Annoying creationists

[tsig]

Originally Posted by kleinman

Dr Schneider said the following about his model:

And
And

And

And

And

And


And for good measure:

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

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

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

GIGO

[kleinman]

[quote="DHR"]The only thing you have proved is that if you take a computer simulation and feed it unrealistic inputs you will get unrealistic outputs.

GIGO[/quote]

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

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

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

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

So your own estimate rules out the possibility of evolving 16 binding sites by random point mutations and natural selection on any life form with a eukaryotic size genome and population.

I'm willing to stipulate that it is unlikely that such a binding mechanism could evolve by point mutation starting with a large random genome. There are, however eukaryotes with genomes less than a megabase and populations much larger than 1 million.

Quote:

I thought you were doing a population series with a mutation rate of 10^-6.

Since we know that generations varies linearly with mutation rate, there is no point in wasting time with slow mutation rates.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Joozb, Paul has done extrapolations like this for months, and his curve fits have always been useless at extrapolating data points beyond the range of the data used for generating the curve. His curve fit for the above data gives generations for convergence of 509 for a population of 1048576 and an extrapolated generations for convergence of 434 for a population of 2097152.

So what's the problem? Did you expect the extrapolation to produce the exact number you got for a population of 1 million?

~~ Paul

[Yahzi]

Originally Posted by articulett

I have high hopes that religion will fad as more and more is described by Science.

This is the old view (the Modernist view). It's been replaced by a more sophisticated, and less hopeful, understanding of what role religion plays in people's lives.

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

Religion and Public Policy

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

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

[John Hewitt]

Originally Posted by articulett

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, just my £0.02 worth.

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

So your own estimate rules out the possibility of evolving 16 binding sites by random point mutations and natural selection on any life form with a eukaryotic size genome and population.

Originally Posted by Paul

I'm willing to stipulate that it is unlikely that such a binding mechanism could evolve by point mutation starting with a large random genome. There are, however eukaryotes with genomes less than a megabase and populations much larger than 1 million.

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

Originally Posted by Kleinman

I thought you were doing a population series with a mutation rate of 10^-6.

Originally Posted by Paul

Since we know that generations varies linearly with mutation rate, there is no point in wasting time with slow mutation rates.

I don’t believe what you are saying is correct. I have done series where mutation rate was varied and the generations for convergence are not linear. Here is a typical series for G=1024, population=64, gamma=16 and site width=6:
mutations per generation/Generations
1/10108
2/6669
3/3432
4/2546
5/1268
6/1874
7/2147
8/3626
9/15351
10/81112
I haven’t done extensive series with realistic mutation rates but I do have the following values for Dr Schneider’s baseline G=256 case except using mutation rates of 10^-6, 10^-7, 1.7x10^-8 and got values of 3,993,646, 44,295,590, 948,952,092 generations for convergences respectively.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Joozb, Paul has done extrapolations like this for months, and his curve fits have always been useless at extrapolating data points beyond the range of the data used for generating the curve. His curve fit for the above data gives generations for convergence of 509 for a population of 1048576 and an extrapolated generations for convergence of 434 for a population of 2097152.

Originally Posted by Paul

So what's the problem? Did you expect the extrapolation to produce the exact number you got for a population of 1 million?

Small errors in the value of the slope in any curve fit will give large errors in the estimates for the generations for convergence when working with numbers that vary over 10 orders of magnitude. Both the estimate of the number of generations for convergence based on genome length and generations for convergence based on population size are affected. Your curve fits are only valid in the range of the data used to generate the curve. Your curves are useful only for interpolation, not extrapolation.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

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

Except that the rest of the genome can cause bogus bindings, which count as mistakes. So the rest of the genome cannot mutate freely.

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

Quote:

I don’t believe what you are saying is correct.

Here is my data:

population 64
genome size 1000

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

Quote:

Small errors in the value of the slope in any curve fit will give large errors in the estimates for the generations for convergence when working with numbers that vary over 10 orders of magnitude. Both the estimate of the number of generations for convergence based on genome length and generations for convergence based on population size are affected. Your curve fits are only valid in the range of the data used to generate the curve.

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

~~ Paul

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

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

~~ Paul

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

Just more and more trivial.

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

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

Originally Posted by Paul

Except that the rest of the genome can cause bogus bindings, which count as mistakes. So the rest of the genome cannot mutate freely.

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

That is correct, in a real organism, the non-binding site region (the evolved region of the genome) cannot mutate freely as is allowed in ev. This is a property of the ev model that is not realistic. A more realistic simulation would have an evolved genome in the non-binding site region and mutations in this portion that genome that cause fatal damage to a gene would cause that organism to be selected out no matter how evolved the binding site region is. This would give a more complex selection rule than used by Dr Schneider but would better simulate the real situation.

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

Originally Posted by Kleinman

I don’t believe what you are saying is correct.

Originally Posted by Paul

Here is my data:

population 64
genome size 1000

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

I guess you could fit a straight line to this data but I am not sure it is linear. The difference in the generations for convergence between 2x10^-6 and 10^-6 is almost triple not double the number of generations for convergence. In addition, why don’t you try a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 100 bases per genome and I’ll make a wild guess that it will take about 80,000 generations to converge.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Small errors in the value of the slope in any curve fit will give large errors in the estimates for the generations for convergence when working with numbers that vary over 10 orders of magnitude. Both the estimate of the number of generations for convergence based on genome length and generations for convergence based on population size are affected. Your curve fits are only valid in the range of the data used to generate the curve.

Originally Posted by Paul

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

Why Paul, I’m surprised you would ask such a question of why I would make such a claim about ev and macroevolution. You named this thread.

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

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by kleinman

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

You apparently misunderstood Myriad's discussion.

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

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

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

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

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by Paul

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

Originally Posted by joozb

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

Just more and more trivial.

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

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

Originally Posted by Kleinman

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

Originally Posted by drkitten

You apparently misunderstood Myriad's discussion.

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

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

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

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by kleinman

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

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

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

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

That is correct, in a real organism, the non-binding site region (the evolved region of the genome) cannot mutate freely as is allowed in ev. This is a property of the ev model that is not realistic.

It can't mutate freely in Ev either! Mutations in the "junk" portion of the genome can result in bindings that increase the mistakes.

Quote:

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

Yes, that is more or less what happens.

Quote:

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

About 4 billion, right? Do you think that the fundamental binding mechanism evolved in eukaryotes with large genomes?

Quote:

I guess you could fit a straight line to this data but I am not sure it is linear. The difference in the generations for convergence between 2x10^-6 and 10^-6 is almost triple not double the number of generations for convergence. In addition, why don’t you try a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 100 bases per genome and I’ll make a wild guess that it will take about 80,000 generations to converge.

I wouldn't be surprised if it never converged. There has to be a point where the mutation load is too heavy. But not to worry, because we would surely notice this problem if it occured in experiments where we use high mutation rates.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

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

What extrapolations are you talking about?

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

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

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

However as population gets larger and larger, these increases are getting smaller and smaller very rapidly and the additive rule no longer gives a good approximation.

Well, let's see. Using all my population vs. generations data (shown below), I get a fit to . Using just the data from a population of 32K upward, it fits . Using just the data from 92K upward, it fits . And using just the data from 262K upward, it fits . I'm not sure this is commensurate with the claim that the increases will get rapidly smaller.

~~ Paul

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

[joobz]

Originally Posted by kleinman

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

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

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

[delphi_ote]

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

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

[Hawk one]

Originally Posted by drkitten

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

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

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

[tsig]

Originally Posted by delphi_ote

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

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

What else is there for them.

Facts are hard.

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

Kleinbottle will not understand this.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by kleinman

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

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

Share.

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

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

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

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

How do you know this?

Share.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

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

What achievements?

Quote:

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

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

[joobz]

Originally Posted by DHR

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

How do you know this?

Share.

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

[John Hewitt]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

What achievements? (What are the achivements of religion.

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

Quote:

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

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

[wollery]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

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

No, he's saying that the creationist's critiques of evolution should be ignored because they are worthless, largely due to the fact that the vast majority of creationists quite clearly haven't got a clue what the theory of evolution says.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

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

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

Quote:

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

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

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Hawk one

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

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

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

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Yahzi

Hey!

Where's your avatar? The little panicking guys.

"OH NOES!"

I loved those guys!

you asked for it, you got it!

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

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

Originally Posted by drkitten

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

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Originally Posted by drkitten

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

Feel free to plot the data and tell us what you get.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

That is correct, in a real organism, the non-binding site region (the evolved region of the genome) cannot mutate freely as is allowed in ev. This is a property of the ev model that is not realistic.

Originally Posted by Paul

It can't mutate freely in Ev either! Mutations in the "junk" portion of the genome can result in bindings that increase the mistakes.

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

Originally Posted by Kleinman

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

Originally Posted by Paul

About 4 billion, right? Do you think that the fundamental binding mechanism evolved in eukaryotes with large genomes?

I don’t think any fundamental genetic mechanism evolved. Ev is forcing you take a position that every fundamental genetic mechanism that requires random point mutations and natural selection to evolve, has to evolve on a short genome (prokaryote length or less). You do realize that ev is forcing you to paint yourself into another corner.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

I guess you could fit a straight line to this data but I am not sure it is linear. The difference in the generations for convergence between 2x10^-6 and 10^-6 is almost triple not double the number of generations for convergence. In addition, why don’t you try a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 100 bases per genome and I’ll make a wild guess that it will take about 80,000 generations to converge.

Originally Posted by Paul

I wouldn't be surprised if it never converged. There has to be a point where the mutation load is too heavy. But not to worry, because we would surely notice this problem if it occured in experiments where we use high mutation rates.

I have run series with ev that show that too high a mutation rate does not allow the program to converge. This point is far higher than the fatal mutation rates that kill living things. I believe this reflects the unrealistic selection process that Dr Schneider has used in the model. A more accurate simulation of the selection process should be able to model the real life situation, but even with Dr Schneider’s generous selection process, you still do not have enough time to accomplish macroevolution.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

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

Originally Posted by Paul

What extrapolations are you talking about?

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Originally Posted by Paul

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Kleinman

However as population gets larger and larger, these increases are getting smaller and smaller very rapidly and the additive rule no longer gives a good approximation.

Originally Posted by Paul

population, generations

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Originally Posted by Paul

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

Run that population=2meg case I sent you and see whether the last point in this series is a variation due to the stochastic process or whether the last point is representative of the slope of the curves you are generating.

Originally Posted by Delphi ote

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

Originally Posted by Delphi ote

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

Fear not Delphi, when the computer system becomes available, I will run the cases. I keep telling you to lay off the sterno; who wants to listen to a crying drunk evolutionarian.

Originally Posted by DHR

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

Originally Posted by DHR

How do you know this?

Share.

Originally Posted by joozb

I've asked this very question several times now. you won't get an answer. At best, you can hope for a not-so-clever insult (perhaps comparing you to a shipping company) or a intentional missquote of your position.

Originally Posted by joozb

If he can't do either, then he'll just ignore your question and complain about your spelling errors.

There are tons of data available on mutation rates. Google for this information you lazy evolutionarians. If you want to know the mutation rates at the beginning of the evolutionary process, set up your experiments in your laboratories to verify your own speculations. This is your theory and the best evidence you have for it is based on speculation. Are these the best arguments that the James Randi evolutionarian brain trust has to offer?

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

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

[delphi_ote]

Originally Posted by kleinman

I keep telling you to lay off the sterno...

Life Hint #249: Lame insults don't get more clever through repetition.

[John Hewitt]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Science comes from the exact opposite of religion. Yes, many scientists were, and are, religious, but this does not mean they find things because of religion. The Greek philosophers basically invented science because they wanted to know things that their religion couldn't tell them. In fact, the very fact that science, as you say, has been transferred between people of so many different religions is testament that it has nothing to do with any religion at all.

The Greeks did not invent observational science, they invented rationality - among other things. Rationality plus observation leads to science - or so the rationalist thread in scientific philosophy argues.

Quote:

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

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

[joobz]

Originally Posted by kleinman

There are tons of data available on mutation rates. Google for this information you lazy evolutionarians.

rather than google, what if I do a cursory look at pubmed.
http://tinyurl.com/ydsknj
http://tinyurl.com/yzgqrg
http://tinyurl.com/yz27cw
Check that out, Point mutation rate is dynamic depending upon the environmental factors.

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

Originally Posted by kleinman

If you want to know the mutation rates at the beginning of the evolutionary process, set up your experiments in your laboratories to verify your own speculations.

people are conducting this area of research. I'll wait and see what they discover. For the time being though, be happy. God stills exist in this gap.

Originally Posted by kleinman

This is your theory and the best evidence you have for it is based on speculation. Are these the best arguments that the James Randi evolutionarian brain trust has to offer?

Originally Posted by kleinman

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

[thaiboxerken]

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

[joobz]

Originally Posted by John Hewitt

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

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

Are you saying that spurious bindings aren't a potential problem in real organisms?

Quote:

I don’t think any fundamental genetic mechanism evolved.

Wow, really? None of them?

Quote:

Ev is forcing you take a position that every fundamental genetic mechanism that requires random point mutations and natural selection to evolve, has to evolve on a short genome (prokaryote length or less). You do realize that ev is forcing you to paint yourself into another corner.

So you don't believe that anything we're talking about actually evolved, yet you are willing to set the parameters for its evolution to values that no biologist would agree with.

Quote:

I have run series with ev that show that too high a mutation rate does not allow the program to converge. This point is far higher than the fatal mutation rates that kill living things. I believe this reflects the unrealistic selection process that Dr Schneider has used in the model.

I think it reflects the fact that Ev does not model the entire evolutionary landscape, as we've said many times. However, you don't appear to notice that Ev kills lots of creatures, too.

Quote:

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

All I have to do is make the binding site wide enough so that Rcapacity isn't a problem. For example, a site width of 10 bases would allow genome size up to about 2 megabases. As I've said countless times, the problem is time. You can be such a liar sometimes.

Quote:

Run that population=2meg case I sent you and see whether the last point in this series is a variation due to the stochastic process or whether the last point is representative of the slope of the curves you are generating.

I'm working on it. I've run 3--5 experiments of each population from 4K to 110K to get a average generation count. Now I'll start running larger populations. Unfortunately, the Pascal version of Ev is slower than the Java version.

Quote:

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

Sorry, unreadable font.

~~ Paul

[cyborg]

Quote:

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

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

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

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Joobz

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

Apparently he's extrapolating from Ev. Oh, wait a minute, that's not allowed.

~~ Paul

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by joobz

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

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

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

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

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

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

[joobz]

Originally Posted by drkitten

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

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

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

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

There are tons of data available on mutation rates. Google for this information you lazy evolutionarians.

Originally Posted by joobz

Check that out, Point mutation rate is dynamic depending upon the environmental factors.

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

Joozb, in order to support your downy feather soft theory of evolution, you have to speculate on the existence of extremely high mutation rate at the early stages of life formation, some type of unique environmental conditions that no longer exist or are not reproducible in the laboratory and chemical reactions that are anything but likely to occur. Ev shows that when known measured values for mutation rates and known measured genome lengths are used, the number of generations required to evolve only 16 binding sites because huge, far too large to support the theory of macroevolution by random point mutations and natural selection. So joozb, feel free to dream of unknown tiny 256 base pair genomes that can reproduce even when subjected to unrealistically high mutation rates as they evolve to generate all the genes and genetic control systems in the cells in your brain that allow you to come up with these wacky ideas.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

This is your theory and the best evidence you have for it is based on speculation. Are these the best arguments that the James Randi evolutionarian brain trust has to offer?

Originally Posted by joobz

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

Joozb, I don’t think your anything is possible argument for abiogenesis and if it sounds good to you it must be true qualifies as well documented research.

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

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

Scientific medium? That sound like you figured out some way to communicate with the dead.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

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

Originally Posted by Paul

Are you saying that spurious bindings aren't a potential problem in real organisms?

No

Originally Posted by Kleinman

I don’t think any fundamental genetic mechanism evolved.

Originally Posted by Paul

Wow, really? None of them?

None that have evolved de novo. Now you can fire up google and see if you can find any. Maybe you want to do the experiment that Dr Schneider is calling for.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Ev is forcing you take a position that every fundamental genetic mechanism that requires random point mutations and natural selection to evolve, has to evolve on a short genome (prokaryote length or less). You do realize that ev is forcing you to paint yourself into another corner.

Originally Posted by Paul

So you don't believe that anything we're talking about actually evolved, yet you are willing to set the parameters for its evolution to values that no biologist would agree with.

Which parameters am I setting that no biologist would agree with?

Originally Posted by Kleinman

I have run series with ev that show that too high a mutation rate does not allow the program to converge. This point is far higher than the fatal mutation rates that kill living things. I believe this reflects the unrealistic selection process that Dr Schneider has used in the model.

Originally Posted by Paul

I think it reflects the fact that Ev does not model the entire evolutionary landscape, as we've said many times. However, you don't appear to notice that Ev kills lots of creatures, too.

I keep asking you, what in this evolutionary landscape would rescue the theory of evolution from what the mathematics of ev is showing? Sure I notice that ev kills lots of creatures, I have always thought of the theory of evolution as a very morbid idea.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

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

Originally Posted by Paul

All I have to do is make the binding site wide enough so that Rcapacity isn't a problem. For example, a site width of 10 bases would allow genome size up to about 2 megabases. As I've said countless times, the problem is time. You can be such a liar sometimes.

Well why don’t you do this series and put yourself out of this misery and show my arguments to be wrong? Why is it that every time you call me a liar, you never post my quote where I’m lying? I have only lied once in all my posts and that’s when I told Delphi that his statements were not contradictory. I did this to get the URL for his publication and it worked. You evolutionarians are so confused about what is true and what a lie is.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Run that population=2meg case I sent you and see whether the last point in this series is a variation due to the stochastic process or whether the last point is representative of the slope of the curves you are generating.

Originally Posted by Paul

I'm working on it. I've run 3--5 experiments of each population from 4K to 110K to get a average generation count. Now I'll start running larger populations. Unfortunately, the Pascal version of Ev is slower than the Java version.

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

Originally Posted by Kleinman

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

Originally Posted by Paul

Sorry, unreadable font.

Cut an paste the text into your word processor and use a more readable font.

Originally Posted by joozb

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

Originally Posted by Paul

Apparently he's extrapolating from Ev. Oh, wait a minute, that's not allowed.

I didn’t say extrapolation was allowed, just be prepared to prove your extrapolations are accurate. For example, Dr Schneider’s extrapolation that a human genome could evolve in a billion years based on the rate of information acquisition on a 256 base genome and a mutation rate of 1 mutation per 256 bases per generation. Lest Myriad and other evolutionarians say that I do not include Dr Schneider’s full statement about his computation, I post it again:

Originally Posted by Dr Schneider

Likewise, at this rate, roughly an entire human genome of ~4x10^9 bits (assuming an average of 1 bit/base, which is clearly an overestimate) could evolve in a billion years, even without the advantages of large environmentally diverse worldwide populations, sexual recombination and interspecies genetic transfer. . However, since this rate is unlikely to be maintained for eukaryotes, these factors are undoubtedly important in accounting for human evolution.