Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 JREF Forum Annoying creationists

 Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

 Tags evolution , creationists , creationism

 29th November 2006, 03:23 AM #601 tsig a carbon based life-form     Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,698 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
 29th November 2006, 08:22 AM #602 kleinman Banned   Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,538 Annoying Creationists [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.
 29th November 2006, 08:54 AM #603 Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted.     Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,590 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 __________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny
 29th November 2006, 09:02 AM #604 Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted.     Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,590 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 __________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny
 29th November 2006, 10:25 AM #605 Yahzi Master Poster     Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: AZ Posts: 2,672 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." __________________ ID lives in a cardboard refrigerator box and throws rocks through the windows of evolution's unfinished mansion. ---Beleth Buy my book! www.WorldOfPrime.com
 29th November 2006, 11:08 AM #606 John Hewitt Muse   Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 924 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. __________________ Evolution and Origin . http://www.evolution-origin.co.uk A Habit of Lies: How Scientists Cheat . http://www.habitoflies.co.uk
 29th November 2006, 11:15 AM #607 kleinman Banned   Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,538 Annoying Creationists 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.
 29th November 2006, 12:07 PM #608 Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted.     Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,590 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 __________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny
 29th November 2006, 02:02 PM #609 joobz Tergiversator     Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493 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. __________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
 29th November 2006, 03:57 PM #613 drkitten Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647 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.
 29th November 2006, 04:03 PM #614 Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted.     Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,590 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 __________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny Last edited by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos; 29th November 2006 at 04:25 PM.
 29th November 2006, 04:15 PM #615 Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted.     Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,590 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 $g = 7.8G^{.98}$. You won't let me extrapolate past the 100K genome, so on what basis do you claim that increased genome sizes would suddenly become exponential in generations? ~~ Paul __________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny
 29th November 2006, 04:24 PM #616 Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted.     Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,590 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 $12722p^{-.23}$. Using just the data from a population of 32K upward, it fits $32835p^{-.31}$. Using just the data from 92K upward, it fits $9387p^{-.21}$. And using just the data from 262K upward, it fits $51432p^{-.34}$. I'm not sure this is commensurate with the claim that the increases will get rapidly smaller. ~~ Paul population, generations 1024, 2700 2048, 1800 4096, 1770 8192, 1641 16384, 1144 23100, 1275 32768, 1288 46200, 1709 65536, 922 92680, 718 110000, 856 262000, 702 524000, 642 1048000, 438 __________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny
 29th November 2006, 05:01 PM #617 joobz Tergiversator     Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493 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. __________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
 29th November 2006, 06:56 PM #618 delphi_ote Debunking Ninja     Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,006 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. __________________ And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
 29th November 2006, 07:08 PM #619 Hawk one Emperor of the Internet     Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Right below The Hat. Posts: 12,845 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? __________________ Boynott everything! Roxane - My evil feeds on your hatred. I am like a big evil thing that feasts on hatred and probably also fear. Nom nom. Roxane is a ninja star without me.
 29th November 2006, 11:47 PM #620 tsig a carbon based life-form     Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,698 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.
 30th November 2006, 04:39 AM #622 Cuddles Decoy Moderator     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,570 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. __________________ I am not a little teapot.
 30th November 2006, 06:30 AM #623 joobz Tergiversator     Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493 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. __________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
 30th November 2006, 07:00 AM #624 John Hewitt Muse   Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 924 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. __________________ Evolution and Origin . http://www.evolution-origin.co.uk A Habit of Lies: How Scientists Cheat . http://www.habitoflies.co.uk
 30th November 2006, 07:15 AM #625 wollery Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!     Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Land of Eternal Hope Posts: 10,312 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. __________________ "You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad "Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin
 30th November 2006, 07:58 AM #627 drkitten Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647 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.
 30th November 2006, 08:05 AM #628 joobz Tergiversator     Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493 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! __________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
 30th November 2006, 08:40 AM #630 delphi_ote Debunking Ninja     Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 6,006 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. __________________ And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
 30th November 2006, 09:01 AM #631 John Hewitt Muse   Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 924 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. 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. __________________ Evolution and Origin . http://www.evolution-origin.co.uk A Habit of Lies: How Scientists Cheat . http://www.habitoflies.co.uk
 30th November 2006, 09:02 AM #632 joobz Tergiversator     Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493 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. __________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
 30th November 2006, 09:05 AM #633 thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,952 For some reason, I just don't think Kleinman is going to have his "proof" published in any peer-reviewed scientific medium. __________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
 30th November 2006, 09:11 AM #634 joobz Tergiversator     Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493 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. __________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
 30th November 2006, 09:17 AM #635 Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted.     Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,590 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 __________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny
 30th November 2006, 09:17 AM #636 cyborg deus ex machina     Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,974 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. Last edited by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos; 30th November 2006 at 10:27 AM.
 30th November 2006, 09:18 AM #637 Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted.     Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,590 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 __________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny
 30th November 2006, 09:31 AM #638 drkitten Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647 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.
 30th November 2006, 09:50 AM #639 joobz Tergiversator     Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: That's how you get ants Posts: 17,493 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. __________________ What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser

JREF Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit