have $2,000,000 says that I have no belief in magic. What's your bid, honey?

(N.B. moderators; that isn't an offer to bet, but refers to my backing of EA.)

I'm really pleased you said that, because it is without question, the dumbest attack on me anyone has made in my entire life - let alone on this forum.

:bigclap

Legend!
... And Atheist has got to be one of the dumbest non-theists (if he is one) that I've ever known. I wonder if he's into quantum woo like undercover elephant/justgeoff?Music to my ears. I'm sure I can fit that into my sig. (Easy, double thanks!)

(Oh, and see previous answer)
... According to ... snip... Atheist, if one accepts evolution (as does anybody who understand it), then that person is "dogmatic".Another complete and utter fabrication. Maybe "scientists" do lie. Or maybe, bio. teachers with thwarted ambitions do.
As my sig link shows--the most socially incompetent are the ones most likely to overestimate their competence...I'm even more pleased that you raise that point, especially with the emphasis on socially incompetent.

An old, old saying, [ever so slightly paraphrased] suits your sig to a "T":

"A teacher is a woman among girls and a girl among women"

Now, you can reside in not answering these unanswerable comments, because you're putting me on ignore. How convenient and honest that is. Tell a truckload of lies and then refuse to answer. A few adjectives come to mind:

Immature. Then again, see the above re: teachers.

Dishonest: Undeniably. See above.

Stupid: Even more undeniably. You've established that I'm a "dick", you've established that I'm dumb. What the hell does that make you, having just let me walk all over you and your [il]logic in my hob-nailed boots?

:pythonfoot:

The Atheist

27th January 2007, 11:57 AM

As I have intimated before, you do nothing but ad hominem against anyone who disagrees with you.She's clearly one of those people who have difficulty thinking and tries to cover it by writing screeds of impenetrable rubbish.

She is, without doubt, a True SkepticTM

Thanks christ she now has us on ignore, that'll cut the size of the pages by about 2/3!

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th January 2007, 12:32 PM

The meaning of this query is unclear.
I think the book I linked to is fascinating.

~~ Paul

John Hewitt

27th January 2007, 12:44 PM

I think the book I linked to is fascinating.

~~ Paul
Really? Why?

The Atheist

27th January 2007, 12:52 PM

I think the book I linked to is fascinating.

~~ PaulThanks for that link. I hope to read some of it later - the intro got my attention - if Orwell would've liked it, I imagine I will.

I'll let you know what I think. (Assuming I can understand any of it.)

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th January 2007, 01:00 PM

Really? Why?
Interesting discussion of the irrational nature of four philosophers, including Popper. I found it an interesting read.

~~ Paul

John Hewitt

27th January 2007, 01:00 PM

She's clearly one of those people who have difficulty thinking and tries to cover it by writing screeds of impenetrable rubbish.

She is, without doubt, a True SkepticTM

Thanks christ she now has us on ignore, that'll cut the size of the pages by about 2/3! Yes, accusing you of being deeply religious is a real exercise in standing facts on their heads. I think that Articulett, herself, just doesn't seem very bright but the real tragedy of science is that the manner in which she behaves is representative of a great deal of scientific behaviour.

It isn't by any means everyone, of course, but a significant minority of scientists do behave in much the way that Articulett does - trotting out claims into the teeth of reality, obstinately contradicting even the most trivially valid arguments and making enless personal attacks against those individuals who happen to incur their wrath.

Dr Adequate

27th January 2007, 01:20 PM

Yes, accusing you of being deeply religious is a real exercise in standing facts on their heads. I think that Articulett, herself, just doesn't seem very bright but the real tragedy of science is that the manner in which she behaves is representative of a great deal of scientific behaviour.

It isn't by any means everyone, of course, but a significant minority of scientists do behave in much the way that Articulett does - trotting out claims into the teeth of reality, obstinately contradicting even the most trivially valid arguments and making enless personal attacks against those individuals who happen to incur their wrath.
So, nothing in your post bears any relationship to any proven scientific facts?

Why am I not surprised?

John Hewitt

27th January 2007, 03:02 PM

So, nothing in your post bears any relationship to any proven scientific facts?

Why am I not surprised?
Perhaps if you made your point, rather than just hinting at it, I would know what you are talking about.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th January 2007, 05:15 PM

It isn't by any means everyone, of course, but a significant minority of scientists do behave in much the way that Articulett does - trotting out claims into the teeth of reality, obstinately contradicting even the most trivially valid arguments and making enless personal attacks against those individuals who happen to incur their wrath.
I'd love to see some specific examples of this.

~~ Paul

Skeptic Ginger

27th January 2007, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by cyborg:
Now state the mathematics of Jesus.

12 disciples - 1 traitor + 3 nails^cross = corpse.

12 disciples - 1 traitor + 3 nails^cross = corpse +~1-200 years = new religion based on new myths -> joins existing religions grows exponentially.

Old myth religions remain.
Parallel old myth religions remain in alternate geographic areas.
Parallel new myth religions emerge in alternate geographic areas.

2,000 years later new myth religions continue to emerge (Mormonism and Scientology to name 2).

But in the future world, better skills and tools for observing and interpreting data/evidence lead to all religions being understood for their mythological basis. People find new ways to satisfy whatever needs religion previously satisfied.

But, alas, human nature being what it is, people continue to identify themselves by groups, and continue to wage wars over scarce resources.

Oh well.

;)

Skeptic Ginger

27th January 2007, 08:27 PM

Perhaps if you[, Dr Adequate] made your point, rather than just hinting at it, I would know what you are talking about.

Articulett: "John--no one takes your ideas seriously because you are verbose and unclear..."

I have to agree with Articulett here at least. I have a Master's in Nursing Science. I consider myself literate enough to understand many medical research articles despite their being heavily dosed with terminology I am not familiar with. The same is true reading most cosmology papers. I have a harder time with advanced computer research discussions but there is just so much vocabulary unknown to me in that field. I read research abstracts in many fields on a regular basis because I enjoy learning about everything.

But when I made an effort to read your work, John, on both papers, were I an editor I would be filling the pages with red.

I found the papers so verbose as to be almost impossible to follow. The terminology wasn't difficult. The concepts weren't difficult. But the points you seemed to be making were buried in redundancy.

Don't take my word for it. Take it to an editor and see if my observation is valid.

articulett

27th January 2007, 11:59 PM

Articulett: "John--no one takes your ideas seriously because you are verbose and unclear..."

I have to agree with Articulett here at least. I have a Master's in Nursing Science. I consider myself literate enough to understand many medical research articles despite their being heavily dosed with terminology I am not familiar with. The same is true reading most cosmology papers. I have a harder time with advanced computer research discussions but there is just so much vocabulary unknown to me in that field. I read research abstracts in many fields on a regular basis because I enjoy learning about everything.

But when I made an effort to read your work, John, on both papers, were I an editor I would be filling the pages with red.

I found the papers so verbose as to be almost impossible to follow. The terminology wasn't difficult. The concepts weren't difficult. But the points you seemed to be making were buried in redundancy.

Don't take my word for it. Take it to an editor and see if my observation is valid.

I'm sure he won't do that--he'll just shop it around until someone buys it...telling himself that everyone else is stupid. I posted this link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061109130729.htm
This is about abiogenesis, and it's so much clearer than John. He dismissed it as trivial without explaining why, but my 10th graders could sum it up pretty easily. A good theory or scientific explanation should clarify not confuse people further. Compare the above to his data stream explanation.

He also contends that "memes don't exist"-- a meaningless and obfuscating statement. And yet, to me it's a much better tool than his rival "sex and humor theory" which I also can't fathom (nor has anyone else been able to sum it up)--but it mentions "free will" and an "infinite egress" and "unfair scientists", so that pretty much sealed his creationist leanings to me. Then there was is arguing for Behe and ID.

I wouldn't engage him except for amusement. It's probably like engaging Claus. Remember, the least socially competent, are the most likely to overestimate their competency. When you feel a particular way about a particular poster, chances are, a lot of other people feel similarly. The more socially competent people will wonder if it's something they said--but the incompetent will never wonder if it's them who has the problem. Some people can get pretty far on BS. Check out peoples' prior posts--especially older posts to see if their thinking has evolved and whether they have problematic conversations with others before wondering if it might be you. It can be very telling.

Kleinman's just straight out batty. Hewitt hides his "intelligent design" leanings under a cloak of obfuscation. If you ever run across Von Neumann, he is the same...and don't even try with Hammy. You'll wade through their crap for meaning, and the whole time, they will talk down to you as though you are too stupid to understand them... The fact is, there are a lot of smart people in this world and on this forum and none of them understand what the heck these guys are saying. They are all "intelligent design" proponents with their own personal version of "the wedge"--the funny thing is, none of them really even understands each other. They all secretly think they have the true revolutionary theory that will reveal evolution as a lie. Really. Michael Behe clones.

John Hewitt

28th January 2007, 12:31 AM

(John ... ) when I made an effort to read your work, John, on both papers, were I an editor I would be filling the pages with red.

I found the papers so verbose as to be almost impossible to follow. The terminology wasn't difficult. The concepts weren't difficult. But the points you seemed to be making were buried in redundancy.

If you have specific critiques, I would be very interested in reading them.

John Hewitt

28th January 2007, 12:35 AM

I'd love to see some specific examples of this.

~~ Paul
You should read Broad and Wade "Betrayers of the Truth," Kohn "False Prophets," Sabbagh "A Rum Affair" and Dan Agin is pushing his own book at Science Weekly. You might also join the Scifraud listserver and read through some of the archives.

Skeptic Ginger

28th January 2007, 02:36 AM

If you have specific critiques, I would be very interested in reading them.I started to take a paragraph out of the page the link opened to but found every paragraph the same and decided maybe it was best not to be specific.

However, since you ask, and if you won't take it wrong (I just got done griping about someone else being condescending over a minor correction and I don't want to come across that way mysefl), I will tackle a page or so tomorrow. I'll PM you I guess.

John Hewitt

28th January 2007, 03:09 AM

I started to take a paragraph out of the page the link opened to but found every paragraph the same and decided maybe it was best not to be specific.

However, since you ask, and if you won't take it wrong (I just got done griping about someone else being condescending over a minor correction and I don't want to come across that way mysefl), I will tackle a page or so tomorrow. I'll PM you I guess.
That's great. Any piece of writing can be improved with criticism and, at the end of tha day, I don't have to agree with you.

Dr Adequate

28th January 2007, 05:53 AM

Perhaps if you made your point, rather than just hinting at it, I would know what you are talking about.
Um ... my point was that nothing in your post bears any relationship to any proven scientific facts.

Which is exactly what I said.

This was not a "hint", this was not obscure, and I made my point. My point was that nothing in your post bears any relationship to any proven scientific facts.

Which part of that did you not understand?

Dr Adequate

28th January 2007, 05:58 AM

You should read Broad and Wade "Betrayers of the Truth," ... I've read that. It is a superb exposition of how and why science always triumphs over fraud.

John Hewitt

28th January 2007, 07:20 AM

Um ... my point was that nothing in your post bears any relationship to any proven scientific facts.

Which is exactly what I said.

This was not a "hint", this was not obscure, and I made my point. My point was that nothing in your post bears any relationship to any proven scientific facts.

Which part of that did you not understand?
My post was a commentary about Articulett's rudeness and repetitively ad hominem behaviour. As such it was not a commentary directed to science as such and did not address scientific facts. Would you expect it to?

John Hewitt

28th January 2007, 07:24 AM

I've read that. It is a superb exposition of how and why science always triumphs over fraud.
In your fantasies, perhaps. The reality is that science has repeatedly shown itself wide open to fraud - especially frauds perpetrated by its senior figures.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

28th January 2007, 09:28 AM

In your fantasies, perhaps. The reality is that science has repeatedly shown itself wide open to fraud - especially frauds perpetrated by its senior figures.
Indeed, but Dr. A said that science triumphs over the fraud nonetheless. In the long run, the fraud is exposed because some young turk forgets to play along and does the science instead.

There no magic fraud-free human endeavor. There's just dogged pursuit of better explanations.

~~ Paul

Myriad

28th January 2007, 10:08 AM

kjkent1

28th January 2007, 10:27 AM

Has this thread :jshark ?

Kleinman's claim lived by the computer model, died by the computer model. And I really haven't been able to get too excited or concerned one way or another about John Hewett's theory or beliefs. Creationism and ID are important because they're politically significant in a way that can affect science education. The main reason Behe matters is that his claim can be easily conveyed to, believed by, and repeated by, local school board members: "If something is irreducibly complex it cannot have evolved." Somehow I don't see them getting any comparable political traction with "Data, not genes, is the replicator."

So... anything else to say about annoying creationists?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Kleinman's argument has "devolved" into the bare, unsupported speculation that:

(1) Unnamed's selection method is unrealistic, and
(2) Random mutation is too slow to ever produce a living organism which can benefit from natural selection.

For #1, Kleinman needs to produce some evidence showing what a "realistic" selection method would be, so that it can be programmed.

For #2, there needs to be some consensus as to just how small a living organism could have been at the time that life supposedly developed. Hewitt produced a post from a science conference which suggests that the minimum genome would be about 318kbits.

I don't know if that's good science or just philosophy, but for argument's sake, does anyone care to estimate how long it would take for a genome like that to appear by random chance? I'm sure this would be extreme speculation, but I'm still curious.

The Atheist

28th January 2007, 12:29 PM

Indeed, but Dr. A said that science triumphs over the fraud nonetheless. In the long run, the fraud is exposed because some young turk forgets to play along and does the science instead.

There no magic fraud-free human endeavor. There's just dogged pursuit of better explanations.

~~ PaulAre you forgetting about all those christians?

I doubt that science will ever triumph over religion. I even suspect that some scientific discoveries drive people to religion. For science to have triumphed over religion, there will need to be a time when there are zero christian scientists and god has been proven, beyond reasonable doubt, to originate in the human mind and exactly why and how the big bang happened.

You may one day get parts 2 and 3 of the victory parade, but #1, never.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

28th January 2007, 12:53 PM

I doubt that science will ever triumph over religion. I even suspect that some scientific discoveries drive people to religion. For science to have triumphed over religion, there will need to be a time when there are zero christian scientists and god has been proven, beyond reasonable doubt, to originate in the human mind and exactly why and how the big bang happened.
I don't expect science to triumph over religion. I just expect it to triumph over its own foibles, in the long run.

~~ Paul

The Atheist

28th January 2007, 01:09 PM

I don't expect science to triumph over religion. I just expect it to triumph over its own foibles, in the long run.

~~ Paul

Nope, never.

As long as humans fear death there will be gods.

John Hewitt

28th January 2007, 02:46 PM

For #2, there needs to be some consensus as to just how small a living organism could have been at the time that life supposedly developed. Hewitt produced a post from a science conference which suggests that the minimum genome would be about 318kbits.

I don't know if that's good science or just philosophy, but for argument's sake, does anyone care to estimate how long it would take for a genome like that to appear by random chance? I'm sure this would be extreme speculation, but I'm still curious.
I think that link was as good a piece of scientific speculation as is available at the moment - those papers seem to have been invited for the benefit of the space program. They are the size estimates for a complete modern, self-sufficient organism.

The calculations people do for random emergence are usually based on a replicator of about 300 bases rather than 300,000 bases. That is because it is assumed that a primitive prebtiotic organism could not replicate its genome with high fidelity. One or two percent is about the fidelity of RNA synthesis. Hence an RNA replicator would rapidly degenerate if it needed a genome larger than a couple of hundred bases. (DNA is replicated much more accurately because of error correction.)

The calculations of the likelihood of an RNA molecule emerging by chance is usually done in a probabilistic way and the results are such as to suggest that random emergence would never occur in the lifetime of earth.

In principle, I think one could consider modifying such a calculations using thermodynamics. (I've never seen that done but that may be ignorance on my part. There will be book values for the free energy change for the formation of one nucleotide base and the energy of its polymerization. The back rate could be estimated fairly easily and hence an estimate for the forward rate of formation of 1,2,3 etc bases obtained.) The estimates from probability calculations are exceedingly low, even for a few hundred base pairs, so low that it is deemed to amount to an impossibility. The formation of polynucleotides is endothermic and reduces entropy so I think that inserting thermodynamic factors would reduce this probability even further.

Hence my belief that there must be an evolutionary process in chemistry that led up to the emergence life, not just one or more random events of emergence. And, of course, that is just for a few hudred base pairs, not 300,000.

Yahzi

28th January 2007, 05:27 PM

<snip>
You seem to have rather badly missed every point I made.

Read what you wrote, here. According to that paragraph, accepting the rules of physics and chemistry is a statement of faith.
For instance: no.

He was evasive in the face of a concerted attack.
Several of us asked a simple question. We explained why we thought the question was justified.

If being questioned is a "concerted attack," then I suppose you are right.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

28th January 2007, 05:35 PM

Nope, never.

As long as humans fear death there will be gods.
But since god has nothing to do with science, I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.

~~ Paul

Yahzi

28th January 2007, 05:40 PM

I have read no posts about philosophical naturalism except from you.
I would go back and point to the various posts by others that dealt with the topic, but at this point I don't expect facts to really make any impact.

I have read much of Plato but I agree with Popper about him – he was an authoritarian and an enemy of the open society.
WTF has that got to do with his epistimology?

Are you saying that because Plato was a fascist, his epistimology didn't touch on issues of metaphysical naturalism?

As a side not, possibly totally unrelated to the immediate discussion, do you know what the ad hominen fallacy is?

In my opinion, materialist naturalism, as expressed by you, is an exercise in dogmatism, a demand that everyone else will begin by accepting your premises.
Indeed it is. I demand that everyone else begin by accepting my premises. Here are my premises:

1. There is an external world.

2. It is knowable, at least in approximation.

3. We can tell the difference between approximations.

Do you know anyone who disagrees with these premises?

Other forms of metaphysics do not reject these premises; they simply add a few of their own. Well, except for Idealism, which does reject #1. Are you saying that you think the Idealists should be taken seriously?

I do not know all possible human experiences, all possible explanations or whether or not you can explain them all and I do not believe you do either. I see no point trying to reason with someone who believes otherwise.
In other words, you see no point in trying to reason with someone who expects reasons for everything.

I suppose that makes sense - if you're starting out from an unreasonable position. And you'd like to stay there.

Kleinman does not demand that I follow his faith – you do.
What faith? You mean the one that says "everything can be explained by naturalistic means?"

I'm sorry, but isn't that called "science," not "faith?"

Who is the authoritarian bully? You are free to follow whatever irrational faith you will; you are not free to demand that I follow it.
I'm not demanding that you be rational and naturalistic. I'm demanding that you stop pretending you're doing science.

My epistemology is that of rationalism and of evolutionary epistemology as described by Popper.
Popper is an idiot.

Note the above is not an ad hominen. I am not asserting that Popper's arguments are wrong because he is stupid; I am concluding that Popper is stupid because his arguments are wrong. So very, very wrong.

My work simply uses evolutionary epistemology to generalize evolutionary theory.
Evolutionary epistemology?

I do know a thing or two about epistemology, having studied it in college. I've never heard of this flavor. I don't think I can even guess what it means.

Thank you for providing your feedback but you show no evidence of having read my work
You're a little slow on the uptake, John. I quite explicitly stated that I did not read your work. And that I was not going to, until you gave me reason to. Thus, you are entitled to a stronger statement than "you show no evidence."

and your comments seem trite and empty. I do not wish to engage with them.
Ah... what a brilliant response to my actual attempt to address your theory.

After pages of telling us we're just being petty, the one time I actually try to talk about your theory, you tell me I'm not good enough to talk about it.

Everyone who is surprised, raise your hand.

What's that, Atheist? Oh, you just wanted to sneeze? Sorry, my bad.

:D

articulett

28th January 2007, 05:52 PM

You should read Broad and Wade "Betrayers of the Truth," Kohn "False Prophets," Sabbagh "A Rum Affair" and Dan Agin is pushing his own book at Science Weekly. You might also join the Scifraud listserver and read through some of the archives.

Why don't you just cut and paste a summary of your strongest cases.

Also, do you believe that your salvation depend on your believing a particular way? If so, how can you pretend this doesn't bias your results?

articulett

28th January 2007, 05:59 PM

My post was a commentary about Articulett's rudeness and repetitively ad hominem behaviour. As such it was not a commentary directed to science as such and did not address scientific facts. Would you expect it to?

John you asked why I mentioned god in relation to you and why I thought you were a creationist. My answer is not an ad hom. I am more than willing to back all my statements about you with evidence-- Ad hominen attacks are attacks of the person rather than the argument. I can barely understand your argument. And I'm not sure calling someone a "creationist" is an ad hom. Of course, I recently learned (at TAM5) that spoonbender can be defamatory.

articulett

28th January 2007, 06:03 PM

I don't expect science to triumph over religion. I just expect it to triumph over its own foibles, in the long run.

~~ Paul

Yep, science works. It's creates cumulative and useful knowledge. That beats religions and beliefs and QM new age foolishness hands down. It may not be as fun or as easy, but it can't be beaten when it comes to results. If "truth will out" then scientific evidence is the path there.

P.S. Kudos to Yahzi for saying it with brevity, clarity, and humor once again.

The Atheist

28th January 2007, 06:37 PM

For instance: no.Check again, it certainly does.

The Atheist

28th January 2007, 06:38 PM

But since god has nothing to do with science, I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.

~~ Paul

Since you said this:

I don't expect science to triumph over religion. I just expect it to triumph over its own foibles, in the long run.

~~ Paul

I was just responding to it.

The Atheist

28th January 2007, 07:19 PM

Popper is an idiot.

[Just a quick one first. I take it you mean "was"]

Knighted for his services, acknowledged as the father of modern NZ university methods, he was hardly an idiot. Sure, some of his own work is now falsified, but being wrong doesn't make him an idiot. He led UK philosophy for nearly half a century.

What have you done?

articulett

28th January 2007, 07:52 PM

Has this thread :jshark ?

So... anything else to say about annoying creationists?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Well, like zombies and roaches, they are really hard to get rid of.

And I just am tickled by how annoying creationists flock to a thread that says "annoying creationist". They can be amusing, and that's worth something right?

Plus, I think it's been a good thread to find out whom to ignore. Some folks just can't seem to fathom that they are on a whole different page than the majority. In fact, they are probably reading a whole different book... in a whole different language...

kjkent1

28th January 2007, 08:39 PM

Hence my belief that there must be an evolutionary process in chemistry that led up to the emergence life, not just one or more random events of emergence. And, of course, that is just for a few hudred base pairs, not 300,000.

Do you have any experiments which you could propose that would confirm your belief?

If so, have you tried to get funding?

If not, why not?

If you tried to get funding and were refused, why?

If you succeeded in getting funding, then where are the results?

articulett

28th January 2007, 10:04 PM

tsig

29th January 2007, 01:10 AM

Nope, never.

As long as humans fear death there will be gods.

Death is the way the word works,

To fear it is to fear reality.

John Hewitt

29th January 2007, 01:23 AM

Do you have any experiments which you could propose that would confirm your belief?

If so, have you tried to get funding?

If not, why not?

If you tried to get funding and were refused, why?

If you succeeded in getting funding, then where are the results?

The theory of prebiotic oscillations suggests a number of operational approaches that would involved model tests or computer simulations.
I have not attempted to obtain funding for them and have no plans to do so. One goes where one can and, at this time, my work has been primarily theoretical for several years. I do not think I would get cooperation to reverse that.

tsig

29th January 2007, 01:29 AM

The theory of prebiotic oscillations suggests a number of operational approaches that would involved model tests or computer simulations.
I have not attempted to obtain funding for them and have no plans to do so. One goes where one can and, at this time, my work has been primarily theoretical for several years. I do not think I would get cooperation to reverse that.

Your words gush meaning nothing

John Hewitt

29th January 2007, 01:37 AM

Popper (was) an idiot.

<snip>

Evolutionary epistemology?
I do know a thing or two about epistemology, having studied it in college. I've never heard of this flavor. I don't think I can even guess what it means.

You're a little slow on the uptake, John. I quite explicitly stated that I did not read your work.
<snip>
Ah... what a brilliant response to my actual attempt to address your theory.
:D
In my opinion, Popper was the best philosopher of the 20th century but you are free to differ.
Popper's main book on evolutionary epistemology is "Objective Knowledge."
Other well known names would include Toulmin and Plotkin.
Thank you for telling me, again, that you have not read my work. I now understand that you have not read my work and that you know nothing about the ideas which led me to it.
Perhaps that is why I find your comments trite?

Ivor the Engineer

29th January 2007, 02:05 AM

Sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth John, but I think your answers to the questions are:

Do you have any experiments which you could propose that would confirm your belief?

If so, have you tried to get funding?

I have not tried to get funding and have done no experiments to confirm my theory.

If not, why not?

Because I don't think anybody would give me any money.

If you tried to get funding and were refused, why?

I have not tried to get funding.

If you succeeded in getting funding, then where are the results?

There are no results because I have not got any funding and not tested my theory at all.

Actually, I have a question for anybody to answer: Isn't the word 'theory' reserved to describe a hypothesis that has been scientifically tested (i.e. using the experimental method) and found to have some ability to model reality?

So as I understand it, John's work to date is a hypothesis, not a theory, since no testing has been performed.

The Atheist

29th January 2007, 02:14 AM

Death is the way the word works,

To fear it is to fear reality.Correct. And there are how many theists vs how many atheists in the world?

I think you'll find quite a few people are afraid of reality, even in 2007.

The Atheist

29th January 2007, 02:20 AM

Actually, I have a question for anybody to answer: Isn't the word 'theory' reserved to describe a hypothesis that has been scientifically tested (i.e. using the experimental method) and found to have some ability to model reality?

Hey, even I know that. Scientifically speaking, you're quite right.

Even Webster (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory)gets it right.

A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

John Hewitt

29th January 2007, 03:08 AM

John, but I think your answers to the questions are:I have not tried to get funding and have done no experiments to confirm my theory. Because I don't think anybody would give me any money. I have not tried to get funding. There are no results because I have not got any funding and not tested my theory at all.

<snip> Isn't the word 'theory' reserved to describe a hypothesis that has been scientifically tested (i.e. using the experimental method) and found to have some ability to model reality?
So as I understand it, John's work to date is a hypothesis, not a theory, since no testing has been performed.
Yes, there is a game people play in management classes about how to say the same things pejoratively or positively. You are clearly familiar with this game and are choosing pejorative phrasing.
Your usage of the words "theory" and "hypothesis" is correct but general usage often mixes them, as I am sure you also know.
I feel that playing words games is less constructive than considering the various alternatives theories or hypotheses or whatever else you want to call them. There can be no genuine test of any theory of prebiotic evolution - short of building a new earth. In the those circumstances, one's preference falls back on issues such as parsimony and my work is by far the most parsimonious theory of prebiotic evolution yet presented. In fact, it makes no chemically or probabilistically unreasonable assumptions.

As we were discussing but a few messages ago, the main alternatives are so improbable or have such chemically unreasonable implications that they defy common sense. In the absence of a genuine ability to test mechanisms of abiogenesis, I think that one is obliged to fall back on criteria like parsimony in deciding between them. (At least, I think that is what competent scientists should do.) It is on that basis that I stand by my own analysis.

John Hewitt

29th January 2007, 03:11 AM

Hey, even I know that. Scientifically speaking, you're quite right.

Even Webster (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory)gets it right.
No, he is only right semantically.

kleinman

29th January 2007, 03:22 AM

Ok, what were the components of the RNA replicase system doing before RNA could be replicated?Don't know. Can you prove that they components, or similar, have no other uses?

P.S. Given your track record, I'm not ruling out that someone already knows of alternative uses.
Professor Miller of Brown University who formulated the arguments for the Flagellum Unspun response to irreducible complexity doesn’t know what the components of the DNA replicase system could have been used for before DNA could be replicated, I doubt he knows what the components of the RNA replicase system had other uses for before RNA could be replicated. You know how to use google, find someone who knows what the components of these molecular systems were doing before DNA and RNA could be replicated. There must be some evolutionarian out there speculating an answer.
In answer I suggest that this is a question about prebiotic evolution. There are suggestions about how genes or other data carrying molecules emerged. You might look up words like "ribozymes," "the RNA world," "Cairns Smith" and they often involve catalysis on clay surfaces etc. However, I cannot grace those suggestions by applying words such as "theory" or "hypothesis" to them. Neither, for that matter, can I honestly try to defend them.
There you go RecoveringYuppy, ribozymes and clay surfaces, that is as good speculation as any.
Could be, but my points to Kleinman would be these: Not knowing now is not the same not ever knowing; and nothing I'm familiar with in current evolutionary theory depends on knowing how the RNA replicase system evolved. Not knowing where the RNA replicase system came from is no more a problem for evolutionary theory than not knowing where electrons came from is a problem for Ohm's law. If we were to find out today that the RNA replicase system was invented by God we'd have to change nothing in the theory of evolution.
The difference between Ohm’s law and the theory of evolution is that conservation of charge yields mathematically accurate predictions of the behavior of electrical systems, mutation and natural selection is not leading to mathematically accurate predictions of biological systems.
I am not saying evolve a gene from nothing by mutation and natural selection, I am saying evolving a gene from the beginning by mutation and natural selection and there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning by mutation and natural selection.Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Are you claiming there is no path by which genes as we know them could evolve ex nihilo?
I haven’t and don’t use the terminology ex nihilo. What I mean is that there is no known selection process that would lead to the formation of the polymers DNA and RNA that we see in living things by mutation and selection.

If you propose there is such a selection process, walk us through the way such a selection process would work.
Ok, what were the components of the RNA replicase system doing before RNA could be replicated?Other things. Or similar things. Simpler related things.

http://arep.med.harvard.edu/biophysi...Szostak96.html (http://arep.med.harvard.edu/biophysics/faculty/Szostak96.html)
The following quote is the first sentence of this link. (I added the highlighting).
My laboratory has devised in vitro selection and directed evolution methods for the isolation of RNA, DNA and protein molecules with specific binding or catalytic properties.
Intelligent devisors can create many amazing things. If you think this devised selection process rescues ev and the theory of evolution, why don’t you incorporate it into your mathematical model?
How about if I phrase it like this? If you study Dr Schneider’s ev model, you will see that random point mutations and natural selection is profoundly slow, too slow to account for the evolution of anything on a realistic size genome with a realistic mutation rate. This occurs despite Dr Schneider’s unrealistic selection process.Sorry, sounds the same to me: I'm using Ev to prove that TPMNS is too slow, even though Ev doesn't use a realistic selection process.
There is no realistic selection process that can correct the deficiency in ev and the theory of evolution that would evolve binding sites or genes de novo.
Kleinman's claim lived by the computer model, died by the computer model. And I really haven't been able to get too excited or concerned one way or another about John Hewett's theory or beliefs. Creationism and ID are important because they're politically significant in a way that can affect science education. The main reason Behe matters is that his claim can be easily conveyed to, believed by, and repeated by, local school board members: "If something is irreducibly complex it cannot have evolved." Somehow I don't see them getting any comparable political traction with "Data, not genes, is the replicator."
Are you now denying the validity of ev?
Kleinman's argument has "devolved" into the bare, unsupported speculation that:

(1) Unnamed's selection method is unrealistic, and
(2) Random mutation is too slow to ever produce a living organism which can benefit from natural selection.

For #1, Kleinman needs to produce some evidence showing what a "realistic" selection method would be, so that it can be programmed.

For #2, there needs to be some consensus as to just how small a living organism could have been at the time that life supposedly developed. Hewitt produced a post from a science conference which suggests that the minimum genome would be about 318kbits.
(1) Unnamed, Dr Schneider’s and all other selection process for evolving a genes de novo are unrealistic, and
(2) Random point mutations and natural selection is too slow to explain macroevolution as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev program

What you evolutionarians have to face is that the mathematics of mutation and natural selection does not demonstrate the validity of your theory of evolution. Unlike the laws of thermodynamics, or Newton’s laws, or conservation of mass and the many other useful mathematical relationships for physical phenomena that yield useful predictions, the mathematics of mutation and selection lacks a valid selection process that would describe the evolution of a gene de novo. Mutation and natural selection makes for a good slogan but not a good mathematical basis for the theory of evolution.

kjkent1

29th January 2007, 03:55 AM

hammegk

29th January 2007, 05:33 AM

Indeed it is. I demand that everyone else begin by accepting my premises. Here are my premises:

1. There is an external world.

2. It is knowable, at least in approximation.

3. We can tell the difference between approximations.

Do you know anyone who disagrees with these premises?
Define external. :)

Other forms of metaphysics do not reject these premises; they simply add a few of their own. Well, except for Idealism, which does reject #1. Are you saying that you think the Idealists should be taken seriously?
Of course any objective idealist accepts 1. vis-a-vis what he or she perceives as that objective idealist's "thoughts".

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

29th January 2007, 06:21 AM

I was just responding to it.
Oh, you were agreeing! Sorry, I was confoosed.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

29th January 2007, 06:24 AM

Do you have any experiments which you could propose that would confirm your belief?

If so, have you tried to get funding?

If not, why not?

If you tried to get funding and were refused, why?

If you succeeded in getting funding, then where are the results?

Pay very close attention to his answer...and/or the ignoring of the questions.

Your words gush meaning nothing.
Did I miss something? John said:

Hence my belief that there must be an evolutionary process in chemistry that led up to the emergence life, not just one or more random events of emergence. And, of course, that is just for a few hudred base pairs, not 300,000.
Is there something controversial here?

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

29th January 2007, 06:26 AM

I haven’t and don’t use the terminology ex nihilo. What I mean is that there is no known selection process that would lead to the formation of the polymers DNA and RNA that we see in living things by mutation and selection.

If you propose there is such a selection process, walk us through the way such a selection process would work.
You are correct, there is no known selection process. And from this lack of knowledge we should infer what, exactly?

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

29th January 2007, 06:27 AM

Define external.
External: Not a product of your conscious thought.

~~ Paul

John Hewitt

29th January 2007, 06:53 AM

From Paul
Did I miss something? John said:
Originally Posted by Hewitt
Hence my belief that there must be an evolutionary process in chemistry that led up to the emergence life, not just one or more random events of emergence. And, of course, that is just for a few hudred base pairs, not 300,000.Is there something controversial here?You are correct, there is no known selection process. And from this lack of knowledge we should infer what, exactly?

~~ Paul
Well you might infer that the selection process I described is worth considering. For some reason, many here do not.

hammegk

29th January 2007, 06:56 AM

External: Not a product of your conscious thought.
Yup, I deny *I* am The Solipsist (should such exist). And for discussion purposes, agree to accept that *you* aren't She.He, either.

kleinman

29th January 2007, 09:09 AM

(1) Unnamed, Dr Schneider’s and all other selection process for evolving a genes de novo are unrealistic, and
(2) Random point mutations and natural selection is too slow to explain macroevolution as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev program

What you evolutionarians have to face is that the mathematics of mutation and natural selection does not demonstrate the validity of your theory of evolution. Unlike the laws of thermodynamics, or Newton’s laws, or conservation of mass and the many other useful mathematical relationships for physical phenomena that yield useful predictions, the mathematics of mutation and selection lacks a valid selection process that would describe the evolution of a gene de novo. Mutation and natural selection makes for a good slogan but not a good mathematical basis for the theory of evolution. And, once again -- I am not an "evolutionarian."
That paragraph is addressed to all with the following signs and symptoms. speculationitis, denialophilia, hyperextraplopia, and amathematica sciencea.
I haven’t and don’t use the terminology ex nihilo. What I mean is that there is no known selection process that would lead to the formation of the polymers DNA and RNA that we see in living things by mutation and selection.

If you propose there is such a selection process, walk us through the way such a selection process would work.You are correct, there is no known selection process. And from this lack of knowledge we should infer what, exactly?
You already know the answer to this question. The problem you have is not a lack of knowledge, the problem you have is a lack of a selection process to evolve a gene de novo. Unless there were some unknown physical force(s) that existed billions of years ago that does not exist now that would predispose that polymerization of DNA and/or RNA to form the sequences required to make genes, natural selection as observed today does not have that kind of precision. This is why Dr Schneider had to contrive his selection process to get any results at all from his simulation of binding sites by random point mutations and natural selection.

cyborg

29th January 2007, 09:47 AM

That paragraph is addressed to all with the following signs and symptoms. speculationitis, denialophilia, hyperextraplopia, and amathematica sciencea.

Guys! He's had us all fooled! Kleinman's an evolutionarianist!

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

29th January 2007, 09:58 AM

You already know the answer to this question. The problem you have is not a lack of knowledge, the problem you have is a lack of a selection process to evolve a gene de novo.
But just before you said:

What I mean is that there is no known selection process ... [emphasis mine]

Unless there were some unknown physical force(s) that existed billions of years ago that does not exist now that would predispose that polymerization of DNA and/or RNA to form the sequences required to make genes, natural selection as observed today does not have that kind of precision.
What a ridiculous statement.

This is why Dr Schneider had to contrive his selection process to get any results at all from his simulation of binding sites by random point mutations and natural selection.
What on earth does the evolution of DNA/RNA have to do with Ev?

Your story changes like the wind, Alan.

~~ Paul

kjkent1

29th January 2007, 10:06 AM

You already know the answer to this question. The problem you have is not a lack of knowledge, the problem you have is a lack of a selection process to evolve a gene de novo. Unless there were some unknown physical force(s) that existed billions of years ago that does not exist now that would predispose that polymerization of DNA and/or RNA to form the sequences required to make genes, natural selection as observed today does not have that kind of precision. This is why Dr Schneider had to contrive his selection process to get any results at all from his simulation of binding sites by random point mutations and natural selection.Just for argument's sake, what would you say would be the minimum requirement for any molecular structure to be able to take "selective advantage" of a random mutation?

Put another way, if you have molecule "A", and it is capable of causing copies of itself to be created, via chemical process "B", and mutation "C" occurs, which makes the molecule more capable of causing copies of itself to be created, then isn't that a "selective advantage?"

And, if you agree that the above statement is true, then you don't really need a "gene de novo" as you describe it, in order to start the process of evolution via RMNS.

Perhaps your definition of "life" may be too restrictive, because RMNS may easily function with chemical structures which are not "alive" in the conventional sense of the term?

kleinman

29th January 2007, 10:57 AM

Unless there were some unknown physical force(s) that existed billions of years ago that does not exist now that would predispose that polymerization of DNA and/or RNA to form the sequences required to make genes, natural selection as observed today does not have that kind of precision.What a ridiculous statement.
Then explain to us why you don’t have a selection process that can evolve a gene de novo. What is really ridiculous is formulating a theory in which the cause and effect principle can not be demonstrated either mathematically or empirically in the laboratory and yet adherents still believe it is scientific.
This is why Dr Schneider had to contrive his selection process to get any results at all from his simulation of binding sites by random point mutations and natural selection.What on earth does the evolution of DNA/RNA have to do with Ev?
Just what do the letters “ev” stand for?
You already know the answer to this question. The problem you have is not a lack of knowledge, the problem you have is a lack of a selection process to evolve a gene de novo. Unless there were some unknown physical force(s) that existed billions of years ago that does not exist now that would predispose that polymerization of DNA and/or RNA to form the sequences required to make genes, natural selection as observed today does not have that kind of precision. This is why Dr Schneider had to contrive his selection process to get any results at all from his simulation of binding sites by random point mutations and natural selection.Just for argument's sake, what would you say would be the minimum requirement for any molecular structure to be able to take "selective advantage" of a random mutation?
An already complete gene which is made to function better by a particular mutation subject to the particular environmental stresses.
Perhaps your definition of "life" may be too restrictive, because RMNS may easily function with chemical structures which are not "alive" in the conventional sense of the term?
Why don’t you describe to us how this selective process that would make these chemical structures function?

cyborg

29th January 2007, 11:10 AM

Just what do the letters “ev” stand for?

Hmm, so by this logic if I construct a program called, "Bi" everything it does must accurately reflect god.

Have you heard of my new program 'Bi' which mathematically disproves god? There is no mathematics for your theory of god and I have proved the being impossible with Bi.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

29th January 2007, 12:21 PM

Just what do the letters “ev” stand for?
They do not stand for "evolution of DNA/RNA."

An already complete gene which is made to function better by a particular mutation subject to the particular environmental stresses.
If a gene is required for selection, and thus for evolution, then evolving a gene "de novo/ex nihilo" is certainly going to be a problem all right. You got us there, dude! Logick r00lZ!

~~ Paul

John Hewitt

29th January 2007, 12:52 PM

If a gene is required for selection, and thus for evolution, then evolving a gene "de novo/ex nihilo" is certainly going to be a problem all right. You got us there, dude! Logick r00lZ!

~~ Paul
Absolutely. Now, if the gene emerged from some other evolution, genes can't be the basis for all evolution, can they?
And, if that's true, what do you think might be a basis for evolution that would be common to BOTH the emergence of the gene and RMNS?

Just remember, Logick r00lZ!

kjkent1

29th January 2007, 01:09 PM

Why don’t you describe to us how this selective process that would make these chemical structures function?I'm not a chemist or a biologist, but you know what a "prion" is, right?

Prions have no problem reproducing themselves to the extreme detriment of other molecules with which the prion comes in contact.

So, if a prion were to receive a subatomic particle hit which caused a small change to the prion's chemical structure, and that change just happened to make the prion even more capable of detrimental reproduction, wouldn't that be a "selective advantage," to a non-life form?

And, if the above is possible, then why is a similar change any less possible for some other chemical structure?

The key to me seems to be the point where a molecule "A" can effect molecular changes in other molecules, which cause those molecules to resemble the "A" molecule. As soon as this happens, by whatever mechanism, then the "A" molecule's successors can benefit from a mutation -- and thus selection is born.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

29th January 2007, 01:53 PM

Absolutely. Now, if the gene emerged from some other evolution, genes can't be the basis for all evolution, can they?
And, if that's true, what do you think might be a basis for evolution that would be common to BOTH the emergence of the gene and RMNS?
Common to the evolution of the gene and to random mutation and natural selection? I'm not sure what that means when the former is a product of the latter.

Chemistry?

~~ Paul

John Hewitt

29th January 2007, 02:11 PM

I'm not a chemist or a biologist, but you know what a "prion" is, right?

Prions have no problem reproducing themselves to the extreme detriment of other molecules with which the prion comes in contact.

So, if a prion were to receive a subatomic particle hit which caused a small change to the prion's chemical structure, and that change just happened to make the prion even more capable of detrimental reproduction, wouldn't that be a "selective advantage," to a non-life form?

And, if the above is possible, then why is a similar change any less possible for some other chemical structure?

The key to me seems to be the point where a molecule "A" can effect molecular changes in other molecules, which cause those molecules to resemble the "A" molecule. As soon as this happens, by whatever mechanism, then the "A" molecule's successors can benefit from a mutation -- and thus selection is born.

I know a bit about viruses but I have not gone into prions in any detail so I am willing to be corrected about them. I believe they are things like the infectious agent of scrapie, kuru, BSE or new variant CJD. I am not sure they qualify as replicating agents in their own right.

I belive they are coded on the genome of the organism and the coded protien can exist in two forms, say A and B. B catlyses the conversion of A into B so that the conversion is autocatalytic. This means that the rate at which B is produced is exponential and many of its other properties also mimic those of a true organism, in the sense of having a separate genome. For example, if you take protein B and inject it into another host, it proceeds to "infect" the host - the concentration of B rises exponentially from the injected level.

Nonetheless, it is different in that the protein is coded on the host and also in the sense that there is no immune response, the protein being recognized as self by the immune system - which is why those diseases are so dangerous. I don't know what the biological function of those proteins is for the host.

kleinman

29th January 2007, 02:45 PM

Just what do the letters “ev” stand for?They do not stand for "evolution of DNA/RNA."
Then could you explain to us where the simulation of the evolution of binding sites in ev is supposed to be taking place?
An already complete gene which is made to function better by a particular mutation subject to the particular environmental stresses.If a gene is required for selection, and thus for evolution, then evolving a gene "de novo/ex nihilo" is certainly going to be a problem all right. You got us there, dude! Logick r00lZ!
If you don’t have a sequence of bases that codes for some type of polypeptide, how will you have selection for that creature? Apparently logick does not rool for evolutionarians.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

29th January 2007, 03:03 PM

kleinman

29th January 2007, 04:23 PM

Then could you explain to us where the simulation of the evolution of binding sites in ev is supposed to be taking place?In simulated DNA. However, Ev has nothing to do with the evolution of DNA de novo/ex nihilo. That is still what you're talking about, right?
What ev simulates is the de novo evolution of binding sites, right? And this simulation uses a selection process that is not representative of any known real selection process, right? Abiogenesis and the initial formation of DNA is a totally different evolutionarian fantasy trip, right?
If you don’t have a sequence of bases that codes for some type of polypeptide, how will you have selection for that creature? Apparently logick does not rool for evolutionarians.Via a selection process that operates on something other than DNA and proteins.
Whether selection is acting on DNA, proteins, RNA or any other polymer you can imagine, you still must have a molecule which is performing some useful function for the creature to be selected for.
This is getting silly. Here is Minsky's theorem of evolution:The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.
Perhaps with infinite time and infinite populations Minsky’s theorem may be correct but when you use realistic parameters in simulations such as ev, you find this concept has no basis in reality.

Consider what Minsky is saying here. You have to have a collection of inheritable traits. Even the simplest microorganism has hundreds of genes. Where do you get these genes to jumpstart the process Minsky is hypothesizing here?
Note how it doesn't mention DNA, RNA, or proteins. Evolution is not restricted to a DNA/RNA/protein context.
Without a plausible selection process, it doesn’t matter what polymer you proposing that is evolving, mutation without selection is a mathematically irrational explanation for the theory of evolution.

John Hewitt

29th January 2007, 04:23 PM

And, if that's true, what do you think might be a basis for evolution that would be common to BOTH the emergence of the gene and RMNS?

Common to the evolution of the gene and to random mutation and natural selection? I'm not sure what that means when the former is a product of the latter.

Chemistry?

~~ Paul

Not chemistry exactly but chemicals, yes. But do you think chemicals would start evolving all on their own, or do do you think something would need to happen to them to make them evolve? If so, what do you think that something might be? What would need to happen to a mixture of chemicals to cause them to become genes?

kjkent1

29th January 2007, 04:45 PM

I know a bit about viruses but I have not gone into prions in any detail so I am willing to be corrected about them. I believe they are things like the infectious agent of scrapie, kuru, BSE or new variant CJD. I am not sure they qualify as replicating agents in their own right.

I belive they are coded on the genome of the organism and the coded protien can exist in two forms, say A and B. B catlyses the conversion of A into B so that the conversion is autocatalytic. This means that the rate at which B is produced is exponential and many of its other properties also mimic those of a true organism, in the sense of having a separate genome. For example, if you take protein B and inject it into another host, it proceeds to "infect" the host - the concentration of B rises exponentially from the injected level.

Nonetheless, it is different in that the protein is coded on the host and also in the sense that there is no immune response, the protein being recognized as self by the immune system - which is why those diseases are so dangerous. I don't know what the biological function of those proteins is for the host.

From the little I've read at Wikipedia, prion replication is still a somewhat mysterious process, which some scientists suggest violates the "central dogma of molecular biology."

So, the point is, and it seems to back your own point, that some molecular structures may be capable of reproducing even though they are not based on RNA/DNA.

If so, then the prion falsifies Kleinman's hypothesis that you need a gene to get RMNS started.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

29th January 2007, 04:59 PM

What ev simulates is the de novo evolution of binding sites, right? And this simulation uses a selection process that is not representative of any known real selection process, right? Abiogenesis and the initial formation of DNA is a totally different evolutionarian fantasy trip, right?
Yes, the initial formation of DNA is a totally different trip, which is why I asked what Ev has to do with it.

Whether selection is acting on DNA, proteins, RNA or any other polymer you can imagine, you still must have a molecule which is performing some useful function for the creature to be selected for.
Agreed. And?

Perhaps with infinite time and infinite populations Minsky’s theorem may be correct but when you use realistic parameters in simulations such as ev, you find this concept has no basis in reality.
But you just said above that Ev is not realistic, so your conclusion doesn't follow.

Consider what Minsky is saying here. You have to have a collection of inheritable traits. Even the simplest microorganism has hundreds of genes. Where do you get these genes to jumpstart the process Minsky is hypothesizing here?
Minsky said nothing about genes whatsoever.

Without a plausible selection process, it doesn’t matter what polymer you proposing that is evolving, mutation without selection is a mathematically irrational explanation for the theory of evolution.
Agreed.

Is this going somewhere?

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

29th January 2007, 05:00 PM

Not chemistry exactly but chemicals, yes. But do you think chemicals would start evolving all on their own, or do do you think something would need to happen to them to make them evolve? If so, what do you think that something might be? What would need to happen to a mixture of chemicals to cause them to become genes?
I think the right sorts of chemicals would start evolving all on their own. How gene precursors became genes I have no idea.

~~ Paul

kleinman

29th January 2007, 05:41 PM

If so, then the prion falsifies Kleinman's hypothesis that you need a gene to get RMNS started.
You need to work a little more on your argument. It doesn’t matter what polymer you are proposing that is evolving, whether it be DNA/RNA/protein etc. In order to have a selection process that selects for a particular creature, that creature must produce a beneficial molecule. Perhaps Paul will show you why the theory of evolution without a selection processes is mathematically irrational.

In addition, random mutations can not cause an existing gene to diverge too far from it’s functional state so that it becomes non-functional, otherwise that creature will be selected against.
What ev simulates is the de novo evolution of binding sites, right? And this simulation uses a selection process that is not representative of any known real selection process, right? Abiogenesis and the initial formation of DNA is a totally different evolutionarian fantasy trip, right?Yes, the initial formation of DNA is a totally different trip, which is why I asked what Ev has to do with it.
Ev demonstrates nicely the requirements for the de novo evolution of binding sites and reveals the difficulty in modeling a realistic selection process that what would be required for the de novo evolution of a gene.
Whether selection is acting on DNA, proteins, RNA or any other polymer you can imagine, you still must have a molecule which is performing some useful function for the creature to be selected for.Agreed. And?
And you have no plausible selection process for any polymer to evolve a functional molecule de novo.
Perhaps with infinite time and infinite populations Minsky’s theorem may be correct but when you use realistic parameters in simulations such as ev, you find this concept has no basis in reality.But you just said above that Ev is not realistic, so your conclusion doesn't follow.
I have always said that ev is a plausible representation of random point mutations and natural selection. The reality that ev models is that random point mutations and natural selection can not lead to macroevolution. This is shown despite Dr Schneider’s contrived unrealistic selection process.

I could propose to you that you could fly anywhere in the universe in a space craft given enough time. Conceptually this may be true but it is a practical unreality. Minsky’s theorem is analogous to this.
Consider what Minsky is saying here. You have to have a collection of inheritable traits. Even the simplest microorganism has hundreds of genes. Where do you get these genes to jumpstart the process Minsky is hypothesizing here?Minsky said nothing about genes whatsoever.
So what is the selection process that gave rise to the non-genetic life forms?
Without a plausible selection process, it doesn’t matter what polymer you proposing that is evolving, mutation without selection is a mathematically irrational explanation for the theory of evolution.Agreed.

Is this going somewhere?
It is the theory of evolution that is going nowhere. Without a selection process for whatever polymer you are trying to evolve, the mathematics of random mutations without selection makes the convergence of ev with realistic genome lengths and mutation rates look supersonic, no, I take that back, it looks like warp speed.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

29th January 2007, 06:15 PM

Wake me up when something happens.
:s2:

~~ Paul

kjkent1

29th January 2007, 07:02 PM

You need to work a little more on your argument. It doesn’t matter what polymer you are proposing that is evolving, whether it be DNA/RNA/protein etc. In order to have a selection process that selects for a particular creature, that creature must produce a beneficial molecule. Perhaps Paul will show you why the theory of evolution without a selection processes is mathematically irrational.Unless I misunderstand (which is possible):

1. Prions don't have genes.
2. A prion is not a "creature."
3. Prions attack proteins, not genetic material.
4. Prions do mutate from benign to infectious, and when they do, they replicate more effectively -- sufficient to kill a host if it's alive.
5. Prions can't be killed because they're not alive.
6. Prions have been incinerated and remain viable in the recovered ashes.

If I have the above elements correct, then your premise is utterly irrelevant. All that matters is that the prion be capable of benefiting from a mutation. If this is possible, then the selection part of RMNS is satisfied.

Skeptic Ginger

29th January 2007, 07:40 PM

...Then explain to us why you don’t have a selection process that can evolve a gene de novo. What is really ridiculous is formulating a theory in which the cause and effect principle can not be demonstrated either mathematically or empirically in the laboratory and yet adherents still believe it is scientific....The natural selection pressures have been explained to you a number of times here but you keep repeating the completely false claim no such explanation exists. You insist you have some mathematical evidence for your false claim but no scientists agree outside of a few rogues who operate on the unsupportable premise the Bible is literal, and if evidence or conclusions disagree, the evidence or conclusions must be wrong.

I often wonder how evolution deniers fail to see the enormity of the role the theory of evolution, now so well understood by genetic scientists, plays in our lives. For whatever reason, evolution deniers seem to think (or maybe are unaware of) genetic science and the theory of evolution are two separate things. But genetic science is evolution science. We know how genes arise de novo because we know so much about genes and the evolution of genes.

The theory of evolution has revolutionalized medical research. No one argues if scientific advances based on genetic research can be done, they argue if they ethically should be done. People around the world are protesting genetically modified foods while others are hailing the benefits. The map of human migration out of Africa has been redrawn based on what we know about genetic trails. Where once there was some doubt that mitochondrial DNA was a valid means of determining human migration patterns, there is no longer significant doubt. DNA has been recovered from Neanderthal bones and compared to human DNA, resolving the long held question of whether Neanderthals died out or whether they intermingled with humans. The evidence indicates they died out.

To maintain your position that the theory of evolution is not consistent with the evidence and/or that it isn't clear yet just how a new gene arises, or if macro-evolution takes place, you have to assume all the scientific advances that relied on the theory of evolution are either tenuous, or made without a clear understanding of the science that led to their discoveries. Kleinman, that is simply preposterous.

Here is just a sample of what you seem to think is based on a questionable theory:

Image of the glowing tobacco plant genetically engineered with a gene from fireflies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Glowing_tobacco_plant.jpg)

There is an International Society of Nurses in Genetics. They have a Position Statement: Access to Genomic Healthcare: The Role of the Nurse. (http://www.isong.org/about/ps_genomic.cfm) They have a PRACTICE-BASED GENETICS CURRICULUM FOR NURSE EDUCATORS (http://www.fbr.org/publications/gencur-nursedu/nihdale2000.html)

A Decade of Genomics: NHGRI Celebrates 10th Anniversary. (http://www.genome.gov/20019498) This month, the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) celebrates its 10th anniversary as an institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), marking a decade that saw genomics emerge as a powerful research tool and looking ahead to an era in which genomics will transform medical care. A look at the history of The National Human Genome Research Institute (http://www.genome.gov/10001763#2006) contains almost 20 years of milestones for you to consider.

Conversations about the Meaning of the Genetics Revolution (http://ihckeeptalking.wordpress.com/2006/09/26/kickoff-2/)
The complexity of genetics

As a medical student, I am currently in the process of learning a lot more about genetics than I had ever thought existed. The sheer complexity and volume of information we are being taught (and we’re barely scratching the surface) is almost enough to make me give up on ever really understanding genetics. There is so much knowledge to gain on the subject - and the rate at which more knowledge is being added to the pool is astounding - that it may seem to be too much.

How can I attempt to understand this large pool of information with clarity and confidence enough to form an opinion about the use of genetic technology? Furthermore, I am required to try and learn this information because, as a student, it is all I really have to do; almost all of my time is spent in this learning. How can people with a basic working knowledge of the sciences, but also with families, hobbies, and jobs of their own, really take the time to understand the complex and ever-changing world of genetics?

There is a seemingly insurmountable mountain of information to learn, and yet, we must climb this mountain to become informed enough to know about genetics, think about genetics, and become active in our society with respect to genetic issues. How should we approach this? How can we frame it so that even those with little time can have the opportunity and motivation to learn at least a little about this growing field which will (and already has) affected us all?

What do you suppose they do at all these research institutes? Think any of them would buy your claim that natural selection can't account for all the life we see on Earth today? Or perhaps you think you have some observational or analytical skill that allows you to see the one thing that makes the theory of evolution wrong and all the researchers in all the research facilities and universities in all the towns in all the countries on all the continents on the planet weren't clever enough to see what you see? Or perhaps you think they understand genetic science well enough to transfer genes from an insect to a plant or a rabbit to an insect, but they really don't know if macro-evolution occurs? Do you think the researchers in the following institutes would agree we only know micro-evolution occurs?

I think not, kleinman.

Genetics or genomics research institutions listed in Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetics_research_organizations)
Companies
* Affymetrix, UK [1]
* Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA [2]
* Celera Genomics
* Genentech, San Francisco, CA [3]
* Applera Norwalk, CT [4]
* Genetix, Hampshire, UK [5]

Research institutes
Americas
o Translational Genomics Research Institute, Phoenix founded in July of 2002 [6]
o Whitetail Genetic Research Institute, Jerusalem, [7]
o Genetic Information Research Institute, Mountain View founded 1994 [8]
o Stanford University, Stanford, California [9]
o University of Florida Genetics Institute, Miami [10]
o The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR), founded in 1992 by Craig Venter
o Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase [11]
o Whitehead Institute Center for Genome Research, Cambridge, USA, 12]
o Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, [13]
o Center for Functional Genomics, SUNY Albany, Rensselaer, NY, [14]
o Research Institute for Genetic and Human Therapy - Instituto di Ricerca per la Terapia Genetica Umana, [15]
o Center for the Advancement of Genomics
o National Human Genome Research Institute founded 1989 [16]
o Washington University, St. Louis, [17]

Europe
o Institut für Forstgenetik, Vienna [18]
o Zentrum für genetische Forschung, (part of Max-Planck-Institute für Psychiatrie und Biochemie) München
o Institut für Humangenetik, Hamburg [19]
o Institut für Humangenetik, (Klinikum der Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg), Heidelberg [20]
o Institut für Humangenetik, (Friedrich-Alexander-Universität), Erlangen-Nürnberg [21]
o Institut für Humangenetik (Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität), Bonn [22]
o Institut für Humangenetik, (Universität Lübeck), Lübeck [23]
o Max Planck Institute for Molecular Genetics, Berlin [24]
o European Molecular Biology Lab (EMBL), Heidelberg
o International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Maccarese (Fiumicino) [25]

Global Crop Diversity Trust www.croptrust.org
o Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge [26]
o Imperial College Genetics and Genomics Research Institute, Hammersmith Hospital, London [27]

Asia/Pacific
o Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [28]
o Chinese University of Hong Kong, [29]
o Hong Kong Institute of Biotechnology, [30]
o Institute of Molecular Biology, Hong Kong, [31]
o Beijing Genomics Institute, Beijing, Beijing Genomics Institute website
o The National Human Genome Centre in Southern China, Shanghai
o The National Human Genome Centre in Northern China, Beijing
o Huada Human Genome Research Centre
o Bio Island Haizhu, Guangzhou [32]
o The Human Genome Centre of the Chinese Academy of Science (CAS)
o Biopolis, Singapore [33]
o Genome Institute of Singapore [34]
o Bioinformatik Institute, Singapore [35]
o Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology [36]
o Bioinformatics Center, Singapore [37]

Africa
o International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, [38]

Genetic research watchdog organizations
* GeneWatch [39], UK
* Council for Responsible Genetics [40], US
* Smallpox Bio Security [41] Conference 21-22 Oct 2003, Geneva, Switzerland
* Sunshine Project [42], Hamburg, Germany and Austin, Texas