Annoying creationists [Archive] - Page 9

John Hewitt

30th January 2007, 04:59 AM

I've just been reading a bit more of John’s argument about why explaining evolution using genes is flawed. My main questions for John or anybody else here are:

A. Is anyone seriously claiming genes and evolution are inextricably linked?

B. Isn’t the word ‘gene’ shorthand for something like ‘molecular data storage device’, along with other things? Don’t scientists implicitly know this?

C. Isn’t trying to explain humor or other social behavior using genes like using the state of transistors in a processor to understand the operation of Windows?

D. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood what scientists are attempting to do in genetics, but I thought it was explaining human evolution at a physiological level, with some physiology having direct impact on behavior.

E. Psychology is the study of human behavior. Maybe one day it will coalesce with genetics (I doubt it), but at this stage they are distinct areas of study, except for the impact physiology has on behavior.

F. As I understand it (now probably showing my ignorance), all you need to have a system that can evolve is:

An energy source
A memory store
External stressors that can affect a particular memory stores’ survival chances
Reproduction of memory store with modification/error

G. As for what happened at the very beginning of life, I’m not that concerned. The answer has no application today. All ideas about it will be little more than hypotheses since I doubt anyone has the patience (or environment) required to do the experiments that would take billions of years to complete to provide supporting evidence.
Some interesting points, though still rather pejorative.
A. How about Dawkins and his followers, which means the great majority of biologists? Dawkins is quite explicit genes began as and are replicators. I disagree.

B. No, but they need to.

C. I do not understand this point.

D. In many human behaviours, social and genetic data intermingle, humour being an example. Things like laughter and crying are, in part, genetically programmed responses to social situations.

E. See above.

F. I am glad you are moving toward a systems view of evolution, I agree with it. The system needs the properties of a Von Neumann machine plus variation and selection. One of the more influential advocates of the systems view was Gregory Bateson, who's father had brought the gene approach to the fore.

G. You are entitled to your opinion but a great many people are concerned with what happened at the beginning of life. I think that, unless sensible answers are developed, there will always be a big black box at the centre of evolutionary theory.

Yahzi

30th January 2007, 08:59 AM

Which is science-speak for answering the question in the negative.
What is "science-speak?"

Your entire post was an argument from authority. You did not provide logical reasons for Popper's correctness; you provided authorative ones. Are you unaware that scientific truth is derived from epirical observation, not from academic honors?

(p.s. Read a couple of your own posts, first.)
I have explained why I thought your post was a logical fallacy. Perhaps you could do the same in return.

Yahzi

30th January 2007, 09:03 AM

Eigen got his Nobel for the hypercycle approach to replicators
Your envy is showing.

My work notes that there is another source of oscillations - driven oscillations due to the sun's daily cycle.
Am I the only one who sees the parellels to this? (http://www.timecube.com/)

delphi_ote

30th January 2007, 09:21 AM

Isn’t trying to explain humor or other social behavior using genes like using the state of transistors in a processor to understand the operation of Windows?
But you have to understand the underlying benefit of humor to a species. It developed in an evolutionary context. It may have cultural benefits, but cultural benefits tie ultimately at some level to evolutionary causes.
As for what happened at the very beginning of life, I’m not that concerned. The answer has no application today.
The origin of life will tell us a lot about just what it means to be alive and whether we should expect to find life elsewhere in the universe. We should be concerned and excited about answering this question!
All ideas about it will be little more than hypotheses since I doubt anyone has the patience (or environment) required to do the experiments that would take billions of years to complete to provide supporting evidence.
You don't have to directly observe the exact process in order to make a scientific conclusion. We'd have to toss out all of cosmology, evolution, modern geology, etc. if that was the case. You can use indirect evidence to support a hypothesis.

kjkent1

30th January 2007, 09:41 AM

As I say, if I've got that mechanism right, the actual replication of prions is from the genome but the "infectivity" comes about because of its autocatalytic change. The autocatalytic change is not a replicator in itself.

Eigen got his Nobel for the hypercycle approach to replicators, a hypercycle being essentially a chemical oscillator that is subject to evolution. These are related to autocatalysis because one may describe a chemical oscillator as two linked autocatalytic reactions, the product of each inhibiting the formation of the other. That pattern of feedbacks is one way of getting an oscillation but it cannot happen by chance. Self-sustaining chemical oscillation requires a very specific mixture of chemicals, a regular free energy supply and a boundary to keep the chemicals together.

My work notes that there is another source of oscillations - driven oscillations due to the sun's daily cycle. I argue that, although these driven oscillations are not self-replicating, they are subject to selection and that their selection eventually leads to a truly self-replicating protocell.

I found the following link which describes prions pretty well for free info: http://www.kcom.edu/faculty/chamberlain/Website/Lects/PRIONS.HTM

Maybe you could translate the following quote into plain English for me:

In normal cells only the PrP 33-35 protein is synthesized. It is found in the neural cell membrane where it's function is to sequester Cu++ ions. In abnormal ("infected") cells, the PrP 27-30 is produced from the PrP 33-35 protein. The PrP 27-30 triggers a series of reactions that produce more PrP 27-30 proteins, i.e., PrP 27-30 induces its own synthesis. In addition to the post translational modifications, the PrP 27-30 protein differs from the PrP 33-35 protein in a single amino acid residue. Residue 178 in the PrP 27-30 contains an asparagine residue whereas the PrP 33-35 protein has an aspartate residue at this position. This causes a conformational change in the PrP 27-30 protein from an a-helix to a b-sheet. This conformational change in the PrP 27-30 protein has three effects:
1. It imparts to the PrP 27-30 protein the ability to induce the same a-helix to b-sheet conformation in the PrP 33-35
protein. This is a permanent conformational change. It thus induces its own "replication."
2. The b-sheet-forming peptides aggregate to form amyloid fibrils. 3. The amyloid fibrils kill thalamus neurons through apoptosis, a programmed series of events that leads to cell death.
Regarding the sun's oscillations driving your theory, how are these oscillations subject to selection?

Ivor the Engineer

30th January 2007, 10:08 AM

But you have to understand the underlying benefit of humor to a species. It developed in an evolutionary context. It may have cultural benefits, but cultural benefits tie ultimately at some level to evolutionary causes.

I wasn't denying that. I was trying to point out that phenomenon should be analyzed at an appropriate level for the analysis to be useful. Undoubtedly genes influence all human behavior. E.g. how my genes relate to me chopping an onion or slicing bread is of little relevance to these behaviors.

The origin of life will tell us a lot about just what it means to be alive and whether we should expect to find life elsewhere in the universe. We should be concerned and excited about answering this question!

I'll concede that if it was possible to figure out the origin of life then it would be useful information to determine if life could exist elsewhere in the universe.

However, I'm still not excited by the idea of creatures a million light-years away, as I can't possibly examine or communicate with them. The only life of interest is that which can be reached by man, our scientific instruments or our two-way communications. So why not just go and find it?

As for what it means to be alive: not dead:D

You don't have to directly observe the exact process in order to make a scientific conclusion. We'd have to toss out all of cosmology, evolution, modern geology, etc. if that was the case. You can use indirect evidence to support a hypothesis.

True, but if I want to demonstrate a bunch of chemicals changing from not-alive to alive, or even non-replicating to replicating, I see no other method viable than an actual experiment with similar conditions to that on earth when life appeared here. Perhaps I was exaggerating the timescales: it would only take hundreds of thousands of years to perform.

John Hewitt

30th January 2007, 10:57 AM

I found the following link which describes prions pretty well for free info: http://www.kcom.edu/faculty/chamberlain/Website/Lects/PRIONS.HTM

Maybe you could translate the following quote into plain English for me:

In normal cells only the PrP 33-35 protein is synthesized. It is found in the neural cell membrane where it's function is to sequester Cu++ ions. In abnormal ("infected") cells, the PrP 27-30 is produced from the PrP 33-35 protein. The PrP 27-30 triggers a series of reactions that produce more PrP 27-30 proteins, i.e., PrP 27-30 induces its own synthesis. In addition to the post translational modifications, the PrP 27-30 protein differs from the PrP 33-35 protein in a single amino acid residue. Residue 178 in the PrP 27-30 contains an asparagine residue whereas the PrP 33-35 protein has an aspartate residue at this position. This causes a conformational change in the PrP 27-30 protein from an a-helix to a b-sheet. This conformational change in the PrP 27-30 protein has three effects:
1. It imparts to the PrP 27-30 protein the ability to induce the same a-helix to b-sheet conformation in the PrP 33-35
protein. This is a permanent conformational change. It thus induces its own "replication."
2. The b-sheet-forming peptides aggregate to form amyloid fibrils. 3. The amyloid fibrils kill thalamus neurons through apoptosis, a programmed series of events that leads to cell death.Regarding the sun's oscillations driving your theory, how are these oscillations subject to selection?

PrP 33-35 protein is likely the name of the protein product of gene PrP 33-35; the numbers are probably gel bands. Sequesters copper means it takes up copper and so prevents copper toxic effects. It state that protein PrP 33-35 can be concerted to PrP 27-30 by a reaction that is catalysed by PrP 27-30. In other words, this is an autocatalytic reaction, which they describe as "replication" but, as they realise, it is not true replication. Alpha helix and beta pleated sheet are just standard secondary conformations of proteins.
I have not seen the word amyloid before but the site defines this in terms of histology, as staining features in a light microscope - the amyloid bodies are, more a or less, a precipitate of PrP 27-30 whch kills the cell. Apoptosis is "programmed cell death" which is an important mechanism determining the developmental pathway of embryos. For example, you have separate fingers because the cells that once joined them together are programmed to die. The implication might be that this mechanism of killing is generally important in apoptosis, but I am not sure.

So far as the question on oscilations are concerned - all chemicals on the early earth were exposed to high energy events, lightning, UV etc. Some oscillations were protected from such event because of their physicochemical properties. These oscillations would have been selected. This is discussed in much more detail on my site -
http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe04_evolution_oscillations.htm

articulett

30th January 2007, 11:28 AM

But it's not just the sun providing the selection....nor even the energy--we have energy radioactive energy at the core of the earth. An ice crystal begets more ice crystals...this is similar to prion replication, but it isn't related to the sun. Some molecules will preferentially stick when the solution they are in washes over surfaces or evaporates. Sure, the environment selects...but your theory involves coding of information in data streams from the sun... and that's where things get fuzzy...and abiogenesis is a long way from both sex, humor, and philosophy--not to mention "free will" which you contend is a special feature of humans.

John, clarity would help. And sending people off to plow through your very unclear website without a brief summation of what it is they are supposed to be looking for or what your hypothesis is, is unfair. At least tell people what to look for. Don't you see all the people telling you that you are unclear? Has a single person been able to sum up your hypothesis? Contrast that to the article I posted.

articulett

30th January 2007, 11:36 AM

What is "science-speak?"

Your entire post was an argument from authority. You did not provide logical reasons for Popper's correctness; you provided authorative ones. Are you unaware that scientific truth is derived from epirical observation, not from academic honors?

I have explained why I thought your post was a logical fallacy. Perhaps you could do the same in return.

Nope--he's the social buffoon whose too clueless to know that he's the buffoon he accuses everyone else of being. Why would he claim to understand logical fallacies and even claim you had made one when he seems to have not the slightest understanding of what they are? And by "science speak", I'm presuming he means basic logic. Moreover, is argument that "Karl Popper was a genius and what have you done?" was particularly inane. Instead of asking for clarification of your position--he showed his great allegiance to Popper and presumed someone would would need to have "done something" that he felt was "as worthy" to have an opinion about the worth of Popper."

Enjoy the irony of the logically fallacious asserting how logical they are and how illogical you are. And, for what it's worth, he seems to have these communication problems with many.

articulett

30th January 2007, 11:59 AM

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1077019

I'll start a new thread on this...but for those following the "hobbit" people debate regarding rather it is a new species of human or a microcephalic, there is more evidence for the former coming in as breaking news.

The Atheist

30th January 2007, 12:27 PM

Your entire post was an argument from authority.Wrong.
You did not provide logical reasons for Popper's correctness; you provided authorative ones.Wrong again.
Are you unaware that scientific truth is derived from epirical observation, not from academic honors?Absolutely not
I have explained why I thought your post was a logical fallacy. Perhaps you could do the same in return.It's very simple. There are lots of old sayings which fit, but I just stick with "BS walks" and at this stage, you're knee-deep in it. I really wonder whether some of you lot actually learned to read and write in English. Your posts [?] shows a complete inability to read very simple, short posts, along with an innate ability to build a strawman out of what you think you read.

I'm certainly beginning to see why you're buddies with Arti. You are so blinded by your own genius that you cannot even interpret a simple 40-50 word post. She can't either.

The only hint I'll give you is to ask WHERE I mentioned Popper's correctness? You're so bleeding thick you didn't even notice that I noted he was WRONG. God, I bet they loved you in the debating team at high school. Maybe you're still in one.

Give yourself a break from having it pointed out how pathetic you are - next time you wish to respond to one of my posts, strike a match and wave it in front of your screen first. If your screen bursts into flames, you need to start again (again).

All this simply to avoid the answer to a simple question. I'll type it in caps so you can't miss it this time:

WHAT HAVE YOU ACHIEVED?

We know that Arti. is so smart she gave up a career as the Next Einstein (or Curie, if you prefer) to bring her enormous intellect to benefit her pupils, all of whom love her so dearly. Those that aren't asleep after the first five minutes, anyway.

Come on, what's your claim to fame?

John Hewitt, kleinmann, Paul C and Dr Adequate are all pretty open about their achievements - genius that you are, give us your credentials for declaring Popper an "idiot", because at this stage, the only one shaping up to that tag is you.

Cheers.

Skeptic Ginger

30th January 2007, 01:41 PM

...

Is anyone seriously claiming genes and evolution are inextricably linked?Are you kidding or am I reading this question wrong?

Evolution is the theory of how living organisms change over time. Genetic change is the process. The genes are the "theory" if I may distort things a bit for simplicity.

Genes are part of the DNA (and RNA for some viruses) blueprint by which living organisms reproduce and changes in DNA and RNA are the mechanism of evolution.

How on Earth do you see evolution without genetic changes or are you imagining genes as something different from the DNA?

I just don't get this question at all.

Isn’t the word ‘gene’ shorthand for something like ‘molecular data storage device’, along with other things? Don’t scientists implicitly know this?We are beyond implicit. Genes are observed directly. That's what codons are all about.

Isn’t trying to explain humor or other social behavior using genes like using the state of transistors in a processor to understand the operation of Windows?Maybe this is the disconnect. You are talking about evolution of something besides the organism itself? We have a lot to learn about how genes control behavior but we know they do. I didn't teach my dogs to hunt but they certainly have an instinct to chase small animals and kill them if they catch them.

Behaviors, just like the physical body can be modified in addition to the genetic contribution.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood what scientists are attempting to do in genetics, but I thought it was explaining human evolution at a physiological level, with some physiology having direct impact on behavior.

Psychology is the study of human behavior. Maybe one day it will coalesce with genetics (I doubt it), but at this stage they are distinct areas of study, except for the impact physiology has on behavior.It already has coalesced. There are thousands of studies completed and ongoing on the physiological factors in behavior from neurotransmitters to hormones to brain structure. Some factors are genetically determined some are not.

As I understand it (now probably showing my ignorance), all you need to have a system that can evolve is:

An energy source
A memory store
External stressors that can affect a particular memory stores’ survival chances
Reproduction of memory store with modification/error

As for what happened at the very beginning of life, I’m not that concerned. The answer has no application today. All ideas about it will be little more than hypotheses since I doubt anyone has the patience (or environment) required to do the experiments that would take billions of years to complete to provide supporting evidence.Joyce, at the Scripps Institute forced the equivalent of a few thousand years or something in lab experiments with RNA. I don't remember the details so don't quote the numbers.

I don't understand your point though.

Skeptic Ginger

30th January 2007, 01:43 PM

Indeed, the waves do not design the shore.Well they do, but not with intent.

Skeptic Ginger

30th January 2007, 01:49 PM

... I'm still not excited by the idea of creatures a million light-years away, as I can't possibly examine or communicate with them. The only life of interest is that which can be reached by man, our scientific instruments or our two-way communications. So why not just go and find it?....People view themselves as part of groups. Finding bacteria on Mars will change the view of life. Finding a technological therefore intelligent life exists in the Universe may change our view of the "group" to that of human rather than some division of human.

This is not something I would expect immediate change and revelations but there could be some impact at some time in the future.

John Hewitt

30th January 2007, 02:00 PM

I'm certainly beginning to see why you're buddies with Arti. You are so blinded by your own genius that you cannot even interpret a simple 40-50 word post. She can't either.

The only hint I'll give you is to ask WHERE I mentioned Popper's correctness? You're so bleeding thick you didn't even notice that I noted he was WRONG. God, I bet they loved you in the debating team at high school. Maybe you're still in one.

Quite so, I can't remember a single posting from either Yahzi or Articulett that manages to be both polite and sensible.

Just as an aside, it does not seem to me clear that Popper was wrong. His work is a philosophy, not a scientific theory and it is not clear that a philosophy is falsifiable.
Accordingly, his criterion of falsifiability does not apply to his own work. Thus, although it is true that scientists do not actually do the things that, according to Popper's ideas, scientists should do, that does not that mean his philosophy is wrong. Most observers, certainly me at least, now feel that Popper's logic is part of an ethic of science rather than a sociological description of it. For the latter one must turn to Kuhn, Feyerabend, Knorr-Cetina, Mitroff, Ziman, Lakatos or others. Nobody really gives a single complete description.
The last two names I mention are notable for, as I perceive them, rather linking their descriptions with the body politic of science. Kuhn did that too, though I think more so in his, "The Essential Tension," rather than in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

Trying2Bopen

30th January 2007, 02:56 PM

Quite so, I can't remember a single posting from either Yahzi or Articulett that manages to be both polite and sensible.

Just as an aside, it does not seem to me clear that Popper was wrong. His work is a philosophy, not a scientific theory and it is not clear that a philosophy is falsifiable.
Accordingly, his criterion of falsifiability does not apply to his own work. Thus, although it is true that scientists do not actually do the things that, according to Popper's ideas, scientists should do, that does not that mean his philosophy is wrong. Most observers, certainly me at least, now feel that Popper's logic is part of an ethic of science rather than a sociological description of it. For the latter one must turn to Kuhn, Feyerabend, Knorr-Cetina, Mitroff, Ziman, Lakatos or others. Nobody really gives a single complete description.
The last two names I mention are notable for, as I perceive them, rather linking their descriptions with the body politic of science. Kuhn did that too, though I think more so in his, "The Essential Tension," rather than in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."

John Hewitt: I see references to something you wrote, would you mind reposting that link (51 pgs of debate is just way too much to sift through).

Also, I keep reading a reference to the sun as a way to provide energy for a cyclic chemical process, but what about the tides, or the moon? The sun was no where near as bright in the Archean, nor was there sufficient atmosphere to block UV rays. Further, I have often heard that early earth may have been frozen over (with ice blocking the sun). This has probably already been discussed but I was just wondering what your thoughts were…

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

30th January 2007, 03:36 PM

John seems to think that something other than natural forces need to supply the impetus to replicate...
He does? Where did he say that?

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

30th January 2007, 03:37 PM

Are you kidding or am I reading this question wrong?
I think Ivor was saying that no one claims that genes are the only medium through which evolution can work.

~~ Paul

hammegk

30th January 2007, 04:21 PM

I'll put this first rate (maybe?) arm-waving here; the abiogenesis thread having evolved into a big bang discussion. :p

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17484943

http://www.biocab.org/Protobiont.html#anchor_13510

Can proto-protobionts be far behind? :D

John Hewitt

30th January 2007, 04:40 PM

John Hewitt: I see references to something you wrote, would you mind reposting that link (51 pgs of debate is just way too much to sift through).

Also, I keep reading a reference to the sun as a way to provide energy for a cyclic chemical process, but what about the tides, or the moon? The sun was no where near as bright in the Archean, nor was there sufficient atmosphere to block UV rays. Further, I have often heard that early earth may have been frozen over (with ice blocking the sun). This has probably already been discussed but I was just wondering what your thoughts were…

The link to which you refer is most probably in
www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk
under the prebiotic evolution link, chapters three or four.

The cyclic chemical processes to which I refer will, I suggest, arise from and be driven by cyclic variations of temperature due to the sun's day night cycle. Other oscillatory energy sources could have similar effects but, since the sun was, even then, by far the largest, it is my favorite candidate. Chafe suggested cyclic drying out in small ponds as a possibility but not in this context. (He argued that cyclic drying out of nucleotides would to lead to their polymerization.)

Oscillations in temperature will lead to oscillations in the position of any chemical equilibrium reaction in the organic soup. It is those oscillations that I propose to be subject to evolution. According to the scenario I describe, their evolutionary selection will lead, eventually to self-oscillating pathways of chemicals resembling both metabolic pathways and hypercycles. Thus the model suggests a mechanism whereby all biochemical pathways could have emerged in an essentially complete form. Further selection of pathways would then merge them into protocells. Data carrying molecules would emerge later.

It is true that the sun would have been less bright during that era than it is now - about 50-60% as bright. Nonetheless, the earth was warmer then. This is partly because the earth itself was still hot due to the gravitational energy releaesed during its formation and from impacts. Also, as CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere from volcanic outgassing, it provided a greenhouse effect. Hence water is thought to have been liquid then and for almost all the earth's history. (I believe that episodes of snowball earth occurred later and were due to removal of greenhouse CO2 by life.)

kleinman

30th January 2007, 04:48 PM

They would be my peers. Unlike you who has only ideas of grandeur in your corner. And of course you continue to ignore the whole rest of my post.
To bad so many of your peers like you have no mathematical skills, otherwise you would have an easier time understanding my arguments. Virtually none of what you post has anything to do with the mathematics of mutation and selection. If you wish to write something on this topic, I will attempt to respond to this.
Is anyone seriously claiming genes and evolution are inextricably linked?
Evolutionarians on this forum are all over the landscape now that it has been pointed out to them what the ev computer model of random point mutations and natural selection shows when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used in the model. They are looking for any way they can to rescue their theory from the mathematical quicksand that it is sinking in.
Skeptigirl, I know you are having a hard time coming to grips with this but there is no selection process that would lead to the evolution of a gene de novo. Without this selection process, you have no macroevolution. Mutation and natural selection can not and does not do what is hypothesized in the theory of evolution. You have succumbed to peer pressure on this issue not the truth.You know I said you should find out what "selection" means?

You should also add the word "truth" to the list of words you should look up. It's a fascinating concept, though you might not enjoy it as much as the rest of us.
Since you are the one with the PhD in mathematics, why don’t you give us a mathematical description for “selection”? Or is your logic failing you? I’m sure Paul and Dr Schneider would appreciate this.

The truth is what I use to annoy you. You still haven’t learned that yet, well I’ll be patient with you.
Evolution is the theory of how living organisms change over time. Genetic change is the process. The genes are the "theory" if I may distort things a bit for simplicity.
You should study the mathematics of this process. It would reveal how absurd your “theory” is.
Are you kidding or am I reading this question wrong?I think Ivor was saying that no one claims that genes are the only medium through which evolution can work.
Paul, tell us what other medium besides genes which evolution can work.

Skeptic Ginger

30th January 2007, 05:07 PM

I think Ivor was saying that no one claims that genes are the only medium through which evolution can work.

~~ PaulAnd the other means would be????????

The Atheist

30th January 2007, 05:08 PM

Quite so, I can't remember a single posting from either Yahzi or Articulett that manages to be both polite and sensible.

Just as an aside, it does not seem to me clear that Popper was wrong. His work is a philosophy, not a scientific theory and it is not clear that a philosophy is falsifiable.
Accordingly, his criterion of falsifiability does not apply to his own work. Thus, although it is true that scientists do not actually do the things that, according to Popper's ideas, scientists should do, that does not that mean his philosophy is wrong. Most observers, certainly me at least, now feel that Popper's logic is part of an ethic of science rather than a sociological description of it. For the latter one must turn to Kuhn, Feyerabend, Knorr-Cetina, Mitroff, Ziman, Lakatos or others. Nobody really gives a single complete description.
The last two names I mention are notable for, as I perceive them, rather linking their descriptions with the body politic of science. Kuhn did that too, though I think more so in his, "The Essential Tension," rather than in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions."Way out of my league! I'm just going with the prevailing wind (for a change), but whether one particular theory of his was "right" or "wrong" isn't the issue with me.

Some of Popper's achievements are unquestionable, which is why I related NZ's history of the man in particular. Churchill made a few cock-ups, including a couple of outright massacres. Only an imbecile (or a narrow-minder under-achiever) would deny him his greateness or class him as an idiot. Not that I'm putting Popper in Churchill's league, but the premise is the same.

Skeptic Ginger

30th January 2007, 05:11 PM

Kleinman, are you really claiming among the thousands of scientists who recognize the validity of the theory of evolution none of them have math skills equal to yours?

And you don't think 'ideas of grandeur' applies to this belief of yours?

Skeptic Ginger

30th January 2007, 05:24 PM

Kleinman, provided he believes what he says, does give us a good example of the brain mechanisms at work selecting only a fraction of available information, that which supports his false belief, then excluding all other information from consideration.

In my TAM presentation I mentioned not every false belief can be corrected with sharing knowledge. This is a case in point. Kleinman simply chooses to block out any information which contradicts his false belief. The facts do not exist to him, and his mind will simply not allow him to consider the overwhelming evidence against his position.

The power of religious memes? A defect of the human mind? Self protection mechanism preventing facing a reality that is painful?

hammegk

30th January 2007, 05:31 PM

You couldn't name one thing I have posted in this thread that you can show with supporting evidence is wrong let alone indefensible.
As I intended to say (before my ability to post was imo rudely and unjustifably interrupted) you have posted more factoids unrelated to what is being discussed than most here.

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.\
I suspect you "get annoyed" a lot.

And all Brassica are still Brassica...?
I could most likely convince myself that mustard and cabbage plants are mustard and cabbage plants, yes.

cyborg

30th January 2007, 05:35 PM

Kleinman, are you really claiming among the thousands of scientists who recognize the validity of the theory of evolution none of them have math skills equal to yours?

I sure hope not.

I wouldn't want to think they're all as incompetent as he is.

For me the funniest thing is his inability to define the event he has proved impossible, his understanding of genetics as 4^G, an inability to actually provide the realistic values he bangs on about (since he has no idea what they are), his simultaneous lampooning of evolutionary theory for being unmathematical and use of ev as the definitive mathematical model - hell, just every second of his moronic Jesus-fuelled dumbassery has been wonderful to watch.

articulett

30th January 2007, 05:36 PM

He does? Where did he say that?

~~ Paul

Oh, don't make me plow through his pages of obfuscations again. Let's just ask him and you may have to look at what he doesn't say or how he says things.

John, do you think that there forces other than nature or naturalism that account for replication in life forms?

Also, can you give a quick description as to why you insist that the cell is the true replicator, not the DNA/RNA?

Below is a link to a few pages back where the question was asked and ignored then answered obliquely with an obfuscation yet again. But his whole paper is about using "philosophy" as a better means of describing prebiosis, life, sexuality, humor, etc. He claims that evolution can't account for these things and that his theory can.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2290586&highlight=naturalism#post2290586

He claims not to know what naturalism is...and so he never really says that what he's proposing involves "intelligent design", but his support of Behe and ID, odd obfuscations, avoidance of all questions trying to ferret out his leanings, hatred of Dawkins, and dislike for the scientific establishment and failure to even subject himself to peer review (because of people like me apparently who fill the scientific community) can and is taken by me to indicate his data streams from the sun or the "design" of intelligence--and not natural, bottom up occurrences.

What the heck do you think he's saying? Certainly some intelligent person on this forum should be able to sum up his claims if they make sense since he seems incapable of doing so. He's asserted that I'm not too bright, but certainly not everyone can be as daft as I am. You're smart. You hung in there with Kleinman--plow through his links and his comments on the page above (as well as the many questions he's never quite answered) and see if you can discern what he's saying. If not, why not? He doesn't really say much, but there's a lot of information avoided and obfuscated in what he does say.

Unless someone somewhere sees some clarity that has heretofor been unwritten, I presume I've nailed this one. One just starts to get a feel for creationist -peak after engaging in these fruitless exchanges after some time...

kleinman

30th January 2007, 05:38 PM

Kleinman, are you really claiming among the thousands of scientists who recognize the validity of the theory of evolution none of them have math skills equal to yours?
There may be thousands of evolutionarian scientists who have mathematical skill equal to or better than mine but they haven’t applied their skills to the mathematics of mutations and natural selection. Dr Schneider is one of the few who has applied their mathematical skills to this problem and it reveals several fatal flaws in your theory. Have you looked at Dr Schneider’s ev computer simulation of random point mutations and natural selection? If you had studied this model and understood the results obtained, you would understand the trouble your theory of evolution is in.
Kleinman, provided he believes what he says, does give us a good example of the brain mechanisms at work selecting only a fraction of available information, that which supports his false belief, then excluding all other information from consideration.
Skeptigirl, I understand the foundation of your theory. You believe because there are similarities between the genomes of different types of life forms that one evolved from another. However, that is only half a theory. You have to explain how one species morphs to the next in the time available. It is this part of your theory that fails the scientific test.

If you are proposing that mutations and natural selection is the driving force for evolution, then it becomes a bookkeeping problem to see whether this mechanism can account for the genetic changes necessary to evolve a new species. Dr Schneider’s ev computer simulation of random point mutations and natural selection shows that this mechanism is far too slow to account for the changes necessary to evolve binding sites on realistic size genomes with realistic mutation rates. His selection mechanism is contrived yet it still reveals profoundly slow rates of accumulation of genetic information. Consider that there is no known selection mechanism for the evolution of a gene de novo that could be used in this model and you will understand why your theory of evolution has no mathematical basis. In fact, the mathematics of mutations and natural selection shows that this process is impossible.

The Atheist

30th January 2007, 06:11 PM

He does? Where did he say that?

~~ Paul

Articulett? Back up an assertion? No way.

The Atheist

30th January 2007, 06:13 PM

Oh, don't make me plow through his pages of obfuscations again.

Like I said. No way.

Hard to find evidence to back up lies.

Trying2Bopen

30th January 2007, 06:37 PM

The link to which you refer is most probably in
www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk (http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk)
under the prebiotic evolution link, chapters three or four.

The cyclic chemical processes to which I refer will, I suggest, arise from and be driven by cyclic variations of temperature due to the sun's day night cycle. Other oscillatory energy sources could have similar effects but, since the sun was, even then, by far the largest, it is my favorite candidate. Chafe suggested cyclic drying out in small ponds as a possibility but not in this context. (He argued that cyclic drying out of nucleotides would to lead to their polymerization.)

Oscillations in temperature will lead to oscillations in the position of any chemical equilibrium reaction in the organic soup. It is those oscillations that I propose to be subject to evolution. According to the scenario I describe, their evolutionary selection will lead, eventually to self-oscillating pathways of chemicals resembling both metabolic pathways and hypercycles. Thus the model suggests a mechanism whereby all biochemical pathways could have emerged in an essentially complete form. Further selection of pathways would then merge them into protocells. Data carrying molecules would emerge later.

It is true that the sun would have been less bright during that era than it is now - about 50-60% as bright. Nonetheless, the earth was warmer then. This is partly because the earth itself was still hot due to the gravitational energy releaesed during its formation and from impacts. Also, as CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere from volcanic outgassing, it provided a greenhouse effect. Hence water is thought to have been liquid then and for almost all the earth's history. (I believe that episodes of snowball earth occurred later and were due to removal of greenhouse CO2 by life.)

Thanks for the link and for clarifying :)

kjkent1

30th January 2007, 06:42 PM

Consider that there is no known selection mechanism for the evolution of a gene de novo that could be used in this model and you will understand why your theory of evolution has no mathematical basis. In fact, the mathematics of mutations and natural selection shows that this process is impossible.

If the creation of a gene de nove were impossible, because of the low probability of one arising at random, then how is it that there are so many genes?

Bat's blood and nail clippings, perhaps?

articulett

30th January 2007, 06:52 PM

Another page of Hewitt obfuscating on the question of natural processes: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67385&page=43&highlight=naturalism

I think everyone else's position on this topic is clear. Why not his? Why the obfuscation? He was similarly oblique when asked about whether he believed in a intelligent design. I think most people interested in an honest conversation would just answer the question with a yes or no. But creationists like Behe, obfuscate....and I've pointed out links and trial transcripts that show exactly how they do so.

Also, Paul, he immediately dismissed your Popper book link just like the abiogenesis link above--like they weren't worth discussing...he did something similar on the meme thread. Why aren't they worth discussing? Because these are views that threaten his own. Why do you think he's a Popper Fan? He also seems to be a Behe fan--a fan of his book, Darwin's Black Box anyhow, and thinks Intelligent Design theorists have some strong arguments but other than the "cell being the unit of replication" he hasn't told us what they are--only that scientists are cheaters and liars, oh, and by the way, you can buy his book at his readily proffered website...

To me John's prebiotic oscillation hypothesis and discussion therein sounds pretty much like Behe being cross examined about "irreducible complexity." Of course, I'm still waiting for some bright person to show me I'm wrong by explaining what exactly John is saying other than telling me the way I'm terrible as are most scientists and everyone who disagrees or thinks someone is a creationist based on their obfuscations. Such a simple thing to ask for. I even gave a nice example from Science News Daily. Or maybe someone can show me how he's not like Behe.

What does it matter what I think? If I'm wrong, he can readily correct it. He could say, "My theory relies completely on naturalism...I posit no "immeasurable sources" or intelligences". Right? He could get another intelligent person to tell us what he's saying so that it's clear to more than just himself, right? He could submit his paper to peer review. Test it. Expand upon it. Get funding for it. Win a Nobel prize. Instead he ignores, obfuscates, tries to pander his book, and resorts to ad homs while pretending he's above such things.

Trying2Bopen

30th January 2007, 07:03 PM

Kleinman and everyone: First: Hello. I am jumping into the middle of a raging debate as a rather ignorant student, so I figure the least I can do is present a proper introduction. Okay, as the name suggests I am going to be open to what you have to say, but I have some questions. In “googling” ev I came across a post of yours from anther website:

"These are long threads and not easy to read through. However, I believe there are some important mathematical principles that are demonstrated by the ev model which show that macroevolution is mathematically impossible (at least by random point mutations and natural selection)."
-kleinman
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000384-p-6.html (http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000384-p-6.html)

Would you be willing to explain a few things to me? First, I do not have a lot of background in comp. programming etc. so I request you try not to talk over my head.

Okay, now that this disclaimer is out of the way, I am confused about your quote. Point mutations are not the only mutation, and of the “one nucleotide only” mutations there are several kinds. Which kind(s) does this program utilize? Does it use substitution mutations? Or does it also include insertions and deletions (which have a much more drastic effect on the genome). For those that don’t know, let me demonstrate:

Normal: THE CAT SAW THE DOG
Point mutation: THE BAT SAW THE DOG
.......................THE CAT SAW THE HOG
.......................THE CAT SAT THE DOG
Deletion: THE ATS AWT HED OG
..................Loss of C
Insertion: THE CMA TSA WTH EDO G
..................Insertion of M

The way I understand it, point mutations are generally tolerated more easily because often the essence of the “sentence” may still be intact (i.e. the scaffolding and active sites of the proteins they encode). The other two types can result in drastic changes in meaning.

How does the program deal with other types of mutations? Such as polyploidy through non-disjunction in meiosis (i.e. instead of getting one chromosome from your mom you get two because they don’t separate properly when the egg is forming)? What about transposable genetic elements? The duplication of whole segments of chromosomes? Loss of whole segments of a chromosome? Trinucleotide repeats?

Also, you say “random point mutations”, but mutations can be induced environmentally. X-linked recessive lethals have been positively correlated with x-ray dose. And what about base analogs (things that look like AGC&T but are not and are accidentally incorporated), UV light and others? If you say that “macroevolution is mathematically impossible (at least by random point mutations...)”? I would say that perhaps you are right, perhaps it is not possible for macroevolution to occur at the rate is has been suggested based on point mutations alone, but what about all the other genomic alterations that can occur?

(reference for all genetic info: Essentials of Genetics, 5th Edition by William S. Klug & Michael R. Cummings)

kleinman

30th January 2007, 07:06 PM

Consider that there is no known selection mechanism for the evolution of a gene de novo that could be used in this model and you will understand why your theory of evolution has no mathematical basis. In fact, the mathematics of mutations and natural selection shows that this process is impossible.If the creation of a gene de nove were impossible, because of the low probability of one arising at random, then how is it that there are so many genes?
Lest I be accused of obfuscation, the name of this thread is ________ ________. Fill in the blanks.

The Atheist

30th January 2007, 07:06 PM

articulett

30th January 2007, 07:07 PM

If the creation of a gene de nove were impossible, because of the low probability of one arising at random, then how is it that there are so many genes?

Bat's blood and nail clippings, perhaps?

Goddidit, silly. Now you've finally realized what Kleinman has been trying to show you. It couldn't have happened naturally per Kleinman's math; therefore, it must have happened supernaturally--and scientists are just trying to cover up this fact!

kleinman

30th January 2007, 07:29 PM

Okay, now that this disclaimer is out of the way, I am confused about your quote. Point mutations are not the only mutation, and of the “one nucleotide only” mutations there are several kinds. Which kind(s) does this program utilize? Does it use substitution mutations? Or does it also include insertions and deletions (which have a much more drastic effect on the genome).
The ev program only utilizes random base substitutions. Frame shifts, inversions, duplications and other forms of mutations as well as recombination are not used in the model.
How does the program deal with other types of mutations? Such as polyploidy through non-disjunction in meiosis (i.e. instead of getting one chromosome from your mom you get two because they don’t separate properly when the egg is forming)? What about transposable genetic elements? The duplication of whole segments of chromosomes? Loss of whole segments of a chromosome? Trinucleotide repeats?
None of these mechanisms are included in Dr Schneider’s computer model.
Also, you say “random point mutations”, but mutations can be induced environmentally. X-linked recessive lethals have been positively correlated with x-ray dose. And what about base analogs (things that look like AGC&T but are not and are accidentally incorporated), UV light and others?
The mutation rate in the model can be varied but base analogs are not included in the model.
If you say that “macroevolution is mathematically impossible (at least by random point mutations...)”? I would say that perhaps you are right, perhaps it is not possible for macroevolution to occur at the rate is has been suggested based on point mutations alone, but what about all the other genomic alterations that can occur?
Other mechanisms of mutations have been suggested that somehow rescue the theory of evolution but without random point mutations and natural selection, how do you evolve the original genes? How do you transform duplicated genes without random point mutations and natural selection? Random point mutations and natural selection is the cornerstone of the theory of evolution. Dr Schneider’s model shows how slow this process is when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used. If other forms of mutations can rescue the theory, it is the responsibility of evolutionarians to prove their theory.
If the creation of a gene de nove were impossible, because of the low probability of one arising at random, then how is it that there are so many genes?

Bat's blood and nail clippings, perhaps?Goddidit, silly. Now you've finally realized what Kleinman has been trying to show you. It couldn't have happened naturally per Kleinman's math; therefore, it must have happened supernaturally--and scientists are just trying to cover up this fact!
I can’t take credit for the math. This is Dr Tom Schneider’s computer model. Dr Schneider is the head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute. This model has been peer reviewed and published in Nucleic Acids Research. Paul Anagnostopoulos, a moderator for this forum wrote the online version of the program.

Dr Adequate

30th January 2007, 09:38 PM

Random point mutations and natural selection is the cornerstone of the theory of evolution. NB: This is a lie.

Dr Schneider’s model shows how slow this process is when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used. NB: This is a lie.

I can’t take credit for the math. NB: Although kleinman intends this to be a lie, it is in fact, taken literally, the truth: he cannot take credit for the halfwitted mess he's made of the math. His attempt to blame others for his idiotic mistakes, however, is a lie.

Trying2Bopen

30th January 2007, 09:45 PM

Kleinman: Hmmm, okay, thanks for answering my questions:). If you don’t mind, I have a few more.

I am not totally clear on how you go from point mutation to natural selection. I don’t mean the evolutionary mechanism, I mean in your argument. I would agree that random point mutations and natural selection are important parts of the theory. I have not heard one claiming “point mutations” as the cornerstone of evolutionary theory, just mutation in general, but natural selection is surely an important part. I guess I am not totally clear on ev’s selective process. How is natural selection simulated by ev (sorry, I tried to run the program but my computer is crammed too full of pics and music and such (I am a college student ;)))? And how does this simulation demonstrate that natural selection could not be a driving mechanism in this process? And even if it does, you are limiting random variation to the most benign of mutation types; doesn’t that make it difficult to draw conclusions?

I was wondering if you could clarify this please:

how do you evolve the original genes? How do you transform duplicated genes without random point mutations and natural selection?
Are you referring to how life first arose, how life has progressed or where life currently is now? The formation of gene families, etc.? What do you mean by “transform”, do you mean alter via mutation? And why does it have to be a point mutation? And again, the natural selection part I do not currently get.

You also said: “If other forms of mutations can rescue the theory, it is the responsibility of evolutionarians to prove their theory”. I always kinda thought that it is the job of everyone invested to get try and get to the heart of something (like whether or not a model is accurate). Evolutionary biologists are not the only ones with invested interest; proponents of ID seem deeply involved. Aren’t you curious to see what would happen if other types of mutation are included?

kjkent1

30th January 2007, 09:47 PM

Other mechanisms of mutations have been suggested that somehow rescue the theory of evolution but without random point mutations and natural selection, how do you evolve the original genes? How do you transform duplicated genes without random point mutations and natural selection? Random point mutations and natural selection is the cornerstone of the theory of evolution. Dr Schneider’s model shows how slow this process is when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used. If other forms of mutations can rescue the theory, it is the responsibility of evolutionarians to prove their theory.Not everything that occurs in nature is necessarily susceptible to some simple and elegant mathematical equation which perfectly describes the natural occurrence.

You are fighting the same war that Einstein fought and lost 80 years ago. When things are really small, they are affected by the energy of random photon collisions, and the ordinary Newtonian laws, with which you are so familiar as a mechanical engineer, fall to pieces.

The simple fact is that the genes which you claim are mathematically impossible are routinely found everywhere on our little orb, and they are either here because they were produced by the chaotic quantum turbulence of the primordial soup, or they were produced by pure magic.

I think that your mundane probability rules, and Schneider's ev model, are both far too simple to accurately describe the "equations" of creation, and that the true answer will be something quite different, and likely every bit as complex as 11-dimensional string theory.

Dr Adequate

31st January 2007, 03:20 AM

Dr Adequate

31st January 2007, 03:26 AM

Not everything that occurs in nature is necessarily susceptible to some simple and elegant mathematical equation which perfectly describes the natural occurrence.

You are fighting the same war that Einstein fought and lost 80 years ago. When things are really small, they are affected by the energy of random photon collisions, and the ordinary Newtonian laws, with which you are so familiar as a mechanical engineer, fall to pieces.

The simple fact is that the genes which you claim are mathematically impossible are routinely found everywhere on our little orb, and they are either here because they were produced by the chaotic quantum turbulence of the primordial soup, or they were produced by pure magic.

I think that your mundane probability rules, and Schneider's ev model, are both far too simple to accurately describe the "equations" of creation, and that the true answer will be something quite different, and likely every bit as complex as 11-dimensional string theory. Well, if we're talking about the origins of the whole universe, then yes, you're right, the laws known to biologists will never account for it. That's not what biologists do. If you merely want to know about the origin of species, then the laws of evolution will do just fine.

John Hewitt

31st January 2007, 03:30 AM

John, do you think that there forces other than nature or naturalism that account for replication in life forms?

Also, can you give a quick description as to why you insist that the cell is the true replicator, not the DNA/RNA?

I have no idea what forces you would or would not consider natural or how you would distinguish them. Neither do I consider myself bound on such matters by your faith system.

I consider cells to be replicators because, given suitable and reasonably plausible, earthly, inputs of energy and small molecular mass compounds, they can replicate themselves. I consider DNA/RNA not to be replicators because there are no reasonably plausible, earthly, inputs of energy and small molecular mass compounds that enable DNA/RNA to replicate itself.

I trust that is now clear.

Ivor the Engineer

31st January 2007, 03:31 AM

Are you kidding or am I reading this question wrong?

As I understand it, evolution is a process. In biological organisms, genes are an essential component to allow evolution to take place.

Evolution is the theory of how living organisms change over time. Genetic change is the process. The genes are the "theory" if I may distort things a bit for simplicity.

I would say evolution is the process; genetic change is what happens when an organism evolves.

Genes are part of the DNA (and RNA for some viruses) blueprint by which living organisms reproduce and changes in DNA and RNA are the mechanism of evolution.

I'd agree with that.

How on Earth do you see evolution without genetic changes or are you imagining genes as something different from the DNA?

I don't see why a system requires anything as complicated as a gene to evolve. Clearly it doesn’t or we wouldn’t be here having this conversation. All is required is a place to store information, along with the other items I gave on my list earlier.

I just don't get this question at all.

Clearly I wasn't being as clear as I thought I was.

We are beyond implicit. Genes are observed directly. That's what codons are all about.

I was referring to the fact that it is implicit that genes store information. There is nothing about the words ‘gene’ or ‘condon’ that hints at memory to me. But as I’ve said before, perhaps I’m showing my ignorance?

Maybe this is the disconnect. You are talking about evolution of something besides the organism itself? We have a lot to learn about how genes control behavior but we know they do. I didn't teach my dogs to hunt but they certainly have an instinct to chase small animals and kill them if they catch them.

I was trying to make the point that an analysis should be performed at an appropriate level. Sure you could argue that genes determine everything about an organism, but you could also argue it was all decided the moment the universe came into existence, neither of which to me are useful for explaining or predicting most phenomenon.

Behaviors, just like the physical body can be modified in addition to the genetic contribution.

Yes, I'd agree with that.

It already has coalesced. There are thousands of studies completed and ongoing on the physiological factors in behavior from neurotransmitters to hormones to brain structure. Some factors are genetically determined some are not.

Again, I would say it's all about the level of analysis. Obviously genes have an impact on behavior. For example IQ appears to be ~50% determined by a person's genes. To me, the interesting work in psychology is how to affect the other 50%. That will not involve genetics. Evolution may be involved, but not to do with genes. Call it mematics if you like. (Robert takes cover while John explodes):D .

Joyce, at the Scripps Institute forced the equivalent of a few thousand years or something in lab experiments with RNA. I don't remember the details so don't quote the numbers.

I don't understand your point though.

Just so I don't get accused of being a creationist, let me explicitly state I do not believe in God or supernatural explanations. My point is the really useful stuff in genetics is done with genes that exist today. I see little application in hypothesizing how genes came about.

Your point about finding alien life and us all finally realizing we’re more human than American, Iraqi, French, German etc., that’s a nice idea. I don’t believe it will ever happen (the bonding, not finding alien life) so long as greed remains a motivation for some (all?) of us. I wonder how genes affect that personality trait?

Dr Adequate

31st January 2007, 03:37 AM

I consider DNA/RNA not to be replicators because there are no reasonably plausible, earthly, inputs of energy and small molecular mass compounds that enable DNA/RNA to replicate itself. But they do. Didn't you read my links? And so do beta-prions.

This is not merely hypothetical or even theoretical, we can see in a laboratory how you are just downright wrong. The results have been published and replicated many times.

Kotatsu

31st January 2007, 03:42 AM

I could most likely convince myself that mustard and cabbage plants are mustard and cabbage plants, yes.

And if the progeny between a certain mustard plant and a certain cabbage plant is found to be neither, but something else --- as is the case with Song's et al. study --- then what?

Using their terminology (A = Brassica rapa, B = B. nigra, and C = B. oleracea), recall that the AB and BA genomes do not represent either the A genome, nor the B genome, but instead represent the genome of B. juncea. Similarly, the AC and CA genomes do not represent either the A genome, nor the C genome, but rather the genome of B. napus.

Further, all of these five nominal species were first described by Linnaeus, long before it was discovered that three of them were naturally occurring hybrids. I believe it is reasonable for me, being no botanist, to assume that at least Linnaeus found the differences between the diploid parent plants and their polyploid progeny plants to be sufficient.

Thus, while the F5 progeny is certainly Brassica, and would certainly --- if encountered in the wild --- be called "mustard" or "cabbage" of some sort, they are no longer the same as the parent species from which they are derived. And that, as I see it, is all that is required of speciation. Or are you suggesting that the progeny need to be --- justifiably --- assigned to another genus, tribe, or family than the parent species for speciation to have occurred?

(Also, as an aside in case of semantics, inasmush as Wikipedia can be trusted, B. napus is actually neither called "mustard" nor "cabbage" but Oilseed rape, Canola, Rutabaga, or Swede Turnip. The AB/BA genome is thus, one could argue, a case where two species of mustard has produced something which is not a mustard. However, I assume this is irrelevant.)

Dr Adequate

31st January 2007, 03:44 AM

Well, that is a nice reply to hammy, but I still want to know about the creature which can walk on land, but which he still deemed to be a whale.

C'mon, hammy, don't you have any excuses left?

Kotatsu

31st January 2007, 04:11 AM

The ev program only utilizes random base substitutions. Frame shifts, inversions, duplications and other forms of mutations as well as recombination are not used in the model

If so, all extrapolations as to the possibility of anything happening within a given timeframe made from the program where these mechanisms are not included to the real world where they are seem to be invalid.

It is like proclaiming that there are no possible prime numbers and then admitting that the program on which you base this claim only uses even numbers higher than 4.

It is like using a program on hydrogen bonding to disprove the existance of proteins, because hydrogen bonding, according to the program, is insufficient to account for the flexibility and integrity of something as complex and as large as a protein, ignoring that other known types of bonding may be relevant for the structure and function of a protein, rendering the computer program, not necessarily flawed, but too limited in scope as to the selection of applicable and available types of bondings, to be of any use other than as an exclusively mental exercise for people with small budgets who cannot afford more sophisticated programs (if such exist).

In each of these cases, it is the limitations of the program and its user that results in the strange conclusions. I believe the conclusion is simply reversed. It shouldn't be "Proteins cannot exist because hydrogen bonding is insufficient to maintain them", but rather "If hydrogen bonding was the only kind of chemical bond, proteins would not be able to be maintained". Similarly, not "Genes cannot have evolved to where they are today because point mutations are too slow", but rather "If using only point mutations, there is too little time in which to evolve the genes we see today".

Luckily, this sort of misapprehension can be corrected by a greater understanding and fuller inclusion of --- at least --- all known mechanism which influence the phenomenon.

cyborg

31st January 2007, 05:17 AM

Luckily, this sort of misapprehension can be corrected by a greater understanding and fuller inclusion of --- at least --- all known mechanism which influence the phenomenon.

Rubbish. ev proves evolution is a nonsense because it is the best mathematical simulation for amathemtical evolutionary theory. kleinman has superbly proved the impossibility of selection for creating de novo by stating that there is no selection mechanism that would work because 4^G is a really big number for really big G.

We can only conclude Jesus creates genes. Why do you hate Jesus so much?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

31st January 2007, 06:12 AM

And the other means would be????????
Any other medium that supports an evolution-like process. RNA perhaps.

Evolution is not defined in terms of DNA-based genes.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

31st January 2007, 06:19 AM

Oh, don't make me plow through his pages of obfuscations again. Let's just ask him and you may have to look at what he doesn't say or how he says things.
Actually, I'd rather not have to obtain a degree in psychoanalysis in order to understand what he's saying.

I have no idea what forces you would or would not consider natural or how you would distinguish them. Neither do I consider myself bound on such matters by your faith system.
Well, this is quite obfuscatory, I must admit. Could you give us more details of your thoughts on this?

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

31st January 2007, 06:22 AM

I was referring to the fact that it is implicit that genes store information. There is nothing about the words ‘gene’ or ‘condon’ that hints at memory to me. But as I’ve said before, perhaps I’m showing my ignorance?
I think the word gene is defined as the functional unit of inheritance. This means that the gene is the repository of the "memory" of some biological structure.

~~ Paul

Kotatsu

31st January 2007, 07:03 AM

Rubbish. ev proves evolution is a nonsense because it is the best mathematical simulation for amathemtical evolutionary theory. kleinman has superbly proved the impossibility of selection for creating de novo by stating that there is no selection mechanism that would work because 4^G is a really big number for really big G.

We can only conclude Jesus creates genes. Why do you hate Jesus so much?

A Christian bit me when I was a child, and I have been traumatized by the event ever since.

delphi_ote

31st January 2007, 07:29 AM

However, I'm still not excited by the idea of creatures a million light-years away, as I can't possibly examine or communicate with them.
We might observe some communications from a species that evolved millions of years ago. Wouldn't it be very interesting to learn about an entirely different branch of evolutionary history and what course it took, even if we couldn't directly contact them?
The only life of interest is that which can be reached by man, our scientific instruments or our two-way communications. So why not just go and find it?
It might help us look if we knew just what kinds of circumstances to expect to see life.
As for what it means to be alive: not dead:D
Your definition includes everything non-living. :D
True, but if I want to demonstrate a bunch of chemicals changing from not-alive to alive, or even non-replicating to replicating, I see no other method viable than an actual experiment with similar conditions to that on earth when life appeared here. Perhaps I was exaggerating the timescales: it would only take hundreds of thousands of years to perform.
Accurate computer simulations, direct observation of chemical phenomina that somehow obviously lead us to life, or perhaps even some kind of fossil-like evidence we have yet to uncover of could all be evidence that directs us toward a realistic hypothesis about the origin of life. It's possible we'll get there without thousands of years of test tube experiments.

kleinman

31st January 2007, 07:45 AM

I am not totally clear on how you go from point mutation to natural selection. I don’t mean the evolutionary mechanism, I mean in your argument. I would agree that random point mutations and natural selection are important parts of the theory. I have not heard one claiming “point mutations” as the cornerstone of evolutionary theory, just mutation in general, but natural selection is surely an important part. I guess I am not totally clear on ev’s selective process. How is natural selection simulated by ev (sorry, I tried to run the program but my computer is crammed too full of pics and music and such (I am a college student))? And how does this simulation demonstrate that natural selection could not be a driving mechanism in this process? And even if it does, you are limiting random variation to the most benign of mutation types; doesn’t that make it difficult to draw conclusions?
It is not how I go from point mutations to natural selection, it is how Dr Schneider and other evolutionarians go from point mutations to natural selection. In Dr Schneider’s case, he uses a weight matrix which approximates a matches between the matrix and positions on the genome. If the weight matrix fails to find a match where one should exist, it is considered an error, if the weight matrix finds a match where one should not exist, it is considered an error. Selection is based on allowing the genomes with the fewest errors to reproduce while the others are selected out. What becomes apparent is that as the genome length is increased, the number of generations for convergence becomes huge, much too large to support the theory of evolution. If other forms of mutations can rescue the theory from this mathematical sink hole, it is up to evolutionarians to prove this. Articulett is already calling Dr Schneider’s model my mathematics in order to try to devalue the results obtained from his model. The theory of evolution started without a mathematical basis and remains that way.
how do you evolve the original genes? How do you transform duplicated genes without random point mutations and natural selection?Are you referring to how life first arose, how life has progressed or where life currently is now? The formation of gene families, etc.? What do you mean by “transform”, do you mean alter via mutation? And why does it have to be a point mutation? And again, the natural selection part I do not currently get.
All three cases. The available data shows that the simplest free living life form must have at least 200 genes. So abiogenesis must explain how these genes arose and assembled to make the first simple life forms. Then once these life forms arose, how did the tens of thousands or more different genes came about. If evolutionarians are going to argue that gene duplication gives the raw material to form new genes, how do you “transform” these genes to new genes. It doesn’t have to be by point mutations but evolutionarians need to demonstrate how other forms of mutations can give rise to genes. You are not the only one who does not get the natural selection part. There is no form of natural selection that give rise to a gene de novo (from the beginning). I have given the following example of what would be required of natural selection in order to evolve a gene de novo.

Let say the a gene which codes for globin is to evolve. You start with the first base that would code for this gene. One base forms nothing so give no selective benefit for the creature so you are dependent on random additions to extend this gene. So you win the lottery and the second base to the gene is added. This partially completed gene still codes for nothing so you are still dependent on random additions to extend this gene. You win the lottery again and the third base is added to the gene and now finally you can code for a single amino acid. What benefit to that creature is a gene that codes for a single amino acid? None! So you are still dependent on random additions without any selection until you finally have a gene which codes for some useful polypeptide that is beneficial for that creature. Without selection, the probabilities for forming genes by random additions of base is infinitesimally small.

So far in this discussion, no evolutionarian has been able to describe a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo. The reason is that none exists.
You also said: “If other forms of mutations can rescue the theory, it is the responsibility of evolutionarians to prove their theory”. I always kinda thought that it is the job of everyone invested to get try and get to the heart of something (like whether or not a model is accurate). Evolutionary biologists are not the only ones with invested interest; proponents of ID seem deeply involved. Aren’t you curious to see what would happen if other types of mutation are included?
Evolutionarians don’t believe their own mathematical models when it contradicts their belief system. Why would they believe any mathematical model I develop? Let evolutionarians prove their own theory. If more evolutionarians with mathematical skills start looking at this problem, they will understand the fallacy of their theory.
Other mechanisms of mutations have been suggested that somehow rescue the theory of evolution but without random point mutations and natural selection, how do you evolve the original genes? How do you transform duplicated genes without random point mutations and natural selection? Random point mutations and natural selection is the cornerstone of the theory of evolution. Dr Schneider’s model shows how slow this process is when realistic genome lengths and mutation rates are used. If other forms of mutations can rescue the theory, it is the responsibility of evolutionarians to prove their theory.Not everything that occurs in nature is necessarily susceptible to some simple and elegant mathematical equation which perfectly describes the natural occurrence.
I never said ev was simple and it not a single mathematical equation. I think there are ways of including other mechanisms of mutations in this model. For example, frame shifts could be includes but would require some empirical measurements to determine how often these happen and survival rate for those creatures who suffer such mutations. The big problem though for evolutionarians is to describe a selection mechanism that would evolve a gene de novo.
The simple fact is that the genes which you claim are mathematically impossible are routinely found everywhere on our little orb, and they are either here because they were produced by the chaotic quantum turbulence of the primordial soup, or they were produced by pure magic.
Yours is a nice story for the Scifi channel but has no mathematical or scientific basis. If anything, the concept of abiogenesis has gone downhill since the Miller experiment in the 1950’s.
I think that your mundane probability rules, and Schneider's ev model, are both far too simple to accurately describe the "equations" of creation, and that the true answer will be something quite different, and likely every bit as complex as 11-dimensional string theory.
Probability theory are not my mundane rules. Dr Schneider’s publications do not indicate that he thinks his model is too simple to accurately describe the “equations” of creation. You are correct, the true answer is something quite different.
I consider DNA/RNA not to be replicators because there are no reasonably plausible, earthly, inputs of energy and small molecular mass compounds that enable DNA/RNA to replicate itself.But they do. Didn't you read my links?
You don’t read your own links, why should anyone else? We are still waiting for your mathematical wisdom in describing natural selection mathematically.
The ev program only utilizes random base substitutions. Frame shifts, inversions, duplications and other forms of mutations as well as recombination are not used in the modelIf so, all extrapolations as to the possibility of anything happening within a given timeframe made from the program where these mechanisms are not included to the real world where they are seem to be invalid.
Dr Schneider doesn’t seem to agree with this view. He used his program to estimate the time it would take to evolve a human genome.
And the other means would be????????Any other medium that supports an evolution-like process. RNA perhaps.

Evolution is not defined in terms of DNA-based genes.
There are no genes on retroviruses? How would the mathematics of DNA mutation and selection differ from RNA mutation and selection?
I was referring to the fact that it is implicit that genes store information. There is nothing about the words ‘gene’ or ‘condon’ that hints at memory to me. But as I’ve said before, perhaps I’m showing my ignorance?I think the word gene is defined as the functional unit of inheritance. This means that the gene is the repository of the "memory" of some biological structure.
How do you inherit a gene until it exists? Dr Schneider postulates a mechanism for evolving binding sites de novo. How do you form a gene de novo? Until you do that, there is nothing to inherit.

kjkent1

31st January 2007, 08:29 AM

articulett

31st January 2007, 08:36 AM

But they do. Didn't you read my links? And so do beta-prions.

This is not merely hypothetical or even theoretical, we can see in a laboratory how you are just downright wrong. The results have been published and replicated many times.

Yes, but as John Points out, that is just due to "dogmatic faith" in science. Creationists do love to put faith and facts on the same level--it helps with obfuscation of course. And they love to play the "what is naturalism" game too.

hammegk

31st January 2007, 08:39 AM

Well, that is a nice reply to hammy, but I still want to know about the creature which can walk on land, but which he still deemed to be a whale.

C'mon, hammy, don't you have any excuses left?
..

articulett

31st January 2007, 08:43 AM

I have no idea what forces you would or would not consider natural or how you would distinguish them. Neither do I consider myself bound on such matters by your faith system.

I consider cells to be replicators because, given suitable and reasonably plausible, earthly, inputs of energy and small molecular mass compounds, they can replicate themselves. I consider DNA/RNA not to be replicators because there are no reasonably plausible, earthly, inputs of energy and small molecular mass compounds that enable DNA/RNA to replicate itself.

I trust that is now clear.

Science is not a "faith" system, it's a fact system. I guess it's clear to you--so has anyone been any one with a basic understanding of evolution been able to sum up your hypothesis with clarity so that others might understand it? Or only those who don't practice the "faith" of scientific naturalism? Or can even one our creationist buddies or anyone clarify what you are saying, how it differs from evolution, and what your big beefs about evolution are. I understand that it's about Popper and lying scientists, and faith, and people like me, and free will and sex and humour and oscillations and data streams. I think we all understand that. But no one has stated what your hypotheses actually are, do you realize that? Not a single person. You think you are saying what it is I imagine, but unless someone can paraphrase it and understand it--it's as untestable and useless and Kleinman's mathematical theory that he believes disproves evolution by discounting the very things we can see when we look at what has happened to genomes through time.

kleinman

31st January 2007, 08:52 AM

Yours is a nice story for the Scifi channel but has no mathematical or scientific basis. If anything, the concept of abiogenesis has gone downhill since the Miller experiment in the 1950’s.Leonard Susskind, and a number of other string theorists would disagree with you about the lack of mathematical basis. As for scientific bases, we will have to wait until after the CERN accelerator is finished to see if we can get some results which will further help confirm Susskind's theory.
I wasn’t referring to string theory, I was referring to your theory that life arose in "the chaotic quantum turbulence of the primordial soup". Tell me, if you stir the soup more quickly do you get life more quickly? My empirical evidence shows that if you allow the soup to sit quietly, life appears more quickly as you can see if you forget something in your refrigerator too long.

hammegk

31st January 2007, 09:18 AM

And if the progeny between a certain mustard plant and a certain cabbage plant is found to be neither, but something else --- as is the case with Song's et al. study --- then what?

Then as usual we are back to imaginary lines on taxonomy charts vs imaginary lines on cladograms all purporting to demonstrate "speciation".

kjkent1

31st January 2007, 10:10 AM

sphenisc

31st January 2007, 10:13 AM

Humor is a funny thing (don't quit your day job).

String theory mathematically demonstrates that there are a sufficient number of alternative universes available in which the highly improbable event of life arising as the product of random chance could occur.

can you provide a reference, which includes the maths.

thanks

kjkent1

31st January 2007, 10:33 AM

can you provide a reference, which includes the maths.

thanks

Here's a list (some may not be completely relevant):

http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au:+susskind/0/1/0/2003,2004,2005,2006,2007/0/1

I think that this article is a pretty good starting point:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0302219

Dr Adequate

31st January 2007, 10:37 AM

.. Um ... I guess you don't know that the lie you copied from a creationist website is completely out of date?

Their second picture is based on what was found in the first dig. The first picture is based on what scientists found in subsequent digs.

They've found the bones, but of course the creationist liars don't change their websites, because mere facts ... well, you know about creationists and facts.

You may not know this, but the crap you just cited is one of the best examples we have of creationists telling a downright lie --- because they've been told about the facts, but they won't change their websites. They go on citing the reconstruction from the first dig as though it contradicts subsequent digs, just as they go on quoting Darwin about there being no intermediate forms in the fossil record (from the first edition of his book) when it's nearly 150 years since the first intermediate forms were produced.

They are liars, stop citing them.

Dr Adequate

31st January 2007, 11:12 AM

Oh, one more thing for hammy, where the heck do you suppose they got those reconstructions from? Creationists don't do science, do they? You know this as well as I do.

They got them both from scientists, they just put 'em in inverse chronological order.

kleinman

31st January 2007, 11:41 AM

I wasn’t referring to string theory, I was referring to your theory that life arose in "the chaotic quantum turbulence of the primordial soup". Tell me, if you stir the soup more quickly do you get life more quickly? My empirical evidence shows that if you allow the soup to sit quietly, life appears more quickly as you can see if you forget something in your refrigerator too long.String theory mathematically demonstrates that there are a sufficient number of alternative universes available in which the highly improbable event of life arising as the product of random chance could occur, and that because we are here discussing the issue, that we just happen to inhabit one of those alternative universes (aka anthropic principle).
Travelocity is having a sale on tours to alternative universes. Do you want some travel brochures?
Thus, no matter how infinitesimally improbable you may believe the existence of organic life, string theory makes this existence not just probable, but almost certain to occur.
Of course string theory makes the existence of life certain to occur. You have string beans which empirically show the theory to be true. Some people also believe that string cheese is a self replicating life form but there is controversy here. It has been proposed that string cheese evolved from Mozzarella balls which has give rise to the ball of strings cheese theory.
Dr. Kenneth Miller discussed this notion from a different viewpoint at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. He discussed the idea of shuffling a deck of cards and then dealing them out. The order of the cards is an incredibly improbable event -- but there they are, actually dealt out in this incredibly improbable order.
The order of the cards is not an incredibly improbable event, it is one ensemble in an incredibly large number of ensembles. Did Dr Miller try on any gloves in the trial?

I’m still waiting for Dr Miller to tell us what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated. (For Paul, it is the RNA replicase system).
So, if string theory is correct, then you cannot use ordinary probability calculations to show that life could not have arisen by random chance, unless you increase the "odds" by the number of possible alternative universes in which life could haven arisen.
Kjkent1, your string theory argument has created a very knotty problem.
..Um ... I guess you don't know that the lie you copied from a creationist website is completely out of date?
Hammegk, if you really want to annoy scatequate, ask him to explain natural selection for the de novo evolution of a gene mathematically. It appears that scatequate has abandoned mathematics for paleontology.

John Hewitt

31st January 2007, 11:42 AM

hammegk

31st January 2007, 11:48 AM

Um ... I guess you don't know that the lie you copied from a creationist website is completely out of date?
I wouldn't doubt it.

Their second picture is based on what was found in the first dig. The first picture is based on what scientists found in subsequent digs.
Cites? A listing of bones actually found would be a start. Which museum/university/wherever has the originals would be another. I admit my google-fu fails.

Oh, one more thing for hammy, where the heck do you suppose they got those reconstructions from? Creationists don't do science, do they? You know this as well as I do.
Some of 'em try. The "re-construction" business has been, and is yet, a problem for all concerned, sfaik.

They got them both from scientists, they just put 'em in inverse chronological order.
Sorry. What?

kjkent1

31st January 2007, 11:53 AM

Kjkent1, your string theory argument has created a very knotty problem.Like I said, humor is a funny thing -- but don't quit your day job.

PS. How many patient consults can you squeeze in between posts?

kleinman

31st January 2007, 12:07 PM

But they do. Didn't you read my links? And so do beta-prions.

This is not merely hypothetical or even theoretical, we can see in a laboratory how you are just downright wrong. The results have been published and replicated many times.I have looked at some of your links. Non of them described DNA or RNA functioning as a replicator. Some such studies describe autocatalytic reactions but you do not need the complexity of biochemistry to achieve that.
Scatequate can’t put together a coherent argument so he has taken to googling a couple terms and copying the links to this forum without reading the links himself.
Kjkent1, your string theory argument has created a very knotty problem.Like I said, humor is a funny thing -- but don't quit your day job.

PS. How many patient consults can you squeeze in between posts?
I was just stringing you along.

Depends on how far apart the posts are.

Kotatsu

31st January 2007, 12:10 PM

Then as usual we are back to imaginary lines on taxonomy charts vs imaginary lines on cladograms all purporting to demonstrate "speciation".

This is a splendid retreat! If differences between species can be dismissed as imaginary lines on taxonomy charts and cladograms, then we may as well continue to the extreme and declare all species to be one species, divided only in the mind of the taxonomist. Of course, under those conditions there will be no speciation, as any progeny produced by any means will of course belong to the same species as the parent(s) --- by definition there is no alternative!

While I can agree that the lines taxonomists and systematicists draw between some species may be tenuous and/or ambiguous (overly influenced by some of my peers, perhaps, I tend to hold the genus Phagodrilus to be one of these cases, for instance, and I burst out laughing the first time I heard that a taxonomist wanted to divide Hieraceum into well over 5.000 species in Northern Europe alone), this is not always the case when polyploidization is involved, as this often creates a very real barrier to successful reproduction between the diploid parent and the polyploid progeny.

Kotatsu

31st January 2007, 12:31 PM

Tanstaafl

31st January 2007, 12:41 PM

Gee, whenever I came up with a simulation that didn't match the real world, I kept trying to find the error in the simulation.

I didn't realize I could just declare that reality is in error!

The Atheist

31st January 2007, 01:18 PM

I didn't realize I could just declare that reality is in error!

Please provide evidence to show that reality is real.

kleinman

31st January 2007, 02:46 PM

Dr Schneider doesn’t seem to agree with this view. He used his program to estimate the time it would take to evolve a human genome.Personally, I care not one iota what Dr. Schneider may think or not think. However, as you know, he also mentioned (1) that the rate he used to calculate that time was an overestimate, and that other factors not included in the model also played a part.
So which is it, you care not one iota what Dr Schneider may think or not think or do you think it is “large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer” that will rescue your theory? Perhaps you are willing to describe the mechanism for natural selection that would evolve a gene de novo so we can include this in the model as well?
The model, to accurately reflect all known parts of the phenomenon, must include representations of all known parts of the phenomenon. My understanding is that Ev does not seek to model all aspects of the phenomenon, but is limited to some of them. Your conclusion about the impossibility of the evolution of the human genome given a certain timeframe is applicable only to a world in which the model represents all possible methods of genome change and evolution. In the present world, this is not true, and, as I said above, your conclusion is reversed.
Feel free to include all the different forms of genetic mutation in your model since ev only includes point substitutions and it is far too slow a process to evolve anything. Don’t forget to include a realistic selection process which all of us would be interested seeing.

Tanstaafl

31st January 2007, 02:50 PM

Please provide evidence to show that reality is real.

I'm afraid to try. Doing so might cause an exception in the simulation software which creates our reality.

hammegk

31st January 2007, 02:58 PM

Please provide evidence to show that reality is real.
LOL.

Have you decided to become an objective idealist?

Your question makes no sense from the viewpoint of 100% materialism/naturalism.

kjkent1

31st January 2007, 03:42 PM

So which is it, you care not one iota what Dr Schneider may think or not think or do you think it is “large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer” that will rescue your theory? Perhaps you are willing to describe the mechanism for natural selection that would evolve a gene de novo so we can include this in the model as well?

Feel free to include all the different forms of genetic mutation in your model since ev only includes point substitutions and it is far too slow a process to evolve anything. Don’t forget to include a realistic selection process which all of us would be interested seeing.

(kjkent1 raises his hand and jumps up out of his chair)

Me! Me! I know the answer, Dr. Alan! It's string theory. Given 10^500 alternative universes, at least one of them is certain to evolve gene(s) de novo by random chance, as necessary to produce the wide diversity of life exhibited on Earth. It just happens that we humans live in one of those universes.

Let's drink to the uncertainty principle, shall we?

John Hewitt

31st January 2007, 05:00 PM

As I understand it, evolution is a process. In biological organisms, genes are an essential component to allow evolution to take place.

I would say evolution is the process; genetic change is what happens when an organism evolves.

<snip>

I don't see why a system requires anything as complicated as a gene to evolve. Clearly it doesn’t or we wouldn’t be here having this conversation. All is required is a place to store information, along with the other items I gave on my list earlier.

Clearly I wasn't being as clear as I thought I was.

I was referring to the fact that it is implicit that genes store information. There is nothing about the words ‘gene’ or ‘condon’ that hints at memory to me. But as I’ve said before, perhaps I’m showing my ignorance?

I was trying to make the point that an analysis should be performed at an appropriate level. Sure you could argue that genes determine everything about an organism, but you could also argue it was all decided the moment the universe came into existence, neither of which to me are useful for explaining or predicting most phenomenon.

Yes, you seem to be going for a systems description of evolution with multiple levels of systems and subsystems - very good.

Again, I would say it's all about the level of analysis. Obviously genes have an impact on behavior. For example IQ appears to be ~50% determined by a person's genes. To me, the interesting work in psychology is how to affect the other 50%. That will not involve genetics. Evolution may be involved, but not to do with genes. Call it mematics if you like. (Robert takes cover while John explodes):D .

Or, instead of calling it memetics, you could call it a mouldy cauliflower - after all, a rose by any other name woulds't smell as sweet.

The Atheist

31st January 2007, 05:04 PM

I'm afraid to try. Doing so might cause an exception in the simulation software which creates our reality.

I knew it! YOU'RE the programmer. I saw all those computer languages you speak, next you're in the evolution thread, THEN you mention reality.

Ha! You've been found out. Now, I just have to figure out what to do about it...

The Atheist

31st January 2007, 05:05 PM

LOL.

Have you decided to become an objective idealist?

Your question makes no sense from the viewpoint of 100% materialism/naturalism.

Since when was making sense a criterion for posting in this [or any] thread?

kleinman

31st January 2007, 05:11 PM

So which is it, you care not one iota what Dr Schneider may think or not think or do you think it is “large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer” that will rescue your theory? Perhaps you are willing to describe the mechanism for natural selection that would evolve a gene de novo so we can include this in the model as well?

Feel free to include all the different forms of genetic mutation in your model since ev only includes point substitutions and it is far too slow a process to evolve anything. Don’t forget to include a realistic selection process which all of us would be interested seeing.(kjkent1 raises his hand and jumps up out of his chair)

Me! Me! I know the answer, Dr. Alan! It's string theory. Given 10^500 alternative universes, at least one of them is certain to evolve gene(s) de novo by random chance, as necessary to produce the wide diversity of life exhibited on Earth. It just happens that we humans live in one of those universes.

Let's drink to the uncertainty principle, shall we?
Tell your marketing department at your computer company you have a marketing plan to sell your computers to 10^500 alternative universes.

hammegk

31st January 2007, 05:12 PM

Since when was making sense a criterion for posting in this [or any] thread?
You usually make sense, hence my comment. :)

kjkent1

31st January 2007, 05:41 PM

Tell your marketing department at your computer company you have a marketing plan to sell your computers to 10^500 alternative universes.

Why would I tell them about a worthless plan?

Seriously, Alan, do you realize that you are turning science and math on their respective heads? You entire argument comes down to advocating that if something which is observed doesn't follow existing mathematical principles, that the observations are wrong, rather than the math.

The probabilities may say, for example, that my horse should win the next race -- but if it doesn't, does that mean that I only imagined that the horse lost?

You are literally putting the cart(esian) before the horse.

So, let's assume that you're correct, and the creation of a gene de novo is mathematically impossible. You have yet to give us your alternative theory. However, I have read in a past post of yours (although I can't remember where, at the moment), that the more you have looked into things, the more you believe that the existence of God is mathematically certain.

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd really like you read your hypotheses on this issue. Regardless of the name of this thread, everyone has given you a huge amount of opportunity to make your negative case, and it's only fair that you start presenting an affirmative one.

What is your affirmative theory for the creation of a gene de novo?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

31st January 2007, 05:54 PM

What is your affirmative theory for the creation of a gene de novo?
And please, I'm begging you, before you start: define gene and tell us whether you mean de novo or ex nihilo.

~~ Paul

kleinman

31st January 2007, 07:09 PM

Tell your marketing department at your computer company you have a marketing plan to sell your computers to 10^500 alternative universes.Why would I tell them about a worthless plan?
It’s also a worthless argument for the theory of evolution.
Seriously, Alan, do you realize that you are turning science and math on their respective heads? You entire argument comes down to advocating that if something which is observed doesn't follow existing mathematical principles, that the observations are wrong, rather than the math.
I don’t argue about evolutionarian observations, I argue about the evolutionarian interpretation of the observations.
The probabilities may say, for example, that my horse should win the next race -- but if it doesn't, does that mean that I only imagined that the horse lost?
Your evolutionarian horse is proving to be a nag. It has lost the mutation and natural selection race. You are just slow in acknowledging this.
So, let's assume that you're correct, and the creation of a gene de novo is mathematically impossible. You have yet to give us your alternative theory. However, I have read in a past post of yours (although I can't remember where, at the moment), that the more you have looked into things, the more you believe that the existence of God is mathematically certain.
The name of this thread is ________ _________. Anyway, why am I obliged to give you an alternative theory? You are so heavily indoctrinated in evolutionism that you have lost the ability at making of objective interpretation of observations. I never said that the existence of God is mathematically certain. What I have said is that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible (at least by random point mutations and natural selection as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev computer model).
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd really like you read your hypotheses on this issue. Regardless of the name of this thread, everyone has given you a huge amount of opportunity to make your negative case, and it's only fair that you start presenting an affirmative one.
I have presented an affirmative case for creation. I have given the example of the DNA replicase system to support irreducible complexity. I have made the analogy of SETI scientists and archeologists being able to recognize intelligence in their observations, something which evolutionarians refuse to do in their observations. However, I prefer to concentrate on the mathematics of mutation and natural selection since it reveals the main flaw in the theory of evolution.
What is your affirmative theory for the creation of a gene de novo?
GEN 1:1
What is your affirmative theory for the creation of a gene de novo?And please, I'm begging you, before you start: define gene and tell us whether you mean de novo or ex nihilo.
The difference between you and I Paul is that you try to pass off your belief system as science and refuse to acknowledge that your own computer model refutes your theory. Well, you have a choice, either fix your computer model or live in denial about the mathematical impossibility of your own theory. Since there is no selection process that would evolve a gene de novo, you will probably choose the later.

The Atheist

31st January 2007, 07:26 PM

You usually make sense, hence my comment. :)Thanks for that!

I blame Douglas Adams for the other.

kjkent1

31st January 2007, 08:01 PM

It’s also a worthless argument for the theory of evolution.I'll tell Dr. Susskind you don't approve of his theory. I'm sure he'll be amused!

As a scientist, you can't reasonably fall back on Genesis, unless you have some science to back it up. But, I admire you for at least stating that your alternative to a scientific explanation is magic.

articulett

31st January 2007, 11:36 PM

(kjkent1 raises his hand and jumps up out of his chair)

Me! Me! I know the answer, Dr. Alan! It's string theory. Given 10^500 alternative universes, at least one of them is certain to evolve gene(s) de novo by random chance, as necessary to produce the wide diversity of life exhibited on Earth. It just happens that we humans live in one of those universes.

Let's drink to the uncertainty principle, shall we?

Oh no... another monkey wrench for kleinman's maths:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=61885

horizontal gene transfer between viruses and genes!

Kotatsu

1st February 2007, 01:12 AM

So which is it, you care not one iota what Dr Schneider may think or not think or do you think it is “large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer[COLOR=black]” that will rescue your theory? Perhaps you are willing to describe the mechanism for natural selection that would evolve a gene de novo so we can include this in the model as well?

I feel this is a false dichotomy: I can both not care about Dr. Schneider's alleged thoughts and ideas, and still understand that you are misrepresenting them.

Feel free to include all the different forms of genetic mutation in your model since ev only includes point substitutions and it is far too slow a process to evolve anything. Don’t forget to include a realistic selection process which all of us would be interested seeing.

In my work the need for modelling of anything does not arise; it does not interest me more than at the basic level of interest I believe all scientists might feel. That does not stop me from realising that your conclusions are reversed.

Kotatsu

1st February 2007, 01:19 AM

What I have said is that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible (at least by random point mutations and natural selection as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev computer model).

[nothing that hasn't been said 200 times already]
Which is why the model you use is, not necessarily wrong, but insufficient, and in need of expansion before you can draw any conclusions at all about a world in which more mechanisms than random point mutations and natural selection are involved.
[/see above]

The model may work for something like DarwinPond, which is much simpler, though.

John Hewitt

1st February 2007, 04:06 AM

(kjkent1 raises his hand and jumps up out of his chair)

Me! Me! I know the answer, Dr. Alan! It's string theory. Given 10^500 alternative universes, at least one of them is certain to evolve gene(s) de novo by random chance, as necessary to produce the wide diversity of life exhibited on Earth. It just happens that we humans live in one of those universes.

Let's drink to the uncertainty principle, shall we?

I'm glad this appears to be tongue-in-cheek. String theory and selection from alternative universes is well beyond what I would regard as a reasonable set of premises on which to build theories for the origin of life.

Ivor the Engineer

1st February 2007, 07:05 AM

As far as I can understand, it’s true to state that everyone (even you Kleinman) currently taking part in this discussion at least believes that genes exist and are passed on from one generation to the next. As for the main people posting who have problems with the theory of evolution:

Kleinman – you don’t believe in speciation or genes evolving de novo. God is your explanation for these things. Your evidence for God is the Bible and that a scientist’s model (ev) of a limited set of biological processes does not match reality when the results are extrapolated. I.e. Evolution by the methods simulated in ev would take too long.

John – you do not think the explanations presented here of how genes came to exist or can replicate are viable or as good as your own. You also disagree with using specifics of gene evolution to explain human behavior. The core of Bioepistemic evolution is that data exists and evolves at different levels rather than a particular data storage device, e.g. a gene.

Hammegk – you think one or two sentences are sufficient to explain any point. That’s about all I can grasp from your posts. If you have a disability that means you find it difficult to type then I apologize. Anyway, I’ll be bracing myself for the witty put down and emoticon.

Is this a fair summary of the content of your posts?

hammegk

1st February 2007, 07:27 AM

I'm glad this appears to be tongue-in-cheek. String theory and selection from alternative universes is well beyond what I would regard as a reasonable set of premises on which to build theories for the origin of life.
Why tongue-in-cheek? At minimum this universe meets the criteria for Weak anthropic principle. I'd suggest Strong anthropic principle offers support for your ideas, and perhaps for Kleinman too.

SAP to me implies that biolife was as certain to occur as was the existing table of chemical elements.

Dr Adequate

1st February 2007, 08:06 AM

I have looked at some of your links. Non of them described DNA or RNA functioning as a replicator. Some such studies describe autocatalytic reactions but you do not need the complexity of biochemistry to achieve that. I can only suppose one of two things: either you have not, in fact, read the links, or you are using the phrase "functioning as a replicator" according to some bizarre definition of your own. I suspect the latter, since, as you yourself admit, the DNA and RNA strands do indeed catalyze their own synthesis.

If in Hewittese this does not qualify as "functioning as a replicator", then I never claimed that they did --- in fact, I don't speak a word of Hewittese. I do, however, claim that, in plain English, they self-replicate.

As in:

Evidence for de novo production of self-replicating and environmentally adapted RNA structures by bacteriophage Qbeta replicase.

"[T]he template-free synthesis of RNA by Q-beta replicase described in this paper leads to truly self-replicating RNA molecules with defined and non-repetitive structures."

How much more black-and-white could it be?

Dr Adequate

1st February 2007, 08:09 AM

Scatequate can’t put together a coherent argument so he has taken to googling a couple terms and copying the links to this forum without reading the links himself.
Don't you ever tell the truth?

John Hewitt

1st February 2007, 08:27 AM

John – you do not think the explanations presented here of how genes came to exist or can replicate are viable or as good as your own. You also disagree with using specifics of gene evolution to explain human behavior. The core of Bioepistemic evolution is that data exists and evolves at different levels rather than a particular data storage device, e.g. a gene.

Yes, your description of bioepistemic evolution is fair, though not detailed. I did not realise that another theory for how genes had come about and could replicated had been proposed on this thread, though it may have been referenced without my noticing. The theories I have seen generally presume, among other things, the prior existence of preexisting pools of energetically activated nucleotides. That presumption is, in itself, reason to reject the theory in question - unless someone, somewhere has explained how they could arise. There are similar issues with the boundary problem.

The parallel universes idea seems horrible to me. It proposes that reality incorporates an essentially infinite range of universes that are parallel to our own but undetectable from within it. Within the enormous range of this reality, even an extremely improbably event such as the chance emergence of a viable organism can happen. We "know" that such an event did happen in this universe because we are, ourselves, evidence for the event.
What can one say - this may or may not be a metaphysically natural idea but it makes no obvious predictions - except that life should not have emerged twice within this universe. It can be falsified by discovering life elsewhere but it I do not see how it could ever make a useful prediction.

Yes, I do think it wrong to use purely genetic evolution to explain human behaviour. Clearly, there are lements of genetics involved in human behaviour but most human choices arise from social knowledge and observational knowledge. In those circumstances I think it best to think of genes as shaping or formatting these non-genetic knowledge pools. Thus, I would argue, our genetic making up sets the broad shape and the boundaries (the formatting if you like) of human social knowledge but actual human behaviour is a product, not just of the broad shape, but also of the detailed knowledge itself.

sphenisc

1st February 2007, 08:32 AM

I can only suppose one of two things: either you have not, in fact, read the links, or you are using the phrase "functioning as a replicator" according to some bizarre definition of your own. I suspect the latter, since, as you yourself admit, the DNA and RNA strands do indeed catalyze their own synthesis.

He's already provided the answer to this, he has his own bizarre definition.

I consider cells to be replicators because, given suitable and reasonably plausible, earthly, inputs of energy and small molecular mass compounds, they can replicate themselves. I consider DNA/RNA not to be replicators because there are no reasonably plausible, earthly, inputs of energy and small molecular mass compounds that enable DNA/RNA to replicate itself.

Thus DNA isn't a replicator, cells are, animals aren't, (non-carnivorous) plants are, carnivorous plants aren't.

John Hewitt

1st February 2007, 08:35 AM

As I have said before -

I consider cells to be replicators because, given suitable and reasonably plausible, earthly, inputs of energy and small molecular mass compounds, they can replicate themselves. I consider DNA/RNA not to be replicators because there are no reasonably plausible, earthly, inputs of energy and small molecular mass compounds that enable DNA/RNA to replicate itself.

I can only suppose one of two things: either you have not, in fact, read the links, or you are using the phrase "functioning as a replicator" according to some bizarre definition of your own. I suspect the latter, since, as you yourself admit, the DNA and RNA strands do indeed catalyze their own synthesis.

If in Hewittese this does not qualify as "functioning as a replicator", then I never claimed that they did --- in fact, I don't speak a word of Hewittese. I do, however, claim that, in plain English, they self-replicate.

As in:

Evidence for de novo production of self-replicating and environmentally adapted RNA structures by bacteriophage Qbeta replicase.

"[T]he template-free synthesis of RNA by Q-beta replicase described in this paper leads to truly self-replicating RNA molecules with defined and non-repetitive structures."

How much more black-and-white could it be?

It could be rendered more black and white by you explaining, in black and white, how q-beta replicase and energetically activated nucleotides could get into a test-tube without the intelligent intervention of Spiegelman and his colleagues.

John Hewitt

1st February 2007, 08:38 AM

He's already provided the answer to this, he has his own bizarre definition.

Thus DNA isn't a replicator, cells are, animals aren't, (non-carnivorous) plants are, carnivorous plants aren't.
I consider grass a plausible earthly input into a cow's stomach. You, presumably, don't.

Dr Adequate

1st February 2007, 08:41 AM

What I have said is that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible (at least by random point mutations and natural selection as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev computer model). You have indeed said that. You've recited it over and over. But it's not got any truer, has it?

I have presented an affirmative case for creation. I have given the example of the DNA replicase system to support irreducible complexity. In what sense is this an "affirmative case for creation"? It doesn't take a magic invisible sky pixie to produce irreducible complexity.

I have made the analogy of SETI scientists and archeologists being able to recognize intelligence in their observations, something which evolutionarians refuse to do in their observations. Or, to put it another way: "I have presented an afirmative case for pigs having wings. I have made the analogy of ornithologists and aviation engineers being able to recognize wings in their observations, something which pig farmers refuse to do in their observations."

However, I prefer to concentrate on the mathematics of mutation and natural selection since it reveals the main flaw in the theory of evolution.

The difference between you and I Paul is that you try to pass off your belief system as science and refuse to acknowledge that your own computer model refutes your theory. Well, you have a choice, either fix your computer model or live in denial about the mathematical impossibility of your own theory. Since there is no selection process that would evolve a gene de novo, you will probably choose the later. Hello, earth to mad person. Reciting these lies over and over won't make them true. It won't even make them convincing. It surely can't even make them convincing to you. We've shown you the clumsy mistakes in your math, we've shown you evidence for de novo production of genes, we've shown you entire genomes arising de novo in a test-tube, and reciting your gibble of windy nonsense won't make the facts go away.

sphenisc

1st February 2007, 08:46 AM

I consider grass a plausible earthly input into a cow's stomach. You, presumably, don't.

I estimate that a blade of grass is approximately 10^22 amu. I don't regard that as small, you presumably do.

Dr Adequate

1st February 2007, 08:50 AM

It could be rendered more black and white by you explaining, in black and white, how q-beta replicase and energetically activated nucleotides could get into a test-tube without the intelligent intervention of Spiegelman and his colleagues. As I have not claimed that such an event has happened, I am under no obligation to explain how it happened.

Do you have any objections to any claim I've actually made?

John Hewitt

1st February 2007, 09:32 AM

As I have not claimed that such an event has happened, I am under no obligation to explain how it happened.

Do you have any objections to any claim I've actually made?
Please state clearly whatever it is that you are saying.

John Hewitt

1st February 2007, 09:34 AM

I estimate that a blade of grass is approximately 10^22 amu. I don't regard that as small, you presumably do.
I don't regard your comments as relevant. You presumably do.

Dr Adequate

1st February 2007, 09:43 AM

Please state clearly whatever it is that you are saying. Certainly. I am saying that as I have not claimed that such an event has happened, I am under no obligation to explain how it happened.

I am also asking whether you have any objections to any claim I've actually made?

DiskoVilante

1st February 2007, 09:56 AM

This discussion is so cool.

kjkent1

1st February 2007, 09:59 AM

I'm glad this appears to be tongue-in-cheek. String theory and selection from alternative universes is well beyond what I would regard as a reasonable set of premises on which to build theories for the origin of life.

I'm having fun, but it's not tongue-in-cheek.

At first I thought that Susskind's theory as discussed in plain English in his book, "The Cosmic Landscape" (2006), is absurd. Then, I started struggling through his published papers, and those of the other theorists who discuss the pros and cons of string theory and anthropic principle. And, all of a sudden, it made sense (although I thoroughly admit that the math is far beyond my skills to comprehend, so I assume that other physicists have confirmed the results, if not the conclusions).

I also realized that many people, even many respected scientists, who are outside of the field high-energy physics, misunderstand anthropic principle, believing that it presents a plausible argument in favor of intelligent design, or God as creator -- when in fact it does not. But, I'm not going to get into this tangential argument -- at least not yet.

Susskind's remarkable conclusion is that string theory is another way of describing quantum mechanics via the "many worlds" interpretation, albeit from a different mathematical perspective. Both of these theories suggest to Susskind (and physicist Steven Weinberg) that the existence of our universe, and derivatively, what we observe within it, i.e., the galaxies, stars, elements, elementary particles, gravity, photons, electromagnetic/strong/weak nuclear forces, gravity carbon-based organic life, i.e., everything, is, the product of what appears to be an incredibly unlikely chain of events -- but only when viewed from our perspective as observers who happen to live in our particular locale in this particular universe.

That is, the laws of our universe, and the mathematical models which we develop to help us understand our universe, are all relative to our position as observer. So, like Einstein who found his scientific theories subject to relativistic behavior, Susskind finds all other theories equally subject to relativity.

As applied to a discussion of the probability of organic life arising on our planet and developing to the point where humans, as sentient beings, could contemplate such ideas, Susskind's theory does indeed resolve the question of how it is possible for what Dr. Kleinman, and others of his persuasion, view as such in incredibly improbable event, to have occurred.

Viewed from our limited perspective, and using fixed and immutable "laws" of probability to explain our existence, suggests that organic life could not have arisen by random chance. Thus, the theist will assume the logical alternative, i.e., God. But, in Susskind's view, organic life is easily explained, because if one thinks of a new universe being created as the result of every quantum event, where an alternative result actually occurs in a different universe, then the probability of organic life occurring in at least one of those alternative universes, becomes not just likely -- it becomes certain.

And, this is not to suggest that we cannot explain organic life using fixed mathematical models or observations from within our own universe -- we probably can. But, where an observationally confirmed occurrence (such as life) seems probabilistically incredible, we need only "step back" to a more distant vantage point, and suddenly, what appears absurd from our limited vantage point, becomes much more likely, and thus much more reasonable.

This is a big bone to swallow for many scientists -- especially as all science students learn early on that there are "rules" and "laws" which are not subject to relativistic effects.

Susskind uses an MRI machine in his book to give a visual of what happens when you treat all of the laws of the universe as relativistic. For someone who lives his/her entire life inside of the universe of a running MRI machine, and who knows no external universe, the "laws" of the universe are very different, than they are for someone who lives outside the MRI field effect. Depending upon your viewpoint, the laws of physics inside the MRI field are either fixed with respect to that mini universal space, or altered from a set of more expansive laws, which only appear once we step back away from the MRI machine and see the universe (or as Susskind calls it: the megaverse), from a wider scientific perspective.

So, what's all this mean, for the theories of evolution and abiogenesis? Simply this:

Life occurred in our universe, and we are here to contemplate it as a result. If you want to attribute this "miracle" to God, then that is your prerogative. If you want to explain it scientifically, then just take a few "steps" back, and Susskind's cosmic landscape theory can do it.

kleinman

1st February 2007, 10:22 AM

It’s also a worthless argument for the theory of evolution.I'll tell Dr. Susskind you don't approve of his theory. I'm sure he'll be amused!
Is he coming to a courtroom near you too? I wonder what he thinks of the ball of string cheese theory?
As a scientist, you can't reasonably fall back on Genesis, unless you have some science to back it up. But, I admire you for at least stating that your alternative to a scientific explanation is magic.
The evolutionarian explanation of life can be proved mathematically wrong. Even with Dr Schneider’s contrived selection process, random point mutations and natural selection is so profoundly slow that these mutations can evolve nothing. Then you examine natural selection and it is easy to see that there is no way this phenomena can evolve a gene de novo. If you have two possible explanations to obtain life and you prove that one explanation is impossible, the other explanation is supported. It is called the process of elimination. Your evolutionarian theory has been eliminated.
Oh no... another monkey wrench for kleinman's maths:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=61885 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=61885)

horizontal gene transfer between viruses and genes!
Another evolutionarian error. The mathematics of ev belongs to Dr Schneider and Paul.

Anyone who has ever treated Zoster knows that there is horizontal gene transfers. Only an evolutionarian would draw the conclusion that you can create new species by this mechanism. This is an example of articulett’s mathematics.
So which is it, you care not one iota what Dr Schneider may think or not think or do you think it is “large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer” that will rescue your theory? Perhaps you are willing to describe the mechanism for natural selection that would evolve a gene de novo so we can include this in the model as well?I feel this is a false dichotomy: I can both not care about Dr. Schneider's alleged thoughts and ideas, and still understand that you are misrepresenting them.
For someone who has not read his papers, how would you know if I am misrepresenting his ideas? This is so typical of evolutionarians. It is time to learn that I like quoting what people say:
(1) Based on quotations earlier in this thread; I have not read his paper.
Feel free to include all the different forms of genetic mutation in your model since ev only includes point substitutions and it is far too slow a process to evolve anything. Don’t forget to include a realistic selection process which all of us would be interested seeing.In my work the need for modelling of anything does not arise; it does not interest me more than at the basic level of interest I believe all scientists might feel. That does not stop me from realising that your conclusions are reversed.
Another mathematically challenged evolutionarian, what a surprise!
What I have said is that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible (at least by random point mutations and natural selection as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev computer model).[nothing that hasn't been said 200 times already]
Which is why the model you use is, not necessarily wrong, but insufficient, and in need of expansion before you can draw any conclusions at all about a world in which more mechanisms than random point mutations and natural selection are involved.
[/see above]

The model may work for something like DarwinPond, which is much simpler, though.
Explain that to Paul and Dr Schneider so they can fix the insufficiency in their model. Especially, tell them what the selection process is that would evolve a gene de novo.
Kleinman – you don’t believe in speciation or genes evolving de novo. God is your explanation for these things. Your evidence for God is the Bible and that a scientist’s model (ev) of a limited set of biological processes does not match reality when the results are extrapolated. I.e. Evolution by the methods simulated in ev would take too long.
It is not whether I believe in speciation or genes evolving de novo, this is what is being shown in Dr Schneider’s ev model of random point mutations and natural selection. Even with his contrived selection process, Dr Schneider’s model shows that the accumulation of information is so profoundly slow by random point mutations and selection when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates that nothing can evolve in the time available. Then you must consider that there is no known selection process that can evolve a gene de novo. This is what the mathematics is showing.
Scatequate can’t put together a coherent argument so he has taken to googling a couple terms and copying the links to this forum without reading the links himself.Don't you ever tell the truth?
Of course I do, if for no other reason than to annoy you.
What I have said is that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible (at least by random point mutations and natural selection as shown by Dr Schneider’s ev computer model).You have indeed said that. You've recited it over and over. But it's not got any truer, has it?
If this isn’t true, take it up with Dr Schneider, I base this conclusion on results from his computer model. Hey, are you ever going to give us a mathematical explanation for natural selection or do I have to ask this over and over?
I have presented an affirmative case for creation. I have given the example of the DNA replicase system to support irreducible complexity.In what sense is this an "affirmative case for creation"? It doesn't take a magic invisible sky pixie to produce irreducible complexity.
Let’s hear your evolutionarian explanation for the origin of the DNA replicase system, or is that just one more gap in your theory? Maybe we should change the name of the “theory of evolution” to the “gap theory” since that seems to be the dominant feature in the theory.
I have made the analogy of SETI scientists and archeologists being able to recognize intelligence in their observations, something which evolutionarians refuse to do in their observations.Or, to put it another way: "I have presented an afirmative case for pigs having wings. I have made the analogy of ornithologists and aviation engineers being able to recognize wings in their observations, something which pig farmers refuse to do in their observations."
Not quite, scientists learn to recognize patterns created by intelligent sources, whether they be archeological, radio waves or other types of patterns. Evolutionarians refuse to accept the patterns seen in genetics as having an intelligent source because it interferes with your belief system.
However, I prefer to concentrate on the mathematics of mutation and natural selection since it reveals the main flaw in the theory of evolution.

The difference between you and I Paul is that you try to pass off your belief system as science and refuse to acknowledge that your own computer model refutes your theory. Well, you have a choice, either fix your computer model or live in denial about the mathematical impossibility of your own theory. Since there is no selection process that would evolve a gene de novo, you will probably choose the later.Hello, earth to mad person. Reciting these lies over and over won't make them true. It won't even make them convincing. It surely can't even make them convincing to you. We've shown you the clumsy mistakes in your math, we've shown you evidence for de novo production of genes, we've shown you entire genomes arising de novo in a test-tube, and reciting your gibble of windy nonsense won't make the facts go away.
So not only do genes arise de novo, now you are claiming entire genomes are arising de novo? The only thing you have shown is that you post links without ever reading what they say.

kjkent1

1st February 2007, 10:49 AM

The evolutionarian explanation of life can be proved mathematically wrong. Even with Dr Schneider’s contrived selection process, random point mutations and natural selection is so profoundly slow that these mutations can evolve nothing. Then you examine natural selection and it is easy to see that there is no way this phenomena can evolve a gene de novo. If you have two possible explanations to obtain life and you prove that one explanation is impossible, the other explanation is supported. It is called the process of elimination. Your evolutionarian theory has been eliminated.

You're wrong, Alan. You just don't understand why. If you disagree, then contact Susskind and discuss it with him. I already have.

kleinman

1st February 2007, 11:33 AM

The evolutionarian explanation of life can be proved mathematically wrong. Even with Dr Schneider’s contrived selection process, random point mutations and natural selection is so profoundly slow that these mutations can evolve nothing. Then you examine natural selection and it is easy to see that there is no way this phenomena can evolve a gene de novo. If you have two possible explanations to obtain life and you prove that one explanation is impossible, the other explanation is supported. It is called the process of elimination. Your evolutionarian theory has been eliminated.You're wrong, Alan. You just don't understand why. If you disagree, then contact Susskind and discuss it with him. I already have.
If you want to believe there are 10^500 (not 10^499 or 10^501) alternative universes, go for it. It sounds acceptable in any court of law.

John Hewitt

1st February 2007, 12:01 PM

Certainly. I am saying that as I have not claimed that such an event has happened, I am under no obligation to explain how it happened.

I am also asking whether you have any objections to any claim I've actually made?
If ever you claim something, let me know.

John Hewitt

1st February 2007, 12:30 PM

At first I thought that Susskind's theory as discussed in plain English in his book, "The Cosmic Landscape" (2006), is absurd. Then, I started struggling through his published papers, and those of the other theorists who discuss the pros and cons of string theory and anthropic principle. And, all of a sudden, it made sense (although I thoroughly admit that the math is far beyond my skills to comprehend, so I assume that other physicists have confirmed the results, if not the conclusions).

I also realized that many people, even many respected scientists, who are outside of the field high-energy physics, misunderstand anthropic principle, believing that it presents a plausible argument in favor of intelligent design, or God as creator -- when in fact it does not. But, I'm not going to get into this tangential argument -- at least not yet.
<snip>
Viewed from our limited perspective, and using fixed and immutable "laws" of probability to explain our existence, suggests that organic life could not have arisen by random chance. Thus, the theist will assume the logical alternative, i.e., God. But, in Susskind's view, organic life is easily explained, because if one thinks of a new universe being created as the result of every quantum event, where an alternative result actually occurs in a different universe, then the probability of organic life occurring in at least one of those alternative universes, becomes not just likely -- it becomes certain.

And, this is not to suggest that we cannot explain organic life using fixed mathematical models or observations from within our own universe -- we probably can. But, where an observationally confirmed occurrence (such as life) seems probabilistically incredible, we need only "step back" to a more distant vantage point, and suddenly, what appears absurd from our limited vantage point, becomes much more likely, and thus much more reasonable.
<snip>
So, what's all this mean, for the theories of evolution and abiogenesis? Simply this:

Life occurred in our universe, and we are here to contemplate it as a result. If you want to attribute this "miracle" to God, then that is your prerogative. If you want to explain it scientifically, then just take a few "steps" back, and Susskind's cosmic landscape theory can do it.
I don't quite understand what you mean by the anthropic principle in this context.
These parallel universes seem to be defined in a way that makes them unobservable and this explanation of the emergence of life would make its emergence the functional equivalent of a miracle.

I prefer to construct and examine theories that are not functionally miraculous. My work proposes a chemically parsimonious explanation for the emergence of life with no such overtones and I prefer that approach.

Dr Adequate

1st February 2007, 12:48 PM

If ever you claim something, let me know. Certainly.

I have claimed something, this is me letting you know.

If you are interested in knowing what I have claimed, you should look at my posts.

Dr Adequate

1st February 2007, 12:54 PM

Is he coming to a courtroom near you too? I wonder what he thinks of the ball of string cheese theory?

The evolutionarian explanation of life can be proved mathematically wrong. Even with Dr Schneider’s contrived selection process, random point mutations and natural selection is so profoundly slow that these mutations can evolve nothing. Then you examine natural selection and it is easy to see that there is no way this phenomena can evolve a gene de novo. If you have two possible explanations to obtain life and you prove that one explanation is impossible, the other explanation is supported. It is called the process of elimination. Your evolutionarian theory has been eliminated.

Another evolutionarian error. The mathematics of ev belongs to Dr Schneider and Paul.

Anyone who has ever treated Zoster knows that there is horizontal gene transfers. Only an evolutionarian would draw the conclusion that you can create new species by this mechanism. This is an example of articulett’s mathematics.

For someone who has not read his papers, how would you know if I am misrepresenting his ideas? This is so typical of evolutionarians. It is time to learn that I like quoting what people say:

Another mathematically challenged evolutionarian, what a surprise!

Explain that to Paul and Dr Schneider so they can fix the insufficiency in their model. Especially, tell them what the selection process is that would evolve a gene de novo.

It is not whether I believe in speciation or genes evolving de novo, this is what is being shown in Dr Schneider’s ev model of random point mutations and natural selection. Even with his contrived selection process, Dr Schneider’s model shows that the accumulation of information is so profoundly slow by random point mutations and selection when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates that nothing can evolve in the time available. Then you must consider that there is no known selection process that can evolve a gene de novo. This is what the mathematics is showing.

Of course I do, if for no other reason than to annoy you.

If this isn’t true, take it up with Dr Schneider, I base this conclusion on results from his computer model. Hey, are you ever going to give us a mathematical explanation for natural selection or do I have to ask this over and over?

Let’s hear your evolutionarian explanation for the origin of the DNA replicase system, or is that just one more gap in your theory? Maybe we should change the name of the “theory of evolution” to the “gap theory” since that seems to be the dominant feature in the theory.

Not quite, scientists learn to recognize patterns created by intelligent sources, whether they be archeological, radio waves or other types of patterns. Evolutionarians refuse to accept the patterns seen in genetics as having an intelligent source because it interferes with your belief system.

So not only do genes arise de novo, now you are claiming entire genomes are arising de novo? The only thing you have shown is that you post links without ever reading what they say. To save time, I've highlighted the statements you've made which are true. It's actually quicker than pointing out the lies.

All the lies you've told have already been rebutted in this thread. Would you like to discuss any of the true statements you've made?

kleinman

1st February 2007, 01:21 PM

All the lies you've told have already been rebutted in this thread. Would you like to discuss any of the true statements you've made?
Scatequate, you seem to be having difficulty distinguishing between the truth and a lie. Since you have said you value logic, try this on for size.

A gene is to evolve. The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome. One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.

Since you pride yourself for having a PhD in mathematics, why don’t you give a mathematical description of the de novo evolution of a gene, wait, the de novo evolution of a genome. Dr Schneider’s selection process in the ev program evolves binding sites de novo, do you think his mathematical representation of selection is a valid representation of reality, Imaginary Superhero?

Why don’t you post a couple of links (which you haven’t read). You might as well throw in a couple of gifs and jpegs since that appears to be the limit of your debating skills.

Hey Paul, is this the best mathematical skills that the members of the James Randi Forum have to offer? Scatequate's contribution to this discussion is pathetic.

Kotatsu

1st February 2007, 01:23 PM

The evolutionarian explanation of life can be proved mathematically wrong.

Then do so.

It is time to learn that I like quoting what people say:

Oh no! You saw through my clever ruse of admitting I haven't read the paper but am basing my opinion on the truthfulness of your statements on what has been cited earlier in this thread! How could I be so stupid! I should have known you are too smart for that kind of game! Kleinman 1 - Kotatsu 0.

Another mathematically challenged evolutionarian, what a surprise!

Again, your conclusions do not follow from the facts of which you are aware. In my work there is also no need for riding a bicycle, telling apart Beethoven's symphonies, or being able to count to twenty. Yet these are things which I can do.

Explain that to Paul and Dr Schneider so they can fix the insufficiency in their model.

Certainly: In case you didn't notice the frequent mentioning thereof during the last 50-odd pages of this thread, Paul, Ev is insufficiently advanced to accurately model all known mechanisms through which a genome may evolve, and thus it is ridiculous to draw the kind of conclusions some people draw in this thread merely on the basis of Ev's performance.

I feel no need to inform Dr. Schneider of this separately, though.

Especially, tell them what the selection process is that would evolve a gene de novo.

This I will not do, as it is irrelevant for the objection I have raised previously.

Even with his contrived selection process, Dr Schneider’s model shows that the accumulation of information is so profoundly slow by random point mutations and selection when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates that nothing can evolve in the time available.

Which is why the model you use is, not necessarily wrong, but insufficient, and in need of expansion before you can draw any conclusions at all about a world in which more mechanisms than random point mutations and natural selection are involved.

kjkent1

1st February 2007, 01:27 PM

If you want to believe there are 10^500 (not 10^499 or 10^501) alternative universes, go for it. It sounds acceptable in any court of law.

Your sarcasm discloses your hostility, which discloses your fear of having your belief system undermined.

You have been steadfastly proposing that probability theory refutes abiogenesis (gene de novo), and you have challenged everyone to prove otherwise -- mathematically, rather than observationally.

Well, sir, your challenge has been answered. String theory and the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, mathematically defeats your conclusion that abiogenesis is mathematically impossible, by showing a set of alternative universes so great that they overwhelm your improbability claim, and make abiogenesis a near certainty, rather than an improbability.

I can understand that you don't like mathematics being used against you -- but they have, and not by me -- by some of the heaviest theoretical physicists on the planet, whose theories are well grounded, reasonable and mathematically supported.

Now, it's your turn, again. Show us the mathematics supporting Genesis 1:1.

kjkent1

1st February 2007, 01:51 PM

I don't quite understand what you mean by the anthropic principle in this context.
These parallel universes seem to be defined in a way that makes them unobservable and this explanation of the emergence of life would make its emergence the functional equivalent of a miracle.

I prefer to construct and examine theories that are not functionally miraculous. My work proposes a chemically parsimonious explanation for the emergence of life with no such overtones and I prefer that approach.

As I've already stated, proof of string theory is not completely beyond observational proof. Read Susskind's book -- I believe he proposes some tests. Most of the research in this area is heavily dependent on the CERN accelerator, which is not yet completed. When it is, all of the high energy physicists will be engaged in attempting to prove or disprove string theory.

I'm not suggesting that your work can't prove itself without the benefit of string theory, any more than I am suggesting that quantum uncertainty cannot be proved without string theory.

What I am suggesting is that scientists have their own "faith," for a lack of a better term. That faith is a generally held belief that every natural observation is susceptible to a very simple fundamental explanation which can be succinctly stated by an equation which will fit squarely on the front of a t-shirt.

This is exactly the place where Kleinman is at. It's also where Einstein was at. And, yet, for the past 80 years science has been beset with demonstrable knowledge that the universe at the quantum level is uncertain and not susceptible to such clean explanations. We all know this is true -- we just like to dismiss it from our thinking because it makes the philosophy of the scientific method seem a little hypocritical.

Nevertheless, life is here, and as kleinman suggests, it seems damn hard to explain based on plain old probability calculations. So, he opts for God as the answer.

To me, such an answer is the effective equivalent of saying, "I give up!" No more searching for answers are required, because the answer is "God did it."

Susskind, on the other hand, proposes a scientific hypothesis which admittedly still waits for more confirmation, but which fits with all existing observations and which does not require God as part of the answer.

It's uncomfortable, but it still allows for continued research, whereas God does not. If the "miracles" of the Exodus were caused by God rather than the volcanic explosion on the Island of Santorini, then why bother doing any research at all? Better to simply put on a prayer shawl and spend the day in meditation.

Susskind and string theory do not propose that you stop trying to find scientific answers to questions which match observations found in a particular locale -- just the reverse. So, your role as a scientist is secure.

I grant you that there are a few physicists who remain convinced that string theory is no more scientific than is belief in God. But, most high energy physicists find string theory and the anthropic principle a reasonable hypothesis, requiring more investigation -- just the same as most biologists find evolution a reasonable hypothesis requiring more investigation.

So, unless you simply choose to adopt God as the answer, the search for answers will continue unabated -- string theory or not.

kleinman

1st February 2007, 02:12 PM

The evolutionarian explanation of life can be proved mathematically wrong.Then do so.
Read the thread lazy evolutionarian. Wait, evolutionarians don’t have to read. They can jump to conclusions without reading the arguments.
It is time to learn that I like quoting what people say:Oh no! You saw through my clever ruse of admitting I haven't read the paper but am basing my opinion on the truthfulness of your statements on what has been cited earlier in this thread! How could I be so stupid! I should have known you are too smart for that kind of game! Kleinman 1 - Kotatsu 0.
You are not proving yourself stupid, you are proving yourself to be lazy.
Another mathematically challenged evolutionarian, what a surprise!Again, your conclusions do not follow from the facts of which you are aware. In my work there is also no need for riding a bicycle, telling apart Beethoven's symphonies, or being able to count to twenty. Yet these are things which I can do.
Then read the thread and understand the arguments.
Explain that to Paul and Dr Schneider so they can fix the insufficiency in their model.Certainly: In case you didn't notice the frequent mentioning thereof during the last 50-odd pages of this thread, Paul, Ev is insufficiently advanced to accurately model all known mechanisms through which a genome may evolve, and thus it is ridiculous to draw the kind of conclusions some people draw in this thread merely on the basis of Ev's performance.

I feel no need to inform Dr. Schneider of this separately, though.
Well now, since you can do mathematics, here is your opportunity to rescue Dr Schneider’s model, which Dr Schneider claims represents reality.
Especially, tell them what the selection process is that would evolve a gene de novo.This I will not do, as it is irrelevant for the objection I have raised previously.
Are you sure it is something you can’t do? And how does that relate to the statement you made:
Ev is insufficiently advanced to accurately model all known mechanisms through which a genome may evolve, and thus it is ridiculous to draw the kind of conclusions some people draw in this thread merely on the basis of Ev's performance.
Do you think that including all the known mechanisms through which a genome may evolve without including a valid selection process will give you valid results?
Even with his contrived selection process, Dr Schneider’s model shows that the accumulation of information is so profoundly slow by random point mutations and selection when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates that nothing can evolve in the time available.Which is why the model you use is, not necessarily wrong, but insufficient, and in need of expansion before you can draw any conclusions at all about a world in which more mechanisms than random point mutations and natural selection are involved.
Without a valid selection process, no mathematical model will support your theory, and no selection process exists that would evolve a gene de novo.
If you want to believe there are 10^500 (not 10^499 or 10^501) alternative universes, go for it. It sounds acceptable in any court of law.Your sarcasm discloses your hostility, which discloses your fear of having your belief system undermined.
How could I refute such wisdom you lazy, greedy Dilbert? Wait, you are not a Dilbert, because a Dilbert has some technical skills.
Well, sir, your challenge has been answered. String theory and the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, mathematically defeats your conclusion that abiogenesis is mathematically impossible, by showing a set of alternative universes so great that they overwhelm your improbability claim, and make abiogenesis a near certainty, rather than an improbability.
Forget string theory and try the noodle theory, use your noodle.
I can understand that you don't like mathematics being used against you -- but they have, and not by me -- by some of the heaviest theoretical physicists on the planet, whose theories are well grounded, reasonable and mathematically supported.
I missed something here. Could you post the mathematics you are using against my arguments. Have you been studying at the scatequate school of debate? If you have, you need to post more gifs and jpegs.

hammegk

1st February 2007, 02:15 PM

cyborg

1st February 2007, 02:47 PM

kjkent1

1st February 2007, 02:51 PM

hammegk

1st February 2007, 03:01 PM

Nope.

kjkent1

1st February 2007, 03:05 PM

How could I refute such wisdom you lazy, greedy Dilbert? Wait, you are not a Dilbert, because a Dilbert has some technical skills.

Forget string theory and try the noodle theory, use your noodle.

I missed something here. Could you post the mathematics you are using against my arguments. Have you been studying at the scatequate school of debate? If you have, you need to post more gifs and jpegs.I'm not certain why you feel the need to hurl insults, Alan. Does your God teach that sort of humility?

I've already posted a link to a number of peer-reviewed papers which explain the cosmic landscape and how it relates to anthropic principle.

If you want a layperson explanation, then read Susskind's book, "The Cosmic Landscape."

And, here's a layperson lecture from June 2006 on the subject:

http://www.nyas.org/publications/readersReport.asp?articleID=48

If you're looking for a clean mathematical formula that you can paste over the fish on the back of your car, you won't find it -- because it doesn't exist. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that Susskind postulates 10^500 available landscapes in which carbon-based life such as ours could have evolved, and that is more than enough to convert your impossible odds into certainty -- annoying as that may be.

So unless you will need to reconcile Susskind's math with your own, before you continue to claim that your answer is the only plausible explanation.

John Hewitt

1st February 2007, 03:07 PM

Susskind, on the other hand, proposes a scientific hypothesis which admittedly still waits for more confirmation, but which fits with all existing observations and which does not require God as part of the answer.

It's uncomfortable, but it still allows for continued research, whereas God does not. If the "miracles" of the Exodus were caused by God rather than the volcanic explosion on the Island of Santorini, then why bother doing any research at all? Better to simply put on a prayer shawl and spend the day in meditation.

Susskind and string theory do not propose that you stop trying to find scientific answers to questions which match observations found in a particular locale -- just the reverse. So, your role as a scientist is secure.

I grant you that there are a few physicists who remain convinced that string theory is no more scientific than is belief in God. But, most high energy physicists find string theory and the anthropic principle a reasonable hypothesis, requiring more investigation -- just the same as most biologists find evolution a reasonable hypothesis requiring more investigation.

So, unless you simply choose to adopt God as the answer, the search for answers will continue unabated -- string theory or not.

I don't know enough about detailed theories in high energy physics to say much but parallel universes seem untestable to me. I find it hard to see how a few tracks in a bubble chamber could convince anyone about them.

I looked up the anthropic principle and I rather object to it. I find it hard to articulate why - but I do. I think I would rather talk of another principle, something analogous to Vygotsky's educational ideas on "zones of proximal development." His idea was that one extends knowledge from zones one already understands into zones that are proximate to those zones of knowledge you already grasp. My extension to his ideas, which one might call "the rule of proximate explanation" would state that epistemic explanations should be constructed from zones of knowledge that are logically proximate to the subject to be explained.

High energy physics is very far removed from biology and, in my opinion, explanations constructed from it will never be compelling. It seems to me that the areas of knowledge that are closest to the problem of the origins of biology are astronomy, insofar as it bears on conditions on early earth, some parts of physics, mostly classical physics since few *very* high energy processes occur on a planet, and chemistry - the last being the most immediately relevant.

String theory, quantum mechanics, quantum entanglement, particle physics, relativity, The God Particle - I am sure they are all very interesting subjects. For all I know, they may all be totally true but I just don't see them as potential contributors to a theory of the origin of life.

kjkent1

1st February 2007, 03:08 PM

Nope.Well, Kleinman just stated unequviocally above that his answer to biological creation is found in Genesis 1:1, so I don't know how you can include him in a group of persons not invoking God as the answer.

hammegk

1st February 2007, 03:15 PM

Well, Kleinman just stated unequviocally above that his answer to biological creation is found in Genesis 1:1, so I don't know how you can include him in a group of persons not invoking God as the answer.
Indeed he did; I took it as a joke. YMMV.

kleinman

1st February 2007, 03:22 PM

The people in this thread invoking God include kjkent1 and articulett, but do not include Hewitt, kleinman, or anyone else here questioning the rigorousness of modern evoluonary theory.Yeah right hammy. He told me at least once I'd have to, "find another reason to disbelieve in God."

But feel free to live in your delusional little world.
And
Pah. The people in this thread invoking God include kjkent1 and articulett, but do not include Hewitt, kleinman, or anyone else here questioning the rigorousness of modern evoluonary theory.

The good Dr.A invokes nothing beyond useless links and invective.You must be reading a different thread than me.
The point you evolutionarians are missing is that I am using mathematical arguments against your theory. I am not claiming that creationism is a scientific while you are claiming that evolutionism is scientific.

These arguments show how weak your theory is. Rather than countering with mathematical arguments to support your theory, you require that I prove to you mathematically creationism. I can not prove creationism mathematically but I can disprove evolutionism mathematically. Evolutionism is a faith system just as much as creationism and therefore does not deserve the label of scientific.

I am not obliged to offer an alternative theory to the theory of evolution just because it can be proved mathematically impossible. So stop whimpering you cry babies and either prove your theory or stop teaching it to young children who don’t have the skills to challenge your hog wash.

In the meantime, any of you evolutionarians want to describe the selection process that would evolve a gene de novo. (For scatequate, that is the selection process that would evolve a genome de novo).

kjkent1

1st February 2007, 03:30 PM

And

The point you evolutionarians are missing is that I am using mathematical arguments against your theory. I am not claiming that creationism is a scientific while you are claiming that evolutionism is scientific.

These arguments show how weak your theory is. Rather than countering with mathematical arguments to support your theory, you require that I prove to you mathematically creationism. I can not prove creationism mathematically but I can disprove evolutionism mathematically. Evolutionism is a faith system just as much as creationism and therefore does not deserve the label of scientific.

I am not obliged to offer an alternative theory to the theory of evolution just because it can be proved mathematically impossible. So stop whimpering you cry babies and either prove your theory or stop teaching it to young children who don’t have the skills to challenge your hog wash.

In the meantime, any of you evolutionarians want to describe the selection process that would evolve a gene de novo. (For scatequate, that is the selection process that would evolve a genome de novo).

And, the point you are missing is that string theory invalidates your proof by providing a probability space large enough to permit abiogenesis to occur by random chance.

So, your challenge is refuted.

kleinman

1st February 2007, 03:50 PM

And, the point you are missing is that string theory invalidates your proof by providing a probability space large enough to permit abiogenesis to occur by random chance.

So, your challenge is refuted.
Hey Paul, did you get this, your evolutionary theory has been tied together with the string theory! So tell us kjkent1, is there any need for mutation and natural selection in your string theory?

kjkent1

1st February 2007, 03:57 PM

I don't know enough about detailed theories in high energy physics to say much but parallel universes seem untestable to me. I find it hard to see how a few tracks in a bubble chamber could convince anyone about them.

I looked up the anthropic principle and I rather object to it. I find it hard to articulate why - but I do. I think I would rather talk of another principle, something analogous to Vygotsky's educational ideas on "zones of proximal development." His idea was that one extends knowledge from zones one already understands into zones that are proximate to those zones of knowledge you already grasp. My extension to his ideas, which one might call "the rule of proximate explanation" would state that epistemic explanations should be constructed from zones of knowledge that are logically proximate to the subject to be explained.

High energy physics is very far removed from biology and, in my opinion, explanations constructed from it will never be compelling. It seems to me that the areas of knowledge that are closest to the problem of the origins of biology are astronomy, insofar as it bears on conditions on early earth, some parts of physics, mostly classical physics since few *very* high energy processes occur on a planet, and chemistry - the last being the most immediately relevant.

String theory, quantum mechanics, quantum entanglement, particle physics, relativity, The God Particle - I am sure they are all very interesting subjects. For all I know, they may all be totally true but I just don't see them as potential contributors to a theory of the origin of life.

I understand your quandary. The Anthropic argument appears circular. But, quantum wave function collapse depends on whether the quantum event is being observed, so there is a scientific precedent for this sort of reasoning.

We are the indisputable proof of our own existence. If you subtract out God/intelligent design as a possible creative force, then there must be some other natural answer. Admittedly, at the moment, the evidence of alternate universes is a matter of speculation. But, something weird does happen when a quantum event occurs, and one interpretation is the split of one universe into two. So, the speculation about multiple universes is not completely without scientific support.

Dr. Kleinman is speculating that probability theory prevents abiogenesis and evolution from naturally occurring. He doesn't dismiss the possibility of random chance entirely -- he just suggests that it's damn unlikely. So, string theory is a viable explanation for the reason why Kleinman's probability calculation is incorrect.

If there's only one universe, then I can't easily argue with Kleinman's numbers -- although I can certainly argue that life exists, so maybe the unlikely outcome occurred.

But, if I subtract out God, then the only reasonable explanation is that the unlikely outcome did occur -- regardless of Kleinman's numbers.

Kleinman views this as absurd. You view it as possible but unacceptable. I don't know what the rest of the crowd thinks, but I do know what Dr. Susskind thinks, because I've asked him myself.

My point is simply that there are credible scientists who "are" proposing a connection between string theory and organic life, so the postulate is worth not dismissing out of hand. And, while the planet's bulge brains are thinking their wild thoughts and trying to prove them in a high energy experiment, the rest of us can continue to search for more traditional answers.

One thing at least -- our discussion here hasn't devolved into a flame war.

kjkent1

1st February 2007, 03:59 PM

Hey Paul, did you get this, your evolutionary theory has been tied together with the string theory! So tell us kjkent1, is there any need for mutation and natural selection in your string theory?

It's not "my" string theory -- it's a theory which is presently held in high regard by a large number of the finest minds on Earth.

Do you admit that string theory provides sufficient probability space to permit a gene de novo to arise as the product of random chance without any selection mechanism?

If not, then there's little point in discussing the second step.

kleinman

1st February 2007, 04:16 PM

Hey Paul, did you get this, your evolutionary theory has been tied together with the string theory! So tell us kjkent1, is there any need for mutation and natural selection in your string theory?It's not "my" string theory -- it's a theory which is presently held in high regard by a large number of the finest minds on Earth.

Do you admit that string theory provides sufficient probability space to permit a gene de novo to arise as the product of random chance without any selection mechanism?

If not, then there's little point in discussing the second step.
Don’t let what I do or don’t admit to prevent you from telling your story. Let’s hear what you have to say.

kjkent1

1st February 2007, 04:34 PM

Don’t let what I do or don’t admit to prevent you from telling your story. Let’s hear what you have to say.

Your question is irrelevant, because your argument is not based on natural selection. In fact you have taken great pains to divorce yourself from that part of the argument ever since Unnamed produced a selection method which was fast enough to permit RMNS to evolve organisms well within the available time since the formation of Earth.

Your current argument, which you now claim as your entire argument, is that selection by whatever method is meaningless, because no gene can arise de novo, due to its improbability. And, the improbability is due to your claim that a gene de novo has no organism to which any selective advantage would be of use. Thus, by your probability calculations, a gene is too improbable to arise as a product of random chance.

So, we don't need to talk about selection, do we, Alan? We only need to talk about probability. And, the bottom line, whether you like it or not, is that string theory demonstrates a probability space which turns the improbability of a gene de novo's occurrence via random chance, into a near certainty.

Now, answer my question: do you admit that string theory provides a sufficient probability space to permit a gene de novo to arise as the product of random chance without any selection mechanism?

And, if you answer no, then kindly provide your new mathematical proof for your conclusion, or a reference thereto.

John Hewitt

1st February 2007, 05:09 PM

One thing at least -- our discussion here hasn't devolved into a flame war.
No, it hasn't; it has been interesting and constructive and I have enjoyed it.

kleinman

1st February 2007, 05:22 PM

Now, answer my question: do you admit that string theory provides a sufficient probability space to permit a gene de novo to arise as the product of random chance without any selection mechanism?

And, if you answer no, then kindly provide your new mathematical proof for your conclusion, or a reference thereto.
I’ve never studied string theory so I can’t give you an answer to your question. So it is up to you to teach us why string theory permits a gene to arise de novo by random chance without any selection mechanism.

Everybody is sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for your answer how this happens. Wait a minute, I want to get a bag of popcorn before the show starts.

Dr Adequate

1st February 2007, 06:26 PM

Scatequate, you seem to be having difficulty distinguishing between the truth and a lie. No, I can still tell the difference, and reciting magical words won't make it otherwise.

Perhaps this would also be a good time to mention that however often you call me "Scatequate", this will not magically make the facts go away, since reciting idiotic words does not actually change reality. You remember how I explained this to you?

I am a little flattered, however, to find that I personally can drive you into the same state of hysteria that the plain facts of biology can. I've managed to infuriate a creationist as much as truth itself infuriates him. If only your judgement had any weight, I'd feel proud.

Since you have said you value logic, try this on for size.

A gene is to evolve. The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome. One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible. And yet it happens.

So it turns out that your "mathematics" was wrong, as was explained to you about thirty pages ago, but you still keep lying about it.

I do indeed value logic, and logic tells me that things which actually happen are not impossible.

Since you pride yourself for having a PhD in mathematics, why don’t you give a mathematical description of the de novo evolution of a gene, wait, the de novo evolution of a genome. Dr Schneider’s selection process in the ev program evolves binding sites de novo, do you think his mathematical representation of selection is a valid representation of reality, Imaginary Superhero? Of course, since the de novo evolution of a genome has been actually observed, I don't need to give some hypothetical "mathematical" description of it, I've given you a description of it. Several of them, in fact, all published in peer-reviewed journals. If I wanted to prove to you that elephants exist, I wouldn't give you a "mathematical representation" of an elephant, I'd show you an elephant. In the same way, I have shown you the de novo origin of a genome.

If, after seeing the elephant, you went on whining that although I'd shown you an elephant, I hadn't shown you a "mathematical representation" of an elephant, I'd conclude that you were crawling away from reality just as fast as your hands and knees could take you.

Why don’t you post a couple of links (which you haven’t read). You might as well throw in a couple of gifs and jpegs since that appears to be the limit of your debating skills.

Hey Paul, is this the best mathematical skills that the members of the James Randi Forum have to offer? Scatequate's contribution to this discussion is pathetic. Ah, more lies.

You remember I explained to you how lying won't make facts go away?

This is still true.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

1st February 2007, 06:40 PM

Certainly: In case you didn't notice the frequent mentioning thereof during the last 50-odd pages of this thread, Paul, Ev is insufficiently advanced to accurately model all known mechanisms through which a genome may evolve, and thus it is ridiculous to draw the kind of conclusions some people draw in this thread merely on the basis of Ev's performance.
Righty-o.

Pah. The people in this thread invoking God include kjkent1 and articulett, but do not include Hewitt, kleinman, or anyone else here questioning the rigorousness of modern evoluonary theory.
Kleinman has not invoked God? You gotta pay more attention, Hammegk.

I agree, though, that the creationist ploy currently in vogue is to try to avoid the mention of God.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

1st February 2007, 06:43 PM

These arguments show how weak your theory is. Rather than countering with mathematical arguments to support your theory, you require that I prove to you mathematically creationism. I can not prove creationism mathematically but I can disprove evolutionism mathematically.
Lovely. Please do so.

~~ Paul

kjkent1

1st February 2007, 09:04 PM

I’ve never studied string theory so I can’t give you an answer to your question. So it is up to you to teach us why string theory permits a gene to arise de novo by random chance without any selection mechanism.

Everybody is sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for your answer how this happens. Wait a minute, I want to get a bag of popcorn before the show starts.

Oh goody, I get to play Perry Mason now!

Evidently your God approves of your, shall we say, massaging the truth. I can prove, from your prior posts, that you have, in fact studied string theory, at least well enough to understand the debate, and my argument.

If we were in court, and this thread were the record, you would be just inches away from a perjury charge, right now.

Would you like me to demonstrate your knowledge of string theory, or would you prefer to just answer my question?

articulett

1st February 2007, 10:27 PM

Please state clearly whatever it is that you are saying.

Now that is beautiful irony.

I, and no doubt many others, think Dr. A. is perfectly clear. What I want to know is this: Does anyone know what John Hewitt's hypothesis actually is? Anyone? So much verbiage; so little content.

articulett

1st February 2007, 10:45 PM

Pah. The people in this thread invoking God include kjkent1 and articulett, but do not include Hewitt, kleinman, or anyone else here questioning the rigorousness of modern evoluonary theory.

The good Dr.A invokes nothing beyond useless links and invective.

Oh, they are all including an "intelligent designer"--it's just that they are being deceptive and obfuscating as all creationists are. It's fine to question a theory, but, first it would be a good idea to understand it. Kleinman proposes a mathematical model that only takes into account one of a myriad of ways genes and genomes can mutate--the least efficient way, in fact....and yet, we are discovering more and more ways it occurs all the time...read the horizontal gene transfer between viruses and bacteria link above. Find out just how many viruses we have in that primordial soup called the ocean. Of course Dr. A's links are useless--all current knowledge is readily discarded by creationists...they are still working on past gaps that have long been filled in regards to evolution. They pin their everything on these gaps, because it means their "theory" (which they never seem to state...at least not in a way that is useful, testable, or understood by anyone else) might serve as an explanation to fill the gap--at least for the ignorant...and then you 3 stooges can go on believing that your "intelligent designer" is real.

Oh, and Hammy, I find it flattering to be amongst your enemies--such people seem to be a very intelligent crowd--and we are far more honest and clear than you self-important creationoids. In fact, I bet you guys don't even understand each other. None of you can sum up the others "hypothesis" much less your own big bugaboo with evolution.

tsk tsk Go crawl back in your hole.

cyborg

2nd February 2007, 03:22 AM

Rather than countering with mathematical arguments to support your theory,

You have done the least mathematics of anyone here.

4^G? Profound!

you require that I prove to you mathematically creationism. I can not prove creationism mathematically but I can disprove evolutionism mathematically. Evolutionism is a faith system just as much as creationism and therefore does not deserve the label of scientific.

Perhaps you could explain the logic of creating evolution as a 'faith' system. There are obvious reasons why the traditional 'faith' systems exist. Any good reasons you can think of why we're all deluding ourselves if you're not going to conclude that I'll have to find another reason to disbelieve in (your) god?

Because I can sure as hell think of some good reasons why YOU want to call it a faith system that have nothing to do with scientific outrage.

I am not obliged to offer an alternative theory to the theory of evolution just because it can be proved mathematically impossible.

Operative word being 'can' here.

In the meantime, any of you evolutionarians want to describe the selection process that would evolve a gene de novo. (For scatequate, that is the selection process that would evolve a genome de novo).

As I have pointed out many times I could simply modify the program to prove your assertion that the EVENT cannot happen. I refuse to do so until you provide a sufficiently mathematically rigorous definition of it. I will not be accused of fudging things.

You cannot of course which makes your claims that it is impossible totally wrong - you are a very poor mathematician if you thing 'improbable' is good enough when 'impossible' is actually possible.

The fact that you realise this of course is why you won't do it. I don't really know who the hell you think you are going to fool here by pretending otherwise.

Kotatsu

2nd February 2007, 03:39 AM

Read the thread lazy evolutionarian. Wait, evolutionarians don’t have to read. They can jump to conclusions without reading the arguments.

As you may be unaware of this, I shall tell you plainly: insults and ignorance are not arguments.

You are not proving yourself stupid, you are proving yourself to be lazy.

Man, what a comeback!
Kleinman 2 - Kotatsu 0.

Then read the thread and understand the arguments.

I have read the thread (though not all of the Articulett-Hewitt exchange, as it does not interest me). It has lead me to the conclusion that you are likely correct: if random point mutation and natural selection was the only forces operating in the real world, it is likely that too little time would have elapsed for humans to evolve.

However, as I had previously chosen not to limit my knowledge to matters explicitly stated in this thread, I also understand that in the real world, several other mechanisms are also known to be operating, which means that Ev does not acurately model all of reality, and hence it is preposterous to draw conclusions based on it as if it did.

Well now, since you can do mathematics, here is your opportunity to rescue Dr Schneider’s model, which Dr Schneider claims represents reality.

"To please Kleinman" is not sufficient motivation, as I have more pressing matters to attend to. I am not being paid for doing maths, I am being paid for sequencing birds, wasps and oligochaetes.

Are you sure it is something you can’t do?

I have no idea. Any possible lack of ability to do so I may possess is vastly eclipsed by my bulging disinclination to do so.

And how does that relate to the statement you made:

It is linked by the way that the statement you quote does not mention or concern the evolution of a gene de novo, which is further stressed in the latter post to which you are responding.

Do you think that including all the known mechanisms through which a genome may evolve without including a valid selection process will give you valid results?

No, because with or without a valid selection process, "all known mechanisms" are not sufficient to gain sufficient results. However, I'd like to think that including more than one known mechanism may, at the very least, give more accurate results.

Without a valid selection process, no mathematical model will support your theory, and no selection process exists that would evolve a gene de novo.

How do you know that?

Kotatsu

2nd February 2007, 03:43 AM

Kotatsu

2nd February 2007, 03:48 AM

And, the point you are missing is that string theory invalidates your proof by providing a probability space large enough to permit abiogenesis to occur by random chance.

So, your challenge is refuted.

Not necessarily, as --- as I understand it, which is probably not correct --- there would still need to be at least an improbable mechanism by which abiogenesis can occur naturally. If it can be shown that it is, indeed, fully impossible for abiogenesis to occur by any natural mechanism, the number of universes would be irrelevant.

Or am I missing something?

This does not preclude that his mathematical prrof is valid only within Ev (and possibly similar programs; perhaps, again, DarwinPond?), though, and not in the real world.

hammegk

2nd February 2007, 05:59 AM

I agree, though, that the creationist ploy currently in vogue is to try to avoid the mention of God.

If you define God, I suppose we could discuss your contention ... ;)

Remind me, as I seem to have forgotten your reply:
Do you accept a case of speciation only if the resulting progeny is different enough from its parent species to form, at least, a new genus? Or do you prefer to stick with the more common form of speciation where the resulting progeny is only a new species?
I haven't replied, other than to state "I don't have an answer".

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

2nd February 2007, 06:39 AM

If you define God, I suppose we could discuss your contention ...
The ploy is to avoid the mention of the word god, regardless of its definition. For most creationists in the U.S., this means avoiding the word God, the Christian God, regardless of its definition.

Kleinman, having more guts than the average creationist apologist, has been happy to quote the Bible to us.

~~ Paul

kleinman

2nd February 2007, 06:43 AM

Since you have said you value logic, try this on for size.

A gene is to evolve. The first base in the sequence for the gene is laid down on the genome. One base codes for nothing so there is nothing for natural selection to act upon. A second base added by random chance is laid down in the sequence. Still nothing to code for, natural selection can not act on this sequence. A third base in the sequence is laid down. You now have enough bases to form a codon for a single amino acid. A single amino acid has no functional use so there is still nothing for natural selection to act upon. So bases must be added randomly until you have a long enough sequence of bases to produce a functional polypeptide and then natural selection can act. Adding bases randomly yield probabilities so infinitesimally small that evolution is mathematically impossible.And yet it happens.
You’ve prove this by posting links you don’t read and failing to provide an explanation how this happens.
Since you pride yourself for having a PhD in mathematics, why don’t you give a mathematical description of the de novo evolution of a gene, wait, the de novo evolution of a genome. Dr Schneider’s selection process in the ev program evolves binding sites de novo, do you think his mathematical representation of selection is a valid representation of reality, Imaginary Superhero?Of course, since the de novo evolution of a genome has been actually observed, I don't need to give some hypothetical "mathematical" description of it, I've given you a description of it.
You’ve observe nothing and call it something and have no hypothetical “mathematical” description of it because it doesn’t exist.
Certainly: In case you didn't notice the frequent mentioning thereof during the last 50-odd pages of this thread, Paul, Ev is insufficiently advanced to accurately model all known mechanisms through which a genome may evolve, and thus it is ridiculous to draw the kind of conclusions some people draw in this thread merely on the basis of Ev's performance.Righty-o.
Paul, you’ve really come a long way since the days you used to say that ev modeled reality.
Pah. The people in this thread invoking God include kjkent1 and articulett, but do not include Hewitt, kleinman, or anyone else here questioning the rigorousness of modern evoluonary theory.Kleinman has not invoked God? You gotta pay more attention, Hammegk.

I agree, though, that the creationist ploy currently in vogue is to try to avoid the mention of God.
Paul, you and the other evolutionarians on this site would rather talk about anything else but ev whether it be kjkent1 wanting to talk about strings or you and Kotatsu complaining that ev doesn’t model all the forms of mutations or evolutionarians complaining that I am obliged to offer an alternative to evolutionism. You evolutionarians are trying to change the point of this thread to anything but ev.
These arguments show how weak your theory is. Rather than countering with mathematical arguments to support your theory, you require that I prove to you mathematically creationism. I can not prove creationism mathematically but I can disprove evolutionism mathematically.Lovely. Please do so.
I have done this in case you haven’t noticed Mr RcaPaulcity using your own ev computer model.
Do you think that including all the known mechanisms through which a genome may evolve without including a valid selection process will give you valid results?No, because with or without a valid selection process, "all known mechanisms" are not sufficient to gain sufficient results. However, I'd like to think that including more than one known mechanism may, at the very least, give more accurate results.
You don’t know whether random point mutations alone or other mechanism of mutations are required to gain sufficient results. It is clear that random point mutations alone is not sufficient. However, no matter what type of mutation mechanism is considered, at least you realize that a valid selection process is required. This is something Paul has not acknowledged yet.
Without a valid selection process, no mathematical model will support your theory, and no selection process exists that would evolve a gene de novo.How do you know that?
I know that because if one existed you evolutionarians would trot it out and end this discussion. I guess this is a minor gap in your theory.

Mr. Scott

2nd February 2007, 06:46 AM

Dr. Kleinman:

Correct me if I'm wrong:

You've said that the Ev program, if it perfectly models evolution, proves it is mathematically impossible for the genetic endowment of humans to have evolved in the time Darwinists claim. That would mean you are saying that Evolution Time Required is greater than Evolution Time Available (ETR > ETA).

What specific values of ETR and ETA are you using? What are the longest and shortest estimated ETR and ETA that you believe are reasonable? How do you arrive at these values?

hammegk

2nd February 2007, 07:07 AM

The ploy is to avoid the mention of the word god, regardless of its definition. For most creationists in the U.S., this means avoiding the word God, the Christian God, regardless of its definition.

Kleinman, having more guts than the average creationist apologist, has been happy to quote the Bible to us.

~~ Paul
I see. Do you then contend computer models work differently for "believers" than for "Non-believers"?

kleinman

2nd February 2007, 07:12 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong:

You've said that the Ev program, if it perfectly models evolution, proves it is mathematically impossible for the genetic endowment of humans to have evolved in the time Darwinists claim. That would mean you are saying that Evolution Time Required is greater than Evolution Time Available (ETR > ETA).
I have never said the ev perfectly models evolution. I have said that ev gives a plausible model of random point mutations and natural selection. I have also said that Dr Schneider’s selection process does not accurately model any realistic phenomena but for the sake of discussion did not challenge this with any rigor until Unnamed devised his more unrealistic selection process which almost completely ignores mutations on the nonbinding site region of the genome.
What specific values of ETR and ETA are you using? What are the longest and shortest estimated ETR and ETA that you believe are reasonable? How do you arrive at these values?
The way we have been arriving at time from generations for convergence is by multiplying by the length of time per generation for particular creatures. Bacteria can have length of time per generation of about 20 minutes under ideal circumstances but can sustain this for only a few hours. Paul has used a value of 1 generation per day average for bacteria and I think that is close enough for all practical purposes. The time available for evolving bacteria is about 3 billion years. When discussing generation times for humans, I have been using 10 years per generation. The amount of time available per evolutionarian estimates had been 4-6 million years since humans and chimps diverged which would give about 400-600,000 generations. One of my evolutionarian friends recently said that the he saw a new estimate that humans and chimps diverged 14,000,000 years ago. That’s no big surprise for me. Evolutionarians will need a lot more time to account for the differences in the two genomes.

Mr. Scott

2nd February 2007, 07:44 AM

The way we have been arriving at time from generations for convergence is by multiplying by the length of time per generation for particular creatures. Bacteria can have length of time per generation of about 20 minutes under ideal circumstances but can sustain this for only a few hours. Paul has used a value of 1 generation per day average for bacteria and I think that is close enough for all practical purposes. The time available for evolving bacteria is about 3 billion years. When discussing generation times for humans, I have been using 10 years per generation. The amount of time available per evolutionarian estimates had been 4-6 million years since humans and chimps diverged which would give about 400-600,000 generations. One of my evolutionarian friends recently said that the he saw a new estimate that humans and chimps diverged 14,000,000 years ago. That’s no big surprise for me. Evolutionarians will need a lot more time to account for the differences in the two genomes

I'm asking for two numbers. The Evolution Time Available (ETA) and the Evolution Time Required (ETR).

You are saying the ETA for bacteria is 3 billion years? For humans to diverge is 4-14 million years?

What are your estimates for the ETR of bacteria, and human divergence from the ancestor purportedly common to the chimps? How many years?

kleinman

2nd February 2007, 08:42 AM

I'm asking for two numbers. The Evolution Time Available (ETA) and the Evolution Time Required (ETR).

You are saying the ETA for bacteria is 3 billion years? For humans to diverge is 4-14 million years?

What are your estimates for the ETR of bacteria, and human divergence from the ancestor purportedly common to the chimps? How many years?
ETR depends on the size of genome and mutation rate used in ev. For example, Dr Schneider used a genome length of 256 and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 base per generations and estimated a rate of information increase of 1 bit per 11 generations. He then extrapolated this value to a human genome and estimated 1 billion years (with conditions). If you use a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 1,000,000 bases with a genome length of 256 bases, the rate of information accumulation drops to about 1 bit per 4000 generations and the amount of time required to evolve a human genome becomes about 4 trillion years.

If you use longer genomes in the ev model, the rate of information accumulation drops markedly. In fact, the largest genome either Paul or I have run is about 100k and the rate of information accumulation is at least 10’s of thousands of times slower than for the 256 base case. If you are depending on random point mutations and natural selection to account for the divergence of humans and chimps (gigabase genomes), ev shows this is mathematically impossible. For bacteria, you might make a rough estimate that the simples bacterial genome has about 1,000,000 bits of information. Ev is showing for a 100k genome that information can be gained at the rate of about 1 bit per million generations. Therefore, it would take 10^6 * 10^6 = 10^12 generations to accumulate the information to evolve a 500k genome. If you assume 1 generation per day that gives a required time of about 2.7 billion years to evolve a 500k bacterial genome by random point mutations. There is a really big if in this calculation. That big if is what is the selection process that would allow for evolution of the 200+ genes de novo. Dr Schneider’s selection process allows for the de novo evolution of binding sites because it allows step wise recognition of the sites. There is no real selection process that can be demonstrated that works like this. With Dr Schneider’s model, you would have to assume that there are hundreds of different selection processes that somehow can evolve the many different genes required for even the simplest life form. So the 2.7 billion year estimate for the evolution of a bacterial genome is an extremely overoptimistic estimate based on an unrealistic selection process.

The real problem that you evolutionarians have is not that ev doesn’t include all the different forms of mutations, it is in defining a realistic selection process that evolve genes de novo. There is/are no such selection process(s).

Kotatsu

2nd February 2007, 08:49 AM

kjkent1

2nd February 2007, 10:21 AM

ETR depends on the size of genome and mutation rate used in ev. For example, Dr Schneider used a genome length of 256 and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 base per generations and estimated a rate of information increase of 1 bit per 11 generations. He then extrapolated this value to a human genome and estimated 1 billion years (with conditions). If you use a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 1,000,000 bases with a genome length of 256 bases, the rate of information accumulation drops to about 1 bit per 4000 generations and the amount of time required to evolve a human genome becomes about 4 trillion years.

If you use longer genomes in the ev model, the rate of information accumulation drops markedly. In fact, the largest genome either Paul or I have run is about 100k and the rate of information accumulation is at least 10’s of thousands of times slower than for the 256 base case. If you are depending on random point mutations and natural selection to account for the divergence of humans and chimps (gigabase genomes), ev shows this is mathematically impossible. For bacteria, you might make a rough estimate that the simples bacterial genome has about 1,000,000 bits of information. Ev is showing for a 100k genome that information can be gained at the rate of about 1 bit per million generations. Therefore, it would take 10^6 * 10^6 = 10^12 generations to accumulate the information to evolve a 500k genome. If you assume 1 generation per day that gives a required time of about 2.7 billion years to evolve a 500k bacterial genome by random point mutations. There is a really big if in this calculation. That big if is what is the selection process that would allow for evolution of the 200+ genes de novo. Dr Schneider’s selection process allows for the de novo evolution of binding sites because it allows step wise recognition of the sites. There is no real selection process that can be demonstrated that works like this. With Dr Schneider’s model, you would have to assume that there are hundreds of different selection processes that somehow can evolve the many different genes required for even the simplest life form. So the 2.7 billion year estimate for the evolution of a bacterial genome is an extremely overoptimistic estimate based on an unrealistic selection process.

The real problem that you evolutionarians have is not that ev doesn’t include all the different forms of mutations, it is in defining a realistic selection process that evolve genes de novo. There is/are no such selection process(s).

You may want to mention to Mr. Scott, that none of your opponents agree with your above statement of facts, and that substantially all of your claims have already been refuted, at least to your opponents' satisfaction -- if not to your own.

Dr Adequate

2nd February 2007, 10:33 AM

You’ve prove this by posting links you don’t read and failing to provide an explanation how this happens.

You’ve observe nothing and call it something and have no hypothetical “mathematical” description of it because it doesn’t exist.

Paul, you’ve really come a long way since the days you used to say that ev modeled reality.

Paul, you and the other evolutionarians on this site would rather talk about anything else but ev whether it be kjkent1 wanting to talk about strings or you and Kotatsu complaining that ev doesn’t model all the forms of mutations or evolutionarians complaining that I am obliged to offer an alternative to evolutionism. You evolutionarians are trying to change the point of this thread to anything but ev.

I have done this in case you haven’t noticed Mr RcaPaulcity using your own ev computer model.

You don’t know whether random point mutations alone or other mechanism of mutations are required to gain sufficient results. It is clear that random point mutations alone is not sufficient. However, no matter what type of mutation mechanism is considered, at least you realize that a valid selection process is required. This is something Paul has not acknowledged yet.

I know that because if one existed you evolutionarians would trot it out and end this discussion. I guess this is a minor gap in your theory. Once again, I have highlighted everything you've said which is not a lie, or implicit lie, which we've already debunked.

You will notice that I've not highlighted anything.

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

Dr Adequate

2nd February 2007, 10:40 AM

ETR depends on the size of genome and mutation rate used in ev ... And also on the size of the population, as was pointed out to you about thirty pages ago, and as you yourself know perfectly well, you halfwitted liar.

Dr Adequate

2nd February 2007, 10:46 AM

I see. Do you then contend computer models work differently for "believers" than for "Non-believers"? Apparently, "believers" put totally unrealistic figures into the computer model, they get, as the saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out", and then when shown some actual math, they lie and lie and lie and lie rather than face reality.

kjkent1

2nd February 2007, 10:55 AM

Not necessarily, as --- as I understand it, which is probably not correct --- there would still need to be at least an improbable mechanism by which abiogenesis can occur naturally. If it can be shown that it is, indeed, fully impossible for abiogenesis to occur by any natural mechanism, the number of universes would be irrelevant.

Or am I missing something?

This does not preclude that his mathematical prrof is valid only within Ev (and possibly similar programs; perhaps, again, DarwinPond?), though, and not in the real world.

Now, you're being totally unfair by insisting on a real-world scientific confirmation of the impossibility of abiogenesis occurring by any natural mechanism! ;-)

Kleinman's entire argument is based on mathematically improbability -- not reality. If his argument were reality based, then there would be no argument, because reality is that life is here, and unless magic rules the universe, then there is a scientific explanation for life's existence and diversity.

So, I attacked kleinman with his own bullets: pure math. String theorists postulate an "ensemble" of universes so enormous that they dwarf the improbability of life arising by random chance. Kleinman finds such an argument ridiculous, only because he knows that if string theory is proved true, then his own mathematical argument is crushed.

At the moment, we can't prove string theory. We can only prove that the adherents of string theory are perhaps the most brilliant theoretical mathematicians and high energy physicists on the planet.

I don't usually argue from authority -- except for legal authority. But, in this case, I think that my authorities supporting string theory pretty much lay waste to Kleinman's Ph.D in mechanical engineering and his M.D.

Dr Adequate

2nd February 2007, 11:24 AM

Now, you're being totally unfair by insisting on a real-world scientific confirmation of the impossibility of abiogenesis occurring by any natural mechanism! I think you've missed Kotatsu's point. I think it was that the size of the ensemble is irrelevant if abiogenesis is actually impossible.

I don't usually argue from authority -- except for legal authority. But, in this case, I think that my authorities supporting string theory pretty much lay waste to Kleinman's Ph.D in mechanical engineering and his M.D. Kleinman has an M.D? I was just disgusted by his stupidity and monomania, but now I'm frightened as to what he might do to innocent people. He's not a practicing doctor, for pity's sake? If so, is there any way we can get in touch with his patients? We could show them the stuff he's posted. That would be enough.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

2nd February 2007, 12:05 PM

Paul, you’ve really come a long way since the days you used to say that ev modeled reality.
If I said that Ev modeled the entire evolutionary landscape, I was wrong. However, I swear I remember saying that it clearly does not.

Paul, you and the other evolutionarians on this site would rather talk about anything else but ev whether it be kjkent1 wanting to talk about strings or you and Kotatsu complaining that ev doesn’t model all the forms of mutations or evolutionarians complaining that I am obliged to offer an alternative to evolutionism. You evolutionarians are trying to change the point of this thread to anything but ev.
Apparently you have more stamina than the rest of us, at least as far as repeating your mantra is concerned. The rest of us have moved on. Let it go, Alan, let it go.

I have done this in case you haven’t noticed Mr RcaPaulcity using your own ev computer model.
You have done no such thing as "disprov evolutionism mathematically." You have, however, become a serial liar.

You don’t know whether random point mutations alone or other mechanism of mutations are required to gain sufficient results. It is clear that random point mutations alone is not sufficient. However, no matter what type of mutation mechanism is considered, at least you realize that a valid selection process is required. This is something Paul has not acknowledged yet.
A valid selection process is required for what purpose? If it is to show that information gain is possible through evolution, Ev's selection process is sufficient. If it is to model the entire evolutionary landscape, then Ev does not do that. What is it that I haven't acknowledged?

I know that because if one existed you evolutionarians would trot it out and end this discussion. I guess this is a minor gap in your theory.
Aha, so our lack of ability to describe the selection process allows you to know that there is [i]no such process. Logical fallacy, anyone?

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

2nd February 2007, 12:08 PM

I see. Do you then contend computer models work differently for "believers" than for "Non-believers"?
Not even I, one of your biggest fans, can figure out what this has to do with anything.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

2nd February 2007, 12:15 PM

The real problem that you evolutionarians have is not that ev doesn’t include all the different forms of mutations, it is in defining a realistic selection process that evolve genes de novo. There is/are no such selection process(s).
What exactly do you mean by evolving a gene "de novo"?

It is good of you to acknowledge that Ev has nothing to do with evolutionarianism's "real problem."

~~ Paul

Dr Adequate

2nd February 2007, 01:19 PM

Not even I, one of your biggest fans, can figure out what this has to do with anything. See my post replying to him. Insofar as anyone can understand hammy, I believe that hammy is trying to pretend that the nonsense figures klienman stuck into your program are correct, whereas we have explained to the drivelling lunatic that his figures are wrong by at least a dozen orders of magnitude.

I'd like to debate hammy, except that he keeps quoting people who drool when they talk.

Yahzi

2nd February 2007, 11:12 PM

too clueless to know that he's the buffoon he accuses everyone else of being.
Sometimes it seems like of all of human drama can be explained by two psychological phenomona: projection, and not being able to ask for help.

Yahzi

2nd February 2007, 11:53 PM

Your posts [?] shows a complete inability to read very simple, short posts
A perusal of my posting history would demonstrate that I do quite well with simple, short posts.

If you're having trouble getting your point across, you might consider spending more effort on clarity, and less on slavering insults.

The only hint I'll give you is to ask WHERE I mentioned Popper's correctness? You're so bleeding thick you didn't even notice that I noted he was WRONG.
If you can't just say what you mean, perhaps you should concentrate on figuring out what it is you mean. Ordered thoughts are a prerequisite for ordered writing.

WHAT HAVE YOU ACHIEVED?
What possible relevance could that have to this conversation?

I have spent a career in building scientific instrumentation, so I know something about extracting signal from noise and computer science. That seems apropos in a discussion about data signals. I have a degree in philosophy, which is perhaps relevant to epistimology and Plato.

But I expect my arguments to stand independently, without any more authority than their own logic. So my qualifications - or lack thereof - are wholly unimportant. As are everyone's, really.

What part of this do you disagree with?

give us your credentials for declaring Popper an "idiot",
This brings up so very, very many questions.

1. What is your addiction to argument from authority - why do you ask for "credentials" rather than arguments?

2. Are you actually interested in a philosophical discussion, or do you just want to hurl insults and demand credentials?

3. And of course, the question both most important and most likely to be fruitless: did you actually read the D.C. Stove article?

Yahzi

3rd February 2007, 12:11 AM

Quite so, I can't remember a single posting from either Yahzi or Articulett that manages to be both polite and sensible.
What, exactly, do you find impolite or insensible about this post?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2290652&postcount=1906

Accordingly, his criterion of falsifiability does not apply to his own work.
I really can't think of anything to say to this. And I don't know where to get that little jaw-dropping smiley.

For the latter one must turn to Kuhn, Feyerabend, Knorr-Cetina, Mitroff, Ziman, Lakatos or others.
What a rogue's gallery!

When I said Popper was an idiot, I was being hyperbolic. I had no idea you would drag Kuhn out, and leave me grasping for derogatives.

Yahzi

3rd February 2007, 12:35 AM

Actually, I'd rather not have to obtain a degree in psychoanalysis in order to understand what he's saying.
Good luck, then. ;P

Well, this is quite obfuscatory, I must admit. Could you give us more details of your thoughts on this?

When I asked him:

Do you find materialism (metaphysical naturalism) adequate to explain the totality of human existance and experience?

He responded:

Dunno! Do you think it has been so far?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2274558&postcount=1681

Mr. Scott

3rd February 2007, 12:42 AM

ETR depends on the size of genome and mutation rate used in ev. [mucho snippo] There is/are no such selection process(s).

Dr. Kleinman, I wasn't successful at parsing your statement for the answers to my questions. I'm seeking four numbers, not four pararaphs:

- Minimum estimated time to evolve the bacterial genome.
- Maximum estimated time for same.

- Minimum estimated time to evolve man from chimp ancestor.
- Maximum estimated time for same.

Thanks in advance...

Dr Adequate

3rd February 2007, 05:05 AM

And also on the size of the population, as was pointed out to you about thirty pages ago... Someone just PMed me to ask where, exactly, and in fact it was forty-nine pages ago. And the halfwit is still drooling out his lies.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

3rd February 2007, 08:37 AM

Dr. Kleinman, I wasn't successful at parsing your statement for the answers to my questions. I'm seeking four numbers, not four pararaphs:

- Minimum estimated time to evolve the bacterial genome.
- Maximum estimated time for same.

- Minimum estimated time to evolve man from chimp ancestor.
- Maximum estimated time for same.

I think two of those "estimated" should be "available."

~~ Paul

John Hewitt

3rd February 2007, 02:22 PM

When I asked him (John Hewitt):

Do you find materialism (metaphysical naturalism) adequate to explain the totality of human existance and experience?

He responded: "Dunno, do you think it has been so far?"

And I am still waiting for a reply.

articulett

3rd February 2007, 03:04 PM

And I am still waiting for a reply.

Yes. We've not needed to invoke anything supernatural to discover all that we've discovered so far. Moreover, the naturalistic explanation in which nucleic acids are the basis of replicators is a far more useful means of understanding evolution than your assertion that cells are the true replicators; in fact, recent information continually shows how off base that assertion is: http://schaechter.asmblog.org/

However, I imagine that if you are proffering the notion that something other than natural processes are responsible for life, then the obfuscating idea that cells are the "true replicators" of life might be usefully obfuscating.

jimbob

3rd February 2007, 04:08 PM

I couldn't see this on a quick search before:

http://objectiveministries.org/creation/kangaroo.html

Middle Eastern Kangaroos:

Did Kangaroos once live in the Middle East?

Like most people who have been indoctrinated by the secular media, your answer to this question will probably be:

"No, of course not! Kangaroos live only in Australia."

<snip>

So then, did kangaroos once live in the Middle East? ("It is clear that they must have. There is no other sound, Biblical explanation!")

Jim

Pretty accurate spoof... check out their divine org chart...

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

3rd February 2007, 06:49 PM

"asswaged": I love it!

~~ Paul

John Hewitt

4th February 2007, 01:52 AM

Yes. We've not needed to invoke anything supernatural to discover all that we've discovered so far. Moreover, the naturalistic explanation in which nucleic acids are the basis of replicators is a far more useful means of understanding evolution than your assertion that cells are the true replicators; in fact, recent information continually shows how off base that assertion is: http://schaechter.asmblog.org/

However, I imagine that if you are proffering the notion that something other than natural processes are responsible for life, then the obfuscating idea that cells are the "true replicators" of life might be usefully obfuscating.
I didn't ask for more irrelevant links or irrelevant nonsense from you. I just said, to Yahzi, "Dunno, do you think it (metaphysical naturalism, or something like that) has been adequate to explain the world so far?" I am still waiting for him to reply.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

4th February 2007, 08:28 AM

I didn't ask for more irrelevant links or irrelevant nonsense from you. I just said, to Yahzi, "Dunno, do you think it (metaphysical naturalism, or something like that) has been adequate to explain the world so far?" I am still waiting for him to reply.

What does that question mean, exactly?

First of all, science doesn't require metaphysical naturalism, it only needs scientific naturalism, which is purely epistemological.

Second, clearly naturalism has been adequate so far, in one sense, since that's all science uses.

So are you asking whether science could have made more progress so far if something "broader" than naturalism were its epistemological basis? Or are you suggesting that there is a major flaw in our explanation for something because we've been too closed-minded? Or are you contemplating the idea that we will need to broaden scientific naturalism in the future?

~~ Paul

John Hewitt

4th February 2007, 08:43 AM

What does that question mean, exactly?

First of all, science doesn't require metaphysical naturalism, it only needs scientific naturalism, which is purely epistemological.

Second, clearly naturalism has been adequate so far, in one sense, since that's all science uses.

So are you asking whether science could have made more progress so far if something "broader" than naturalism were its epistemological basis? Or are you suggesting that there is a major flaw in our explanation for something because we've been too closed-minded? Or are you contemplating the idea that we will need to broaden scientific naturalism in the future?

~~ Paul

I am far from sure what metaphysical naturalism means. My problem is tht Yahzi is demanding that I commit myself to a belief in it and seems to be claiming that this belief system, whatever it is, has enormous explanatory power. He seems to be saying that it adequately explains everything. He seems to be claiming that I am somehow being heretical in not wishing to join this sect, or whatever. So, I want to know what metaphysical naturalism is and how it copes with explaining some of the knottier problems that concern us.

Apathia

4th February 2007, 09:56 AM

First of all, science doesn't require metaphysical naturalism, it only needs scientific naturalism, which is purely epistemological.

Second, clearly naturalism has been adequate so far, in one sense, since that's all science uses.
~~ Paul

Thank you, Paul. I like my Science natural without artificial additives. I want the pure method untainted by bleepin philosophical interpretations.

True, there are some epistomological assumptions in the mix. Some yeast is necessary in the bread making. But I just want the bread to rise, not explode in the oven.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

4th February 2007, 10:18 AM

I am far from sure what metaphysical naturalism means. My problem is tht Yahzi is demanding that I commit myself to a belief in it and seems to be claiming that this belief system, whatever it is, has enormous explanatory power. He seems to be saying that it adequately explains everything. He seems to be claiming that I am somehow being heretical in not wishing to join this sect, or whatever. So, I want to know what metaphysical naturalism is and how it copes with explaining some of the knottier problems that concern us.
Well, geez, I'm not sure we need to make a sect out of it. I think he's just suggesting that we not invoke supernatural mechanisms, such as they are, without need. Certainly not as a "supernatural of the gaps" explanations for things we don't yet understand. He may also be daring to suggest that if we ever discover that we need a supernatural explanation, we will soon discover that it is not supernatural at all. In fact, if we try to define supernatural, I suspect we'll get into deep trouble.

~~ Paul

hammegk

4th February 2007, 10:34 AM

How are you doing defining your Natural twin gods, Energy, and Time?

kjkent1

4th February 2007, 11:10 AM

How are you doing defining your Natural twin gods, Energy, and Time?

Gods are definitionally unmeasurable, and therefore not subject to any definition -- not even a relativistic one. Whereas energy and time are measurable.

Thus your question, as posed, is a non-sequitur.

John Hewitt

4th February 2007, 11:48 AM

Well, geez, I'm not sure we need to make a sect out of it. I think he's just suggesting that we not invoke supernatural mechanisms, such as they are, without need. Certainly not as a "supernatural of the gaps" explanations for things we don't yet understand. He may also be daring to suggest that if we ever discover that we need a supernatural explanation, we will soon discover that it is not supernatural at all. In fact, if we try to define supernatural, I suspect we'll get into deep trouble.

~~ Paul
I am glad we do not want to make a sect out of it but I keep being subject to the accusation that I don't follow it - what, precisely, is that acusation about? The implication from Yahzi and his friend Articulett, repeated again and again and often rather explicit, is that I am proposing supernatural explanations. So, would somebody please tell me exactly what this faith is that I am being accused of breaking?

I prefer epistemology because that is the "Theory of Knowledge" and knowledge is necessarily encoded as data, as are other types of evolution. It lends itself to a merger with the rest of evolution but what is anybody supposed to do with "metaphysical naturalism?"

hammegk

4th February 2007, 11:50 AM

... energy and time are measurable.
How do you know what you measured if it's undefined? Maybe you have a correlation/causation problem.

Thus your question, as posed, is a non-sequitur.
How do you know that?

kjkent1

4th February 2007, 11:55 AM

How do you know what you measured if it's undefined? Maybe you have a correlation/causation problem.

How do you know that?

I won't let you play Socrates with me. Provide an affirmative rebuttal or we have nothing to talk about.

hammegk

4th February 2007, 12:00 PM

Rebuttal to what? The fact that no one can define either time or energy?

cyborg

4th February 2007, 12:01 PM

How do you know that?

You can't string a paragraph together without a non-sequitur.

Kotatsu

4th February 2007, 01:05 PM

Now, you're being totally unfair by insisting on a real-world scientific confirmation of the impossibility of abiogenesis occurring by any natural mechanism! ;-)

Kleinman's entire argument is based on mathematically improbability -- not reality. If his argument were reality based, then there would be no argument, because reality is that life is here, and unless magic rules the universe, then there is a scientific explanation for life's existence and diversity.

But, as DrA points out below, if Kleinman could use his version of math to prove that all conceivable forms of abiogenesis by non-magical means are mathematically impossible --- using, I'd not hesitate assume, a reasoning as founded in reality as usual --- abiogenesis would never occur, regardless of the number of universes. Kleinman's arguments are refuted only to the extent that he agrees that we are talking about an "improbability" rather than an "impossibility". Otherwise, a numerical representation of his refutedness will be similar to a numerical representation of his understanding of what he is talking about.

delphi_ote

4th February 2007, 02:58 PM

The fact that no one can define either time or energy?
Assuming you don't believe Miriam-Webster's definition, you must be promoting either solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism) or nihilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism). That should make for an exciting discussion. :rolleyes:

hammegk

4th February 2007, 03:36 PM

You are correct that Miriam-Webster's offerings are puerile and un-satisfactory for this discussion.

Nihilism? No thanks, but that's not really a problem for objective idealism; much moreso for materialists/naturalists/athiests, imo.

Solipsism? Much tougher. All *I* can do is deny *I* am The Solipsist, should such exist. What's your answer?

articulett

4th February 2007, 07:50 PM

You are correct that Miriam-Webster's offerings are puerile and un-satisfactory for this discussion.

Creationists are so IRONIC--really Hammy...we've been describing your offerings exactly as you describe Miriam Websters. Hewitt endlessly obfuscates, Kleinman gets stuck on his math, but you never even seem to be part of the same conversation as anyone else...

The Atheist

4th February 2007, 09:26 PM

Yahzi. I really must thank you and your buddy Arti for putting up such easy targets. (I see Arti has realised she needed to give up and is only attacking me in thrid party posts now. She's smarter than I thought!)

Never mind, one day, with luck, you'll extract your heads from the dark orifices they presently inhabit and you'll join the real world.

Look at this rubbish!
A perusal of my posting history would demonstrate that I do quite well with simple, short posts.As I've yet to read any other than in this thread, I'll stick with what I see. It's poor enough without going searching for it.
If you're having trouble getting your point across, you might consider spending more effort on clarity, and less on slavering insults.Au contraire, honey. I'm having no problem with getting my point across. You and Arti are having trouble, but then I see you having great difficulty understanding very clear English from others, so I know where I think the problem.
If you can't just say what you mean, perhaps you should concentrate on figuring out what it is you mean. Ordered thoughts are a prerequisite for ordered writing.See above - it's the reading and comprehension lessons you need.
What possible relevance could that have to this conversation?
I have spent a career in building scientific instrumentation, so I know something about extracting signal from noise and computer science. That seems apropos in a discussion about data signals. I have a degree in philosophy, which is perhaps relevant to epistimology and Plato.

But I expect my arguments to stand independently, without any more authority than their own logic. So my qualifications - or lack thereof - are wholly unimportant. As are everyone's, really.

What part of this do you disagree with?No problem at all. the problem you seem to be having is simply comprehension. I'm surprised you didn't get some help in that area from philosophy.
This brings up so very, very many questions.

1. What is your addiction to argument from authority - why do you ask for "credentials" rather than arguments?See, again you struggle with such simple language! We're discussing ACHIEVEMENTS. You haven't had any, Popper has. It's really very simple once you grasp the concept.
2. Are you actually interested in a philosophical discussion, or do you just want to hurl insults and demand credentials?I'll have a philosophical argument anytime. I don't advise you to start one, however, going on your results so far! At this stage, I don't even think we have a philosophical difference, which just emphasises how stupid you're making yourself look. No skin off my nose, though, so keep it going.

Insults? I haven't made an insult as far as I can tell. I'm just pointing out your very obvious deficiencies, so if you find that insulting, brush up on those weaknesses!
3. And of course, the question both most important and most likely to be fruitless: did you actually read the D.C. Stove article?Yes indeed. I can read. If you need lessons, I may even be able to help you online.

Read this very, very carefully:

Being wrong does not make one an idiot. That's a concept you should be getting used to yourself, although I'm perilously close to classing you as an idiot. I even gave you the Winston Churchill analogy to help you out. Maybe I should have found an analogy involving Barney or Bart Simpson - more your league, I'd say.

Pleasant dreams!

Schneibster

4th February 2007, 11:05 PM

Never mind, one day, with luck, you'll extract your heads from the dark orifices they presently inhabit and you'll join the real world.

Insults? I haven't made an insult as far as I can tell.

That's really all I needed to see. Bye now.

ETA: what a productive thread this has been. :D

kleinman

5th February 2007, 02:07 AM

You don’t know whether random point mutations alone or other mechanism of mutations are required to gain sufficient results. It is clear that random point mutations alone is not sufficient. However, no matter what type of mutation mechanism is considered, at least you realize that a valid selection process is required. This is something Paul has not acknowledged yet.By sufficient results, I mean results which are sufficient to be applicable to any and all given species (or other grouping) of organism in the real world. Random point mutations does not fully explain the process seen in Song's et al. study, which I have mentioned previously. "Speciation" in this study depends on allopolyploidization and involved directed evolution of the paternal genome in some cases. Thereby I can conclude that random point mutations alone are not sufficient, using the definition above.
Do you care to describe how allopolyploidization creates new genes rather than simply duplicating existing genes?
I know that because if one existed you evolutionarians would trot it out and end this discussion. I guess this is a minor gap in your theory.This is true only if you can be sure that we already know all existing selection processes. There may remain untold amounts of hitherto unknown selection processes which gainsay your argument.

Do you want to describe a single selection process that would yield a new gene de novo or is the untold amounts of hitherto unknown selection processes the scientific explanation for your theory?
ETR depends on the size of genome and mutation rate used in ev ...And also on the size of the population, as was pointed out to you about thirty pages ago, and as you yourself know perfectly well, you halfwitted liar.
There are no populations sizes on earth that world rescue your theory if you don’t have a selection process. Your mathematical skills are proving to be devastatingly boring. This may prove to be your best debating tool, better than posting links that you don’t read and posting gifs and jpegs. When are you going to give a realistic mathematical description of a selection process that would yield a genome de novo?
Paul, you’ve really come a long way since the days you used to say that ev modeled reality.If I said that Ev modeled the entire evolutionary landscape, I was wrong. However, I swear I remember saying that it clearly does not.
Oh, so you were exaggerating just a bit? What part of the evolutionary landscape does Dr Schneider’s selection process model?
Paul, you and the other evolutionarians on this site would rather talk about anything else but ev whether it be kjkent1 wanting to talk about strings or you and Kotatsu complaining that ev doesn’t model all the forms of mutations or evolutionarians complaining that I am obliged to offer an alternative to evolutionism. You evolutionarians are trying to change the point of this thread to anything but ev.Apparently you have more stamina than the rest of us, at least as far as repeating your mantra is concerned. The rest of us have moved on. Let it go, Alan, let it go.
So your mantra of “mutation and natural selection” is worth repeating but my mantra of “mathematically impossible” is not worth repeating? The reason you have no stamina is you have no arguments for your mantra when your own computer model shows the mathematical impossibility of random point mutations and natural selection for evolving anything.
I have done this in case you haven’t noticed Mr RcaPaulcity using your own ev computer model.You have done no such thing as "disprov evolutionism mathematically." You have, however, become a serial liar.
You think adopting scatequate’s tactics will prove your theory? Your own version of ev is on the net for everyone to check out my arguments. Yet neither you, scatequate nor any other evolutionarian are able to describe a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo. You have no mantra “random mutation and natural selection” without a valid selection process that would evolve de novo.
Intelligent Design has no answers. It can only make itself look palatable by making evolution look less palatable. It lives in a cardboard refrigerator box and throws rocks through the windows of evolution's unfinished mansion. ---Beleth
The problem with your unfinished evolutionarian mansion is that it has a wonderful roof but no foundation. That foundation is a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo.
You don’t know whether random point mutations alone or other mechanism of mutations are required to gain sufficient results. It is clear that random point mutations alone is not sufficient. However, no matter what type of mutation mechanism is considered, at least you realize that a valid selection process is required. This is something Paul has not acknowledged yet.A valid selection process is required for what purpose? If it is to show that information gain is possible through evolution, Ev's selection process is sufficient. If it is to model the entire evolutionary landscape, then Ev does not do that. What is it that I haven't acknowledged?
Without a realistic selection process, your ev model is useless for showing information gain. You are so busy working on the landscaping for your unfinished evolutionarian mansion that you can’t see your mansion has no foundation.
I know that because if one existed you evolutionarians would trot it out and end this discussion. I guess this is a minor gap in your theory.Aha, so our lack of ability to describe the selection process allows you to know that there is [I]no such process. Logical fallacy, anyone?
Your vivid imagination allows you to see life arise from some primordial soup yet your imagination fails you when asked to describe a realistic selection process. The only thing that is illogical in this discussion is your theory of evolution.
I see. Do you then contend computer models work differently for "believers" than for "Non-believers"?Not even I, one of your biggest fans, can figure out what this has to do with anything.
You are also having difficulty figuring out that having a valid selection process is required in your model in order to simulate any portion of the evolutionary landscape realistically.
The real problem that you evolutionarians have is not that ev doesn’t include all the different forms of mutations, it is in defining a realistic selection process that evolve genes de novo. There is/are no such selection process(s).What exactly do you mean by evolving a gene "de novo"?

It is good of you to acknowledge that Ev has nothing to do with evolutionarianism's "real problem."
I’ll help you understand what evolving a gene “de novo” means. Evolving a gene de novo is exactly analogous to Dr Schneider’s model of evolving binding sites de novo. In Dr Schneider’s case of evolving binding sites, you start with a random sequence of bases on a genome and a random sequence for a weight matrix and then proceed to allow a mutation/selection cycle to change the genome and weight matrix until you satisfy the selection criterion. Dr Schneider’s contrive selection process is able to evolve the genome such that the weight matrix and genome evolve to a perfect creature. There is no selection process that works like Dr Schneider’s selection process. Rather than evolving binding sites, what type of selection process would evolve a gene?

Ev has everything to do with evolutionarianism’s “real problem”. It puts a spot light on the need for a realistic selection process in order to explain your theory. Without a realistic selection process that would evolve a gene de novo, your mantra of mutation and natural selection becomes a meaningless slogan.
ETR depends on the size of genome and mutation rate used in ev. [mucho snippo] There is/are no such selection process(s).Dr. Kleinman, I wasn't successful at parsing your statement for the answers to my questions. I'm seeking four numbers, not four pararaphs:

- Minimum estimated time to evolve the bacterial genome.
- Maximum estimated time for same.

- Minimum estimated time to evolve man from chimp ancestor.
- Maximum estimated time for same.
Study the portion that you [mucho snippo]’d. There are estimated times in there but they are based solely on the rate of information acquisition of information from evolving binding sites using Dr Schneider’s contrived selection process. All these estimated times are based on Dr Schneider’s non-existent selection process. Without a realistic selection process, the ev computer model is useless for making meaningful estimates for time required to evolve binding sites, let alone time required to evolve a gene de novo. I’ll rephrase this is you are still having trouble parsing what I am saying.
First of all, science doesn't require metaphysical naturalism, it only needs scientific naturalism, which is purely epistemological.

Second, clearly naturalism has been adequate so far, in one sense, since that's all science uses.Thank you, Paul. I like my Science natural without artificial additives. I want the pure method untainted by bleepin philosophical interpretations.

True, there are some epistomological assumptions in the mix. Some yeast is necessary in the bread making. But I just want the bread to rise, not explode in the oven.
Paul, your science does require metaphysical naturalism, you hide it behind terminology like “our lack of ability to describe the selection process”.

Ivor the Engineer

5th February 2007, 02:53 AM

I have some questions:

Anybody:

Is Down('s) syndrome an example of extra genetic information appearing? (Yes, I know it's a repeat of genetic information, but isn't the DNA a bit longer?)

And one just for you, Kleinman:

What do you think happens genetically when a sperm fertilizes an egg? Is a soul a required input for this process to work?

Kotatsu

5th February 2007, 03:29 AM

Do you care to describe how allopolyploidization creates new genes rather than simply duplicating existing genes?

Certainly: after a polyploidization event, new genes can be "created" through all the same means as during normal "creation" of new genes. For instance, it can occur by random point mutation, insertion, deletion, and so on. Further, the rate of mutation seems to be greatly increased following allopolyploidization, as compared to rates in "normal" progeny resulting from "normal" procreation (for example, within a species). The genome change may also be directional.

However, you misunderstand my point. If evolution was forced by some unknown power to rely only on random point mutations, allopolyploidization would never occur. The fact that allopolyploidization is observed denies the universality you attach to Ev's mechanisms. The model does not model what happens when the genome is doubled through allopolyploidization; thus it is insufficient, and your conclusions based on it become --- or rather remain --- ridiculous.

Do you want to describe a single selection process that would yield a new gene de novo or is the untold amounts of hitherto unknown selection processes the scientific explanation for your theory?

As my "theory" in this case is that you don't know for sure if there are unknown selection processes, and thus cannot assert that "there is no such thing", I will decline to describe an unknown selection process.

fls

5th February 2007, 03:43 AM

I have some questions:

Anybody:

Is Down('s) syndrome an example of extra genetic information appearing? (Yes, I know it's a repeat of genetic information, but isn't the DNA a bit longer?)

There is a third copy of chromosome 21, but the chromosome itself is the same (not longer). A small number (less than 5 percent) are caused by a translocation (an exchange) of material between two different chromosomes, which again can result in an extra copy of some of the chromosome 21 material. That could result in length differences.

Linda

kleinman

5th February 2007, 03:45 AM

What do you think happens genetically when a sperm fertilizes an egg? What do you think happens genetically when a sperm fertilizes an egg?
The purely naturalistic explanation is that when a sperm fertilizes and egg, this is the recombination step after meiosis.
Is a soul a required input for this process to work?
This a question about the supernatural and the answer you would get depends on your belief system. I have very limited knowledge of the supernatural but in my belief system, fertilization of human egg and sperm is associated with a soul. Whether that soul existed before fertilization occurs, I don’t know.

Taffer

5th February 2007, 03:49 AM

Kleinman,
I have been following this thread for a while. You appear to be convinced that 'life' is required for selection pressures to exist. This is not the case. You also appear convinced that a gene or a genome appeared in toto, another point which there is no evidence to suggest. You do, however, seem to have an incorrect and limited view of evolutionary theory.

The selection pressure of which you speak is not limited to living things, as you rather incorrectly seem to assume. Take, by analogy, the scenario of using a sieve. A sieve allows particles up to a certain size to pass through it, while larger particles can not. A sieve can be thought of as a form of selection pressure. Apply this to the wider environment, such as the pre-life environment, and 'de novo' gene generation does not seem so unlikely. Given the presence of self replicating RNA molecules, any sequences which enhance efficiency rates of replication will be selected for, in such that they will obtain a larger share of space, energy and raw materials compared to other self replicating molecules. These sequences would not be considered genes per se, but any could easily lead to the first replicating genes by simple evolution. A gene is simply a sequence of DNA which enhances the efficiency rates of replication. Anything which forms will be selected for. I fail to see why you find this so hard to grasp.

Secondly, I completely fail to see your reasoning behind thinking a genome, or even a gene, must arrise in toto. Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe you have come out and actually stated you believe this, but I have gathered from your posts that you believe it to be so. If you do, would you mind explaining why?

Taffer

5th February 2007, 03:56 AM

The purely naturalistic explanation is that when a sperm fertilizes and egg, this is the recombination step after meiosis.

What? Recombination does not occur during fertilization, but during prophase 1 of meiosis.

This a question about the supernatural and the answer you would get depends on your belief system. I have very limited knowledge of the supernatural but in my belief system, fertilization of human egg and sperm is associated with a soul. Whether that soul existed before fertilization occurs, I don’t know.

I know you weren't replying to me, but would you mind defining what you mean by 'soul', and how you believe it plays a role in fertilization?

ETA: Wow, kleinman, you have some serious tag issues going on. :(

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

5th February 2007, 06:24 AM

I am glad we do not want to make a sect out of it but I keep being subject to the accusation that I don't follow it - what, precisely, is that acusation about? The implication from Yahzi and his friend Articulett, repeated again and again and often rather explicit, is that I am proposing supernatural explanations. So, would somebody please tell me exactly what this faith is that I am being accused of breaking?
I'm not sure what faith you're breaking, but I would be interested in a description of the supposedly supernatural explanation you're proposing. I thought your statement "I have no idea what forces you would or would not consider natural or how you would distinguish them." was a bit of a sidestep.

I prefer epistemology because that is the "Theory of Knowledge" and knowledge is necessarily encoded as data, as are other types of evolution. It lends itself to a merger with the rest of evolution but what is anybody supposed to do with "metaphysical naturalism?"
I have no idea.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

5th February 2007, 06:26 AM

How are you doing defining your Natural twin gods, Energy, and Time?
They are defined mathematically, and the mathematics demonstrated by experiment. Got either of those thing for supernatural?

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

5th February 2007, 06:37 AM

Oh, so you were exaggerating just a bit? What part of the evolutionary landscape does Dr Schneider’s selection process model?
A stylized version of point mutation and selection based on correctness of DNA binding. This is sufficient to demonstrate that evolution can lead to information gain. It is not sufficient to draw any sweeping conclusions about time required for evolution in the real world.

So your mantra of “mutation and natural selection” is worth repeating but my mantra of “mathematically impossible” is not worth repeating?
Correct, because our mantra is complex and nuanced, while your mathematics is entirely absent.

You think adopting scatequate’s tactics will prove your theory?
I don't have a theory, I have a simple observed fact: You have not done the mathematics to "disprove evolutionism mathematically." However, you keep repeating that you have.

Yet neither you, scatequate nor any other evolutionarian are able to describe a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo.
I don't even know what you mean by "de novo." Seems to me you mean "ex nihilo." You do realize that de novo means "over again; anew," right?

Without a realistic selection process, your ev model is useless for showing information gain.
So you're suggesting that a more complex, nuanced selection model might actually show no information gain? In order for that to be the case, the selection model would have to neglect to bias the selection toward creatures with better binding. But if that were the case, I very much doubt we would call it a "selection model."

Your vivid imagination allows you to see life arise from some primordial soup yet your imagination fails you when asked to describe a realistic selection process.
Correct. And your use of my failing as some sort of proof against evolution is, as I said before, a logical fallacy.

I’ll help you understand what evolving a gene “de novo” means. Evolving a gene de novo is exactly analogous to Dr Schneider’s model of evolving binding sites de novo.
Ev does not evolve binding de novo, nor even ex nihilo.

Paul, your science does require metaphysical naturalism, you hide it behind terminology like “our lack of ability to describe the selection process”.
You don't know what you're talking about.

~~ Paul

hammegk

5th February 2007, 07:14 AM

They are defined mathematically, and the mathematics demonstrated by experiment. Got either of those thing for supernatural?

~~ Paul
Nope. There is no supernatural in my worldview; that's a problem for wannabe materialists/naturalists/athiests.

.... our mantra is complex and nuanced ...
Or, better said, y'all need to wave your arms rapidly and talk loudly.

You don't know what you're talking about.

~~ Paul
Yeah, there's a lot of that going around.

John Hewitt

5th February 2007, 07:41 AM

I'm not sure what faith you're breaking, but I would be interested in a description of the supposedly supernatural explanation you're proposing. I thought your statement "I have no idea what forces you would or would not consider natural or how you would distinguish them." was a bit of a sidestep.
I have already explained what I am proposing and given links to it - but I do not understand what parts of it could be considered supernatural.

I have no idea.
~~ Paul
I said that I like epistemology because it can be considered in terms of evolutionary theory and can become part of merger with other applications of evolution, including biology.

Taffer

5th February 2007, 07:44 AM

I am led to wonder, hammegk, if you have anything useful to add to the discussion, or are you entirely limited to snide remarks to make your argument?

Taffer

5th February 2007, 07:46 AM

I said that I like epistemology because it can be considered in terms of evolutionary theory and can become part of merger with other applications of evolution, including biology.

Epistemology is a philosophical field dealing with the nature of knowledge. How can this be considered 'in terms with' evolutionary theory? They are completely different things. One deals with the world, and one deals with our place in it.

kjkent1

5th February 2007, 08:40 AM

So your mantra of “mutation and natural selection” is worth repeating but my mantra of “mathematically impossible” is not worth repeating?You have admitted that RMNS occurs, so it's not a "mantra." OTOH, you have yet to prove that evolution is mathematically impossible.

The term "mathematically impossible" is a non-sequitur, except where the impossibility relates entirely to mathematical symbolism.

Mathematical models do not control real-world events. Real-world events control mathematical models. If a real-world observation is not described by a mathematical model, then the solution is to modify the mathematical model -- not to declare the real-world observation impossible.

kjkent1

5th February 2007, 08:44 AM

Nope. There is no supernatural in my worldview; that's a problem for wannabe materialists/naturalists/athiests.If there is no supernatural, then your God should have scientifically measurable properties.

If we can measure your God's properties, then we can learn your God's powers.

If we can learn your God's powers, then we can challenge/overthrow/become God.

Your God doesn't seem very god-like.

hammegk

5th February 2007, 08:56 AM

My god? When have I mentioned god?

My point is that I choose (a godlike attribute, perhaps :p ) not to defend the worldview of materialism/naturalism which logically must posit 'god cannot exist'.

Taffer

5th February 2007, 09:08 AM

My point is that I choose (a godlike attribute, perhaps :p ) not to defend the worldview of materialism/naturalism which logically must posit 'god cannot exist'.

Nonsense. It simply posits that, if a god does indeed exist, he is knowable through science.

shadow7

5th February 2007, 09:12 AM

I tutor kids who attend religious Jewish schools. Evolution chapters are torn out of their bio books. We were working on a chapter about bryophytes, for Pete's sake.... early PLANTS! The statement in the book involved info about the plants being 245 milliion years old. The numbers were blacked out with a marker and the word "many" replaced it.

The school is not extreme Orthodox.... but surely 'religious.' They offer a lot of learning, and no real education. It's all around us.....

Strangely, the last Pope accepted the teaching of evolution. How gracious.

No wonder we're 29th in education in the WORLD...

kjkent1

5th February 2007, 09:16 AM

My god? When have I mentioned god?

My point is that I choose (a godlike attribute, perhaps :p ) not to defend the worldview of materialism/naturalism which logically must posit 'god cannot exist'.

If you choose to utilize logic as a means of explaining existence, then this requires that God not be considered within the scope of materialism, because God is not material.

If you place God within the material world, then God is natural, and therefore measurable, and if measurable, not God.

Of course, you're free to refute logic and simply choose inconsistent state conditions, i.e., God exists and can make what would otherwise be illogical, logical, by application of will.

Quantum events cannot be measured with absolute precision, but they can be measured within limits.

God, however, cannot be measured within any limits, unless you adopt the position that God is not bound by any logical construction.

And, it's fine if you wish to adopt the logical inconsistency of God being natural and yet unmeasurable within any limits. But, if you do, then no one can argue with you via any logical process, because you are denying logic as a means of argumentation.

What is left is simply your belief -- which is personal and not subject to refutation by others.

John Hewitt

5th February 2007, 09:51 AM

Epistemology is a philosophical field dealing with the nature of knowledge. How can this be considered 'in terms with' evolutionary theory? They are completely different things. One deals with the world, and one deals with our place in it.
There is a field of evolutionary epistemology. See for example, Plotkin "The Nature of Knowledge." That work posits not just that epistemology can usefully be discussed in evolutionary terms but that knowedge is the general product of all evolution.

Taffer

5th February 2007, 10:20 AM

There is a field of evolutionary epistemology. See for example, Plotkin "The Nature of Knowledge." That work posits not just that epistemology can usefully be discussed in evolutionary terms but that knowedge is the general product of all evolution.

Ahh, that's what you meant. For some reason, I completely missed your reference to that from your post. :o

I think I need some sleep...

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

5th February 2007, 10:49 AM

Nope. There is no supernatural in my worldview; that's a problem for wannabe materialists/naturalists/athiests.
How so?

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

5th February 2007, 10:50 AM

I have already explained what I am proposing and given links to it - but I do not understand what parts of it could be considered supernatural.
Post the link one more time, please.

I said that I like epistemology because it can be considered in terms of evolutionary theory and can become part of merger with other applications of evolution, including biology.
I agree.

~~ Paul

The Atheist

5th February 2007, 11:25 AM

I think I need some sleep...

6:20 am, not surprised...

I don't see you getting up to attend the Waitangi ceremonies in about an hour's time!

lupus_in_fabula

5th February 2007, 11:53 AM

My god? When have I mentioned god?

My point is that I choose (a godlike attribute, perhaps :p ) not to defend the worldview of materialism/naturalism which logically must posit 'god cannot exist'.

Are you referring to the relativity of instruments here (that the world appears to us according to how our instruments translate information from the universe to us)… and thus that we cannot know, with absolute certainty, how the universe really “is”?

kleinman

5th February 2007, 11:57 AM

I have been following this thread for a while. You appear to be convinced that 'life' is required for selection pressures to exist. This is not the case. You also appear convinced that a gene or a genome appeared in toto, another point which there is no evidence to suggest. You do, however, seem to have an incorrect and limited view of evolutionary theory.
Ok, let’s start with trying to define natural selection. Here is the definition out of my dictionary.

natural selection-the elimination of the unfit and the survival of the fit in the struggle for existence, depending upon the adjustment of an organism to a specific environment.

The selection pressure of which you speak is not limited to living things, as you rather incorrectly seem to assume. Take, by analogy, the scenario of using a sieve. A sieve allows particles up to a certain size to pass through it, while larger particles can not. A sieve can be thought of as a form of selection pressure. Apply this to the wider environment, such as the pre-life environment, and 'de novo' gene generation does not seem so unlikely. Given the presence of self replicating RNA molecules, any sequences which enhance efficiency rates of replication will be selected for, in such that they will obtain a larger share of space, energy and raw materials compared to other self replicating molecules. These sequences would not be considered genes per se, but any could easily lead to the first replicating genes by simple evolution. A gene is simply a sequence of DNA which enhances the efficiency rates of replication. Anything which forms will be selected for. I fail to see why you find this so hard to grasp.
Why don’t you give us a mathematical description of the sieve which would lead to these self replicating RNA molecules? Better yet, why don’t you demonstrate your sieve in the laboratory and generate a self replicating RNA molecule de novo.
Secondly, I completely fail to see your reasoning behind thinking a genome, or even a gene, must arrise in toto. Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe you have come out and actually stated you believe this, but I have gathered from your posts that you believe it to be so. If you do, would you mind explaining why?
The point you are missing is that there must be some type of beneficial effect from a molecule in order for it to be selected for. Until your sequence of mers produces some beneficial polymer, there is nothing to select for. How does a partially completed gene offer selective benefit to an organism?
The purely naturalistic explanation is that when a sperm fertilizes and egg, this is the recombination step after meiosis.What? Recombination does not occur during fertilization, but during prophase 1 of meiosis.
You are correct that there is recombination of maternal and paternal alleles during the reduction division but it is the recombination or reuniting of haploid chromosomes which occurs at fertilization.
This a question about the supernatural and the answer you would get depends on your belief system. I have very limited knowledge of the supernatural but in my belief system, fertilization of human egg and sperm is associated with a soul. Whether that soul existed before fertilization occurs, I don’t know.I know you weren't replying to me, but would you mind defining what you mean by 'soul', and how you believe it plays a role in fertilization?
When you die, you will understand what the soul is.
Oh, so you were exaggerating just a bit? What part of the evolutionary landscape does Dr Schneider’s selection process model?A stylized version of point mutation and selection based on correctness of DNA binding. This is sufficient to demonstrate that evolution can lead to information gain. It is not sufficient to draw any sweeping conclusions about time required for evolution in the real world.
Oh, so now ev is a “stylized version of point mutation and selection based on correctness of DNA binding”. The peer reviewers at Nucleic Acids Research had no problem with Dr Schneider’s sweeping conclusions about the evolution of a human genome. Where was your interpretation of ev as being stylized version of point mutation and selection when Dr Schneider made his sweeping conclusions. You are a two faced hypocrite.
So your mantra of “mutation and natural selection” is worth repeating but my mantra of “mathematically impossible” is not worth repeating?Correct, because our mantra is complex and nuanced, while your mathematics is entirely absent.
You mantra is so complex and nuanced that you have no explanation for a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo. A better description for your mantra is it is incomprehensible and nonsensical, but don’t let that interfere with your belief system. The only thing that is entirely absent from this discussion is your mathematical description of a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo.
You think adopting scatequate’s tactics will prove your theory?I don't have a theory, I have a simple observed fact: You have not done the mathematics to "disprove evolutionism mathematically." However, you keep repeating that you have.
You are correct. I have not done the mathematics to disprove your theory. It is you and Dr Schneider who have done the mathematics to disprove your theory. The only thing I have done is plugged in the parameters that show what your mathematics reveals. You feel free to continue devaluing ev since that is the only argument you can make.
Yet neither you, scatequate nor any other evolutionarian are able to describe a selection process that would evolve a gene de novo.I don't even know what you mean by "de novo." Seems to me you mean "ex nihilo." You do realize that de novo means "over again; anew," right?
de novo is Latin for “from the beginning”. If you are having trouble with my using this terminology, I will you the terminology “from the beginning” instead.
Without a realistic selection process, your ev model is useless for showing information gain.So you're suggesting that a more complex, nuanced selection model might actually show no information gain? In order for that to be the case, the selection model would have to neglect to bias the selection toward creatures with better binding. But if that were the case, I very much doubt we would call it a "selection model."
There is no nuanced selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning. Selection requires that something beneficial or harmful occurs. Mutations that are neutral offer no selection benefit for or against. What happens to the binding sites in ev when selection is turned off? What kind of analogy are you trying to make when you bias selection toward creatures with better binding? Biasing selection toward creatures that have better binding in ev only shows that you have a functional binding site. That is the point I am making about selection for a gene. It can only occur when you have some functionality to that gene. Until that gene offers function to the creature, there is no selection.
Your vivid imagination allows you to see life arise from some primordial soup yet your imagination fails you when asked to describe a realistic selection process.Correct. And your use of my failing as some sort of proof against evolution is, as I said before, a logical fallacy.
Why Paul, I thought you had “simple observed fact” that explains your theory?
I’ll help you understand what evolving a gene “de novo” means. Evolving a gene de novo is exactly analogous to Dr Schneider’s model of evolving binding sites de novo.Ev does not evolve binding de novo, nor even ex nihilo.
If ev is not evolving binding sites from the beginning, what is ev simulating?
Paul, your science does require metaphysical naturalism, you hide it behind terminology like “our lack of ability to describe the selection process”.You don't know what you're talking about.
I do know what I am talking about when I say that you have no selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning. Why don’t you change your mantra to “random mutation and our lack of ability to describe selection”?
So your mantra of “mutation and natural selection” is worth repeating but my mantra of “mathematically impossible” is not worth repeating?You have admitted that RMNS occurs, so it's not a "mantra." OTOH, you have yet to prove that evolution is mathematically impossible.
What you are missing here kjkent1 is that RMNS is only observed to occur on a very limited basis. An existing virus can have a base substitution which gives it drug resistance, or a substitution can occur in hemoglobin that conveys malarial resistance under certain environmental conditions. The problem you evolutionarians have is that you extrapolate these very limited cases of RMNS to massive genome transformations. You have no selection process that would do this. Without a selection process, the transformations are subject to probability principles.

Hey, weren’t you going to explain string theory to us? I want to hear about the 10^500 alternative universes.
The term "mathematically impossible" is a non-sequitur, except where the impossibility relates entirely to mathematical symbolism.
Dr Schneider’s model shows that it would take billions of generations to evolve binding sites on any realistic length genome with his contrive selection process. Without a realistic selection process, how do you evolve the gene that goes along with the binding site? Perhaps you want to join Paul on his quest for the holy selection process?
Mathematical models do not control real-world events. Real-world events control mathematical models. If a real-world observation is not described by a mathematical model, then the solution is to modify the mathematical model -- not to declare the real-world observation impossible.
Mathematical models can show what is possible and what is impossible. You are making observations and drawing conclusions from the observations that are not in agreement with attempts to mathematically model these observations. So either fix the model or reconsider your interpretations of your observations.

John Hewitt

5th February 2007, 11:58 AM

Post the link one more time, please.
~~ Paul

The web site is

http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk

and the relevant links are

For the geneal form of evolutionary theory, the bioepistemic evolution file.

For the abiogenesis files, follow the prebiotic evolution link and the files that become available from it.

Myriad

5th February 2007, 12:40 PM

For the benefit of newcomers to the thread, who might not be faimilar with the details of ev, let me point out that ev does evolve the gene that goes along with the binding sites as well as, and simultaneously with, evolving the binding sites. With default site width and weight width parameters, the binding gene is the first 120 bases.

Respectfully,
Myriad

hammegk

5th February 2007, 01:02 PM

If you choose to utilize logic as a means of explaining existence, then this requires that God not be considered within the scope of materialism, because God is not material.
Explaining? No, I'd say the best one can manage is finding a worldview that can be logically defended. And the attributes your worldview allows in your definition of material is where the problem lies.

If you place God within the material world, then God is natural, and therefore measurable, and if measurable, not God.
Yup, subject to the problem just mentioned.

Of course, you're free to refute logic and simply choose inconsistent state conditions, i.e., God exists and can make what would otherwise be illogical, logical, by application of will.
That's an attribute of dualism.

God, however, cannot be measured within any limits, unless you adopt the position that God is not bound by any logical construction.
I take the position that I cannot define god or any limits that might or might not apply. I suggest some possibles attributes are less probable than others.

And, it's fine if you wish to adopt the logical inconsistency of God being natural and yet unmeasurable within any limits. But, if you do, then no one can argue with you via any logical process, because you are denying logic as a means of argumentation.
I don't.

What is left is simply your belief -- which is personal and not subject to refutation by others.
You may eventually notice that mirrors your own problem. :)

Are you referring to the relativity of instruments here (that the world appears to us according to how our instruments translate information from the universe to us)… and thus that we cannot know, with absolute certainty, how the universe really “is”?
I'd call it the relativity of perception. I agree that we will never know with certainty what really 'is'.

How so?

For you, how would I know? What I do know is that "supernatural" is meaningless in my worldview.

kjkent1

5th February 2007, 01:09 PM

Dr Adequate

5th February 2007, 01:21 PM

The False Witness

Oh, little he cares he's been proven in error;
it's happened before, so it holds little terror:
do scientists really suppose
that by proving him wrong they can prove that he's wrong?
For the facts are just feeble, but falsehood is strong,
as a faithful creationist knows.

In pursuit of the truth though the scientists plod,
he's refuted their findings by lying for God
(it's a course He approves of as wise).
He pities biologists bound by veracity;
better by far to have faith in mendacity:
that's why he'll stick to his lies.

Confronted with proven and verified things
he need only riposte that all pigs have got wings,
and recite the same falsehood for hours;
for as he'll explain to the folks who dispute him,
just proving him wrong is no way to refute him,
but lying has magical powers.

When faced with the facts he will place his reliance
on lying concerning the content of science,
and stick to his lies come what may.
No matter what basic biology tells you,
he answers: "The power of lying compels you!"
and then all the facts go away.

So the verified facts are the least of his fears:
he just closes his eyes and he plugs up his ears,
and he carefully shuts off his brain.
When all of the lies that he loves to recite
have been proved to be wrong, he can prove that they're right
by reciting them over again.

kleinman

5th February 2007, 01:50 PM

Oh, so now ev is a “stylized version of point mutation and selection based on correctness of DNA binding”. The peer reviewers at Nucleic Acids Research had no problem with Dr Schneider’s sweeping conclusions about the evolution of a human genome. Where was your interpretation of ev as being stylized version of point mutation and selection when Dr Schneider made his sweeping conclusions. You are a two faced hypocrite.Alan, you are really over the top with your comments above. I strongly recommend you consider a retraction and an apology to Paul.Unless, that is, you actually want Paul to sue you, so that you can prove ev and evolution mathematically impossible in a court of law. That would be a pretty interesting case.
Maybe you can find one of Clarence Darrow’s descendants to take the case.
What you are missing here kjkent1 is that RMNS is only observed to occur on a very limited basis. An existing virus can have a base substitution which gives it drug resistance, or a substitution can occur in hemoglobin that conveys malarial resistance under certain environmental conditions. The problem you evolutionarians have is that you extrapolate these very limited cases of RMNS to massive genome transformations. You have no selection process that would do this. Without a selection process, the transformations are subject to probability principles.I'm not missing anything, Alan, and that includes your increasing tendency toward defamatory statements.
You whining crybabies take any disagreement with your mushy theory of evolution as defamatory. Hundreds of posts ago you thought my goal was a pyrrhic victory. All I am doing is putting a little heat on a rusty old theory that is supported with religious fervor by its adherents.
You are extrapolating "ev" to be the entire science behind evolution, rather than only a demonstration of information gain. You keep insisting on a total mathematical exposition of the entire scope of evolutionary processes -- as if to say that evolution is the only natural process which defies such a methodical mathematical breakdown.
Not quite, I only apply the results from ev to random point mutation and natural selection. It is the lack of a selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning that I apply to the entire theory of evolution no matter what type of mutation mechanism you want to consider.
However, the world economy and the weather, as examples, do not permit such perfect modeling, and each routinely defies attempts to predict or mathematically explain their behavior.
The problem with evolutionarian mathematical modeling is that it is totally contradictory to your theory. A year ago, Paul wasn’t calling ev a stylized model. It was only after it was shown to him what the model shows when using realistic mutation rates and genome lengths that he started singing a different song about ev. Unless one of you evolutionarians can come up with a realistic selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning, you’ve got a theory that is dependent on a metaphysical explanation.
And, yet, the economy and the weather exist, and neither receives quite the same scrutiny from fundamental theists as does evolution. Why is that, I wonder?
I guess your theory of evolution has just had a stock market crash.
Hey, weren’t you going to explain string theory to us? I want to hear about the 10^500 alternative universes.I provided you with a link to a recent lecture from Dr. Leonard Susskind on the subject. Evidently, you chose to avoid reviewing it.
I wanted to hear the story from someone who has the heart of a litigator.