Annoying creationists

[Dr Richard]

Originally Posted by kleinman

I’m glad you can see the goal posts. So many of the evolutionists posting on this thread don’t even know where the ball park is.

[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Feel free to present any definition(s) you wish and we can discuss the validity of the concept(s). Since Paul and many other evolutionists have argued that macroevolution is simply the accumulation of a series of microevolutionary steps, I posed the cases of the evolution of a gene from the beginning and the transformation of a gene from one form to an entirely new form as examples of macroevolution. I have argued why there is no selection process that can drive such evolutionary events. I’m waiting for any counter argument. The best arguments offered so far is Cyborg’s crufts and kjkent1s’s string cheese theory. Hopefully you will offer something more rational

For the purposes of this debate, I am very happy with the definition of "macroevolution" as you have defined it.

I take it you are happy with these definitions, and only these defintions? I do not want to get into a long discussion about macroevolution and for you then to bring up some other examples of macroevolution that had forgotten about...

[kjkent1]

Originally Posted by kleinman

Are you sure it’s not the inmate only thinks he’s running the asylum?

Still no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning, but lots of attempts at changing the subject. Any of you evolutionary geniuses want to explain what the components of the DNA replicase system were doing before DNA could be replicated. How did those components evolve from the beginning? Just what was the selection process that evolved those molecules? Ah, the gap theory!

I've explained my position in detail. At every point it is supported by some of the most brilliant minds who have ever lived, and the mathematical certainty of my conclusion is unavoidable.

You, on the other hand, have yet to refute my theory in any meaningful way. Furthermore, you have yet to prove that evolution is mathematically impossible, in any meaningful way. You merely proclaim it to be so. As you proclaim the existence of your Lord.

Finally, if I may surmise, you state that we are "all slaves," so we may as well choose our master. If you were to say that to a psychiatrist, right now, I think that he/she would raise his/her eyebrows at the comment and wonder why you feel disposed to view every person as a slave. Because you are a licensed physician, this frankly worries me, because you are providing medical care to the public.

Do you feel oppressed by the evil in the world? Maybe you should consider talking to a professional about this issue.

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Feel free to present any definition(s) you wish and we can discuss the validity of the concept(s). Since Paul and many other evolutionists have argued that macroevolution is simply the accumulation of a series of microevolutionary steps, I posed the cases of the evolution of a gene from the beginning and the transformation of a gene from one form to an entirely new form as examples of macroevolution. I have argued why there is no selection process that can drive such evolutionary events. I’m waiting for any counter argument. The best arguments offered so far is Cyborg’s crufts and kjkent1s’s string cheese theory. Hopefully you will offer something more rational

Originally Posted by Dr Richard

For the purposes of this debate, I am very happy with the definition of "macroevolution" as you have defined it.

I take it you are happy with these definitions, and only these defintions? I do not want to get into a long discussion about macroevolution and for you then to bring up some other examples of macroevolution that had forgotten about...

What are you worried about? If you are interested in scientific truth, let the debate go where it goes. Why would you worry that I bring up other examples of macroevolution? If you can come up with a plausible explanation for selection that would evolve a gene from the beginning, you should be able to come up with a selection mechanism to evolve genes from one to another or any other example that might come to mind.

When Professor Kenneth Miller published the Flagellum Unspun argument to counter the Professor Behe’s Irreducible Complexity hypothesis by postulating that the components of the flagellum had other uses before they assembled into the flagellum, I asked Professor Miller, how you can apply this argument to the DNA replicase system?

A good logical argument can withstand counter-arguments. You must not have much confidence in your belief system if you are trying to restrict my counter-arguments.

You evolutionists complain that I move the goal posts, but if you go back to my first post on this topic on the Evolutionisdead forum, you will see that my arguments are still the same.

My argument is that the ev computer program shows that the process random point mutations and natural selection is so profoundly slow when realistic parameters are used in the model that macroevolution by this mechanism is mathematically impossible. In addition, Dr Schneider in his publications on ev concludes that ev demonstrates evolution by punctuated equilibrium as described by Stephen Gould. Dr Schneider’s conclusions are likewise impossible since Gould’s thesis of punctuated equilibrium states the evolution occurs over short time spans in small sub-populations. The mathematical results from the ev model directly contradict these two conditions.

When Unnamed modified the selection process and introduced the selection mechanism into the debate, it revealed there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning.

So the theory of evolution started without any mathematical foundation and continues to suffer from the same deficiency. The theory of evolution is modern mythology, not hard mathematical science.

If you can produce any plausible counter-arguments to what ev shows, go for it and stop whining about what I might say in response.

Originally Posted by kjkent1

I've explained my position in detail. At every point it is supported by some of the most brilliant minds who have ever lived, and the mathematical certainty of my conclusion is unavoidable.

Your string cheese theory is almost without peer, only cyborg’s cruft theory represents any challenge. Perhaps you two can get together and you can melt some string cheese on his cruft. You evolutionists would be fondue that.

[cyborg]

Quote:

Ask Adequate to help you with the mathematics of the theory of evolution if you reduce the theory to mutation without selection. It is not a pretty sight for your theory.

4^G right?

Idiot. You don't even understand your own argument.

Quote:

Nope, your argument is fading from “mutation and natural selection” to “mutation without selection”. People out there are hearing this and some understand the implications for the theory of evolution, even if you are not.

There is no selection for genes that do not exist. No one has ever argued overwise.

That is why the whole, 'de novo' argument is bunk - until a gene is a gene there is no way of saying what mutations will end up being part of a gene.

So again I ask - either YOU define the what a de novo event is in ev or you cannot say it is impossible. IMPROBABLE EVENTS WILL OCCUR WITH ENOUGH TRIALS. IMPOSSIBLE EVENTS CANNOT OCCUR INSPITE OF THE NUMBER OF TRIALS. By Zeus!

If you cannot say what the event is you cannot prove that it does not occur.

Or perhaps the basic concept of proof by contradiction is one of those other pieces of mathematics that you seem to have been untouched by.

Quote:

I guess that fits with evolutionary concept of mathematical accuracy.

I would have thought you'd appreciate it.

It is after all only a shadow of a magnitude of the mathematical inaccuracy of 'improbable = impossible' that you are so fond of.

Quote:

Should we rename the theory of evolution to the theory of “unintelligent design”?

It is unfortunate that you do not see how appropriate that is.

The designer is indeed without intelligence. It is the blind application of physical law. Of course intelligence is as well, in a way. Of course I doubt you could possibly start to comprehend the implications here. You continue believing computation can occur by magic.

Mathematicians. Pfft.

[kjkent1]

Originally Posted by cyborg

Mathematicians. Pfft.

Dr. Kleinman is not a mathematician. He is a mechanical engineer. The difference seems fairly obvious. He demands Newtonian certainty in everything -- even in places where such certainty is known not to exist.

[cyborg]

Quote:

Dr. Kleinman is not a mathematician. He is a mechanical engineer.

Ugh. Even worse.

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Ask Adequate to help you with the mathematics of the theory of evolution if you reduce the theory to mutation without selection. It is not a pretty sight for your theory.

Originally Posted by cyborg

4^G right?

Hey cruftborg, that’s what you get without selection.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Nope, your argument is fading from “mutation and natural selection” to “mutation without selection”. People out there are hearing this and some understand the implications for the theory of evolution, even if you are not.

Originally Posted by cyborg

There is no selection for genes that do not exist. No one has ever argued overwise.

Hey cruftborg, without selection you get 4^G, right?

Originally Posted by Kleinman

I guess that fits with evolutionary concept of mathematical accuracy.

Originally Posted by cyborg

I would have thought you'd appreciate it.

It is after all only a shadow of a magnitude of the mathematical inaccuracy of 'improbable = impossible' that you are so fond of.

We are now on page 71 of this thread, not page 60, not page 61. Without a selection process, the chance of forming any particular sequence of 100 bases is 1 in 4^100 or 1 in 1.6069380442589902755419620923412e+60. That’s if you don’t have any other molecules in your primordial soup interfering with the linkage of these bases, that is if you could somehow get a soup of these bases, that is if you could get these bases to link up non-enzymatically, that is if you can keep these chemicals stable long enough to complete the linkage. To get an idea how small that probability is, the number of atoms in the earth is about 1e+52. You better go back to the drawing board and design yourself a selection process. Better yet, go buy a lottery ticket; you have 50 orders of magnitude better chance of winning a lottery than forming a single gene 100 bases long without a selection process.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Should we rename the theory of evolution to the theory of “unintelligent design”?

Originally Posted by cyborg

It is unfortunate that you do not see how appropriate that is.

UD is a totally appropriate description of the theory of evolution. You got no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning, only cruft. Melt some string cheese on that cruft, perhaps it will make it go down a little easier.

Originally Posted by cyborg

The designer is indeed without intelligence. It is the blind application of physical law. Of course intelligence is as well, in a way. Of course I doubt you could possibly start to comprehend the implications here. You continue believing computation can occur by magic.

Blind application of what physical law are you talking about? There is no physical law for the theory of evolution; there is only a slogan “mutation and natural selection”. When you try to apply mathematics to this principle, poof! Natural selection disappears like magic.

Originally Posted by cyborg

Mathematicians. Pfft.

Don’t you mean, Mathematicians, crufft. Hey Adequate, cruftborg is Pfftrespecting mathematics. Are you going to take that or are you going to launch some smart gifs and jpegs.

Originally Posted by cyborg

Mathematicians. Pfft.

Originally Posted by kjkent1

Dr. Kleinman is not a mathematician. He is a mechanical engineer. The difference seems fairly obvious. He demands Newtonian certainty in everything -- even in places where such certainty is known not to exist.

I am certain if you melt some of your string cheese theory over cyborg’s cruft theory, you get a tasty if rather irrational theory. We can call it the cruft cheese on toast theory, best served when half baked.

Hey, anybody know what’s happened to Paul?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by cyborg

Mathematicians. Pfft.

I think what you meant to say was "Non-mathematicians who mess with stuff they're too innumerate to understand. Pfft."

Despite our best efforts, we have not yet managed to teach kleinman the probability theory that most people learn in high school, or what convergence means, or why using figures which are inaccurate by a factor of quintillions will give him the wrong answer.

The first time in my life I get to use the word "quintillions", and it's to describe the scale of a mistake made by a creationist, what a surprise.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by kleinman

Tell Dr Schneider what selection is and to follow your link then he can correct the deficiency in his computer simulation which up to now shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

You need some new lies.

Reciting this lie over and over will not make it any truer.

You sad little man.

[cyborg]

Originally Posted by kleinman

I AM AN IDIOT. I LIKE TO SAY SILLY THINGS. JESUS LOVES ME.

Cannot agree more. Glad you're coming around.

Quote:

you have 50 orders of magnitude better chance of winning a lottery than forming a single gene 100 bases long without a selection process.

There is only one valid lottery result.

Tell us kleinman, since you seem to know everything, just how many valid genes are there?

Do you even begin to have a singular clue? Or do you think you can just pretend there is only one possibility for any given value G?

Let's assume one mutation per generation. 100 generations. One new gene. Is the gene good or bad? Selection decides.

100 generations. 2^100 different 4^100 genes. That's a hell of a lot of different 4^100 combinations right? In fact haven't we just tried out 1267650600228229401496703205376 different genes?

DAMN. That's a big number. I bet if I buyed that many lottery tickets my odds would be pretty good!

But ignoring this for a moment the basic point does not seem to have gotten through.

A new gene is pretty much GARUNTEED to appear. What is unknown whether this gene is GOOD or BAD. That is where selection kicks in. This is what you cannot seemingly grasp. Selection is not required to create a new gene - it is only required to determine the WORTH of this gene.

Quote:

Blind application of what physical law are you talking about? There is no physical law for the theory of evolution; there is only a slogan “mutation and natural selection”. When you try to apply mathematics to this principle, poof! Natural selection disappears like magic.

If you apply all the wrong numbers in all the wrong places and throw Jesus in the mix then you get kleinman - and evolution disappears only in his mind.

Idiot.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by kleinman

When you try to apply mathematics to this principle, poof! Natural selection disappears like magic.

Actually, when you recite the halfwitted nonsense that you pretend is "mathematics", this does not magically make the laws of nature disappear.

This seems to be the essential thing that you are too dumb to understand. Well, that and mathematics and genetics and the theory of evolution and punctuated equilibrium and what "selection" means; but your apparent belief that you can change the world by drooling rubbish at it goes beyond mere ignorance and into downright lunacy.

I know that religious nutjobs such as yourself believe that you can suspend the laws of nature by mumbling nonsense at the Universe, but even Jesus warned you against employing "vain repetitions"; a phrase which perfectly characterizes your posts.

Quote:

Hey, anybody know what’s happened to Paul?

I expect he's waiting for you to think of a new lie.

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by cyborg

Mathematicians. Pfft.

Originally Posted by Adequate

I think what you meant to say was "Non-mathematicians who mess with stuff they're too innumerate to understand. Pfft."

You’ve shown some real mathematical skills, they can be summed up as posting a few gifs and jpegs (probably none of which were your creation) and listing irrelevant URLs. You are a real master of your profession.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Tell Dr Schneider what selection is and to follow your link then he can correct the deficiency in his computer simulation which up to now shows that the theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

Originally Posted by Adequate

You need some new lies.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Originally Posted by Adequate

Reciting this lie over and over will not make it any truer.

You sad little man.

You only wish it were a lie but the reality is that you don’t have the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning and neither does Dr Schneider. Stick with posting other peoples gifs and jpegs, that’s the only skill you have demonstrated in this debate. Is this the best that the James Randi forum bloggers can do, crufts cheese on toast with a side order of Adequate’s posting other peoples gifs and jpegs? No wonder evolutionists want to teach their slop to grade schoolers. Only the naïve and devout evolutionists can believe these type of arguments.

You better get used to hearing that you don’t have a selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning.

And cruftborg, making up quotes for me only weakens your arguments further as if explaining the evolution of genes from the beginning with crufts could be made any weaker.

Have some crufts cheese on toast, half baked.

[cyborg]

Quote:

And cruftborg, making up quotes for me only weakens your arguments further

Well, if it weakens my arguments then I guess acting like an ass weakens yours.

If you cared you wouldn't behave like a child.

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

And cruftborg, making up quotes for me only weakens your arguments further

Originally Posted by cyborg

Well, if it weakens my arguments then I guess acting like an ass weakens yours.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Originally Posted by cyborg

If you cared you wouldn't behave like a child.

Cruftborg, your cruft argument makes kjkent1’s string cheese theory sound intelligent. Cruftborg, teach us all you know about crufts and how they evolve genes from the beginning. You could write an autobiography, title it My Life as a Cruft and How it Made Me What I am Today. Maybe Adequate will give you some gifs and jpegs to put in your story.

Crufts cheese on toast, half baked, a hearty intellectual meal for any evolutionist.

[kjkent1]

Originally Posted by cyborg

Tell us kleinman, since you seem to know everything, just how many valid genes are there?

Do you even begin to have a singular clue? Or do you think you can just pretend there is only one possibility for any given value G?

Let's assume one mutation per generation. 100 generations. One new gene. Is the gene good or bad? Selection decides.

100 generations. 2^100 different 4^100 genes. That's a hell of a lot of different 4^100 combinations right? In fact haven't we just tried out 1267650600228229401496703205376 different genes?

DAMN. That's a big number. I bet if I buyed that many lottery tickets my odds would be pretty good!

But ignoring this for a moment the basic point does not seem to have gotten through.

A new gene is pretty much GARUNTEED to appear. What is unknown whether this gene is GOOD or BAD. That is where selection kicks in. This is what you cannot seemingly grasp. Selection is not required to create a new gene - it is only required to determine the WORTH of this gene.



If you apply all the wrong numbers in all the wrong places and throw Jesus in the mix then you get kleinman - and evolution disappears only in his mind.

Idiot.

Not idiotic. Mere Christianity. Dr. Kleinman does in fact believe that only one combination of any genetic code is valid, because, under his belief system, that one code was absolutely programmed to be what it is in advance, by a divine and almighty creator.

So, asking Kleinman to consider the possibility that some larger percentage of genetic combinations might produce some viable life form is a complete non sequitur, because, for him, there is ONLY ONE possible viable life form: the one which God designed in advance.

Very simple to understand -- albeit contrary to observed reality.

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by kjkent1

So, asking Kleinman to consider the possibility that some larger percentage of genetic combinations might produce some viable life form is a complete non sequitur, because there is ONLY ONE possible viable life form: the one which God designed in advance.

Now you are doing some thinking. Ok, how many genetic combinations do you estimate could produce some viable life form?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Well, there's be at least a duodecillion life forms on Earth so the idea that one combination is possible is certainly refuted.

[kjkent1]

Originally Posted by kleinman

Cruftborg, your cruft argument makes kjkent1’s string cheese theory sound intelligent. Cruftborg, teach us all you know about crufts and how they evolve genes from the beginning. You could write an autobiography, title it My Life as a Cruft and How it Made Me What I am Today. Maybe Adequate will give you some gifs and jpegs to put in your story.

Crufts cheese on toast, half baked, a hearty intellectual meal for any evolutionist.

It's not my theory, Alan. Dr. Leonard Susskind, Ph.D of Standford University, developed the theory, and many high-energy and theoretical physicists generally subscribe. So, if you really want to get into an argument, then write Susskind and try out your mathematical talents against him. Who knows, maybe you'll show him that he's wrong and you're right.

However, I think that is "mathematically impossible."

[cyborg]

Originally Posted by kleinman

JESUS JESUS JESUS! YES I AM AN IDIOT CHILD.

Well, that's confirmation for you.

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

Well, there's be at least a duodecillion life forms on Earth so the idea that one combination is possible is certainly refuted.

Ok, 10^39. So let’s say the average gene is 100 bases long, the probability of forming that sequence is 1 in 4^100 ~= 1e+60 and there are about 200 genes in the simplest life form so the total probability without selection is 10^39 in (1e+60)^200. I think you better find a selection process. Otherwise, your theory is kaput.

[cyborg]

Originally Posted by kleinman

4^100 .... JESUS... STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THE POINT...CRUFTBORG....CHEESE...JESUS

You aren't even making any sense anymore kleinman.

[kjkent1]

Originally Posted by kleinman

Now you are doing some thinking. Ok, how many genetic combinations do you estimate could produce some viable life form?

One percent.

Now let's see you run the numbers.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by kleinman

Ok, 10^39. So let’s say the average gene is 100 bases long, the probability of forming that sequence is 1 in 4^100 ~= 1e+60 and there are about 200 genes in the simplest life form so the total probability without selection is 10^39 in (1e+60)^200. I think you better find a selection process. Otherwise, your theory is kaput.

So you think we've run out of available life forms?

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Ok, 10^39. So let’s say the average gene is 100 bases long, the probability of forming that sequence is 1 in 4^100 ~= 1e+60 and there are about 200 genes in the simplest life form so the total probability without selection is 10^39 in (1e+60)^200. I think you better find a selection process. Otherwise, your theory is kaput.

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

So you think we've run out of available life forms?

Probably if you are trying to explain the origin and evolution of life forms by purely random processes without selection, and I’m sure you never had a selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning. “Mutation and natural selection” is only a slogan not a scientific explanation of how life evolves.

[kjkent1]

I think that the majority of DNA combinations will produce viable living oganisms. Most of observed life is not junk DNA, so, it's entirely reasonable that most of the combinations of DNA are actually viable. Otherwise there would me a lot more junk and a lot less life.

Dr. Kleinman needs to do a little less calculating and use a little more logic in his analyses.

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by kjkent1

I think that the majority of DNA combinations will produce viable living oganisms. Most of observed life is not junk DNA, so, it's entirely reasonable that most of the combinations of DNA are actually viable. Otherwise there would me a lot more junk and a lot less life.

You must be correct. I saw the Star Wars movie and there were all kinds of different life forms in the movie.

Originally Posted by kjkent1

Dr. Kleinman needs to do a little less calculating and use a little more logic in his analyses.

You are right; never let a little mathematical logic get in the way of your belief system. I wouldn’t let your boss at your computer company know that you are recommending to people to do less calculating.

[kjkent1]

Originally Posted by kleinman

You must be correct. I saw the Star Wars movie and there were all kinds of different life forms in the movie.

You are right; never let a little mathematical logic get in the way of your belief system. I wouldn’t let your boss at your computer company know that you are recommending to people to do less calculating.

You have yet to even come close to refuting any of my logic -- whereas I routinely destroy yours. As for your use of logic, your belief system speaks volumes.

[cyborg]

Quote:

You must be correct. I saw the Star Wars movie and there were all kinds of different life forms in the movie.

I think I get it people.

kleinman is trying to tell us there's only a few 'kinds' - you know, no more than would sensibly fit on the ark.

Everything else is 'microevolution'.



PRAISE JESUS!

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

You are right; never let a little mathematical logic get in the way of your belief system. I wouldn’t let your boss at your computer company know that you are recommending to people to do less calculating.

Originally Posted by kjkent1

You have yet to even come close to refuting any of my logic -- whereas I routinely destroy yours. As for your use of logic, your belief system speaks volumes.

I don’t want to refute you string cheese hypothesis of evolution. I think that evolutionists far and wide should embrace your logic. The only hypothesis that can compete on an equal footing is Cruftborg’s cruft theory of evolution. I give you an open field to discuss either the string cheese or cruft hypothesis of evolution now that we know there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

You must be correct. I saw the Star Wars movie and there were all kinds of different life forms in the movie.

Originally Posted by cyborg

I think I get it people.

We know you get it, you got cruft.

[cyborg]

Originally Posted by kleinman

JESUS JESUS JESUS. CHEESE CRUFT. CRUFT JESUS. GOD.

kleinman can you not even attempt to make full sentences any more?

[kjkent1]

Originally Posted by kleinman

I don’t want to refute you string cheese hypothesis of evolution. I think that evolutionists far and wide should embrace your logic. The only hypothesis that can compete on an equal footing is Cruftborg’s cruft theory of evolution. I give you an open field to discuss either the string cheese or cruft hypothesis of evolution now that we know there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning.

Your post is entirely devoid of useful information. This makes you a troll, from which the only escape is to terminate further interaction.

Bye.

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by kleinman

You must be correct. I saw the Star Wars movie and there were all kinds of different life forms in the movie.

I always figured you for the type to get all your facts from fiction... oh wait! You're mocking us!

Failed.

Quote:

You are right; never let a little mathematical logic get in the way of your belief system. I wouldn’t let your boss at your computer company know that you are recommending to people to do less calculating.

This reminds me of a story that Dawkins told in "The God Delusion". Two men were discussing God's existance. One suddenly spouted out a complicated mathematical formulae, and then responded, "Therefore, God exists. Refute!" The other man got flustered and left.

The reason why? Was he wrong? Of course not. Or rather, he had no reason to assume that the other argument was "correct" on the basis of the formulae itself. The logical basis for the equation did not make sense. If I say to you, "2+2=4; therefore, God does not exist!", you wouldn't buy that at all, would you? Yet someone that suddenly spouts out formulas sounds all mystical and knowledgable, even if the equation itself doesn't actually prove anything, if it is used illogically.

However, you're throwing out random equations without considered the differing factors with logical reason. So you sound like the guy earlier in the example. Refute!

[Dr Richard]

Originally Posted by kleinman

What are you worried about?

I am trying to discuss the possibility of "macroevolution" - which you assert is impossible - as opposed to "microevolution" - which you assert is possible.

Trying to agree on a definition of these terms seems very reasonable to me before the debate can progress.

Why evade the question?

Quote:

If you are interested in scientific truth, let the debate go where it goes. Why would you worry that I bring up other examples of macroevolution? If you can come up with a plausible explanation for selection that would evolve a gene from the beginning, you should be able to come up with a selection mechanism to evolve genes from one to another or any other example that might come to mind.

To have a sensible debate, we need defined terms of reference.

Can we agree to a definition of macroevolution as you have proposed above and elsewhere? Why is this difficult for you to agree to? Are you unhappy with your own definitions?

Quote:

A good logical argument can withstand counter-arguments. You must not have much confidence in your belief system if you are trying to restrict my counter-arguments.

I am not trying to restrict any counter agruments you may make - how could I. I am merely trying to define the terms of reference for the debate, and asking you to do so.

[Schneibster]

I would have said page 69 was where this thread jumped the shark.

[kleinman]

Originally Posted by Kleinman

I don’t want to refute your string cheese hypothesis of evolution. I think that evolutionists far and wide should embrace your logic. The only hypothesis that can compete on an equal footing is Cruftborg’s cruft theory of evolution. I give you an open field to discuss either the string cheese or cruft hypothesis of evolution now that we know there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning.

Originally Posted by kjkent1

Your post is entirely devoid of useful information. This makes you a troll, from which the only escape is to terminate further interaction.

As usual, you missed the one part of the post that has useful information, which is the goal post. There is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning.

Originally Posted by kjkent1

Bye.

What’s the matter, no opportunity to make money on this discussion?

Originally Posted by Kleinman

You must be correct. I saw the Star Wars movie and there were all kinds of different life forms in the movie.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

I always figured you for the type to get all your facts from fiction... oh wait! You're mocking us!

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Failed.

Well, here is another new name on this thread. Are you going to describe the selection process that would evolve a gene from the beginning or will you give us another string cheese or cruft hypothesis?

Originally Posted by Kleinman

You are right; never let a little mathematical logic get in the way of your belief system. I wouldn’t let your boss at your computer company know that you are recommending to people to do less calculating.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

This reminds me of a story that Dawkins told in "The God Delusion". Two men were discussing God's existance. One suddenly spouted out a complicated mathematical formulae, and then responded, "Therefore, God exists. Refute!" The other man got flustered and left.

You’ve got your analogy backwards. It is Dr Schneider’s complicated mathematical formula and I’m not shouting out “God exists”. I’m shouting out that Dr Schneider’s complicated mathematical formula shows that evolution by random point mutation and natural selection does not exist. You are correct, kjkent1 got flustered and left.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

The reason why? Was he wrong? Of course not. Or rather, he had no reason to assume that the other argument was "correct" on the basis of the formulae itself. The logical basis for the equation did not make sense. If I say to you, "2+2=4; therefore, God does not exist!", you wouldn't buy that at all, would you? Yet someone that suddenly spouts out formulas sounds all mystical and knowledgable, even if the equation itself doesn't actually prove anything, if it is used illogically.

You keep missing the key point. Ev is a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutation and natural selection which shows that macroevolution by this mechanism is impossible. This is not my mathematics; this is the mathematics of Dr Tom Schneider, head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute here in the United States. The only thing that I did was use realistic genome lengths and mutation rates in the model. Paul has written an online version of the model. You can easily duplicate the results that I obtained using the model. Too bad if you can’t understand this logic. Also, if you study this model, you will learn the importance of the selection process in achieving convergence and you will see that there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning.

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

However, you're throwing out random equations without considered the differing factors with logical reason. So you sound like the guy earlier in the example. Refute!

Easily refuted, I am not throwing out random equations. I am applying the peer reviewed and published equations of Dr Tom Schneider, head of computation molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute. The result from this model was published in Nucleic Acids Research, an Oxford University Press scientific journal. I did what Dr Schneider suggested to me personally and what he suggested in his publication which was to see how varying parameters in the model affect the results. What I found was that when using realistic genome lengths and mutation rates in the model, it takes huge numbers of generations to accumulate information in the genome by random point mutations and natural selection. The process is far too slow to support the theory of evolution in fact, this model shows that macroevolution by this mechanism is impossible; it takes far too many generations. Understand rubberband?

Originally Posted by Kleinman

What are you worried about?

Originally Posted by Dr Richard

I am trying to discuss the possibility of "macroevolution" - which you assert is impossible - as opposed to "microevolution" - which you assert is possible.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

Originally Posted by Dr Richard

Trying to agree on a definition of these terms seems very reasonable to me before the debate can progress.

Why evade the question?

You have yet to present a definition for macroevolution. In discussions on this thread, it appears that evolutionists don’t draw a distinction between micro and macroevolution. So I am working with the evolutionist definition, which is there is no difference between micro and macroevolution. If there is no difference, show how selection can evolve a gene from the beginning and how selection can transform a gene from one form to another. I don’t evade the question, what I evade is your condition that I not raise other examples of the impossibility of the microevolutionary steps leading to macroevolution concept.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

If you are interested in scientific truth, let the debate go where it goes. Why would you worry that I bring up other examples of macroevolution? If you can come up with a plausible explanation for selection that would evolve a gene from the beginning, you should be able to come up with a selection mechanism to evolve genes from one to another or any other example that might come to mind.

Originally Posted by Dr Richard

To have a sensible debate, we need defined terms of reference.

Can we agree to a definition of macroevolution as you have proposed above and elsewhere? Why is this difficult for you to agree to? Are you unhappy with your own definitions?

I’m accepting for the sake of discussion that there is no distinction between micro and macroevolution and that evolutionists suggest that a series of microevolutionary steps can lead to a macroevolutionary change. I have not presented this definition. What I have presented are examples which contradict this evolutionist hypothesis. I am happy with the examples I have presented and if others come to mind, I will present those as well.

Originally Posted by Kleinman

A good logical argument can withstand counter-arguments. You must not have much confidence in your belief system if you are trying to restrict my counter-arguments.

Originally Posted by Dr Richard

I am not trying to restrict any counter agruments you may make - how could I. I am merely trying to define the terms of reference for the debate, and asking you to do so.

I felt you were trying to restrict my counter arguments when you said:

Originally Posted by Dr Richard

I take it you are happy with these definitions, and only these defintions? I do not want to get into a long discussion about macroevolution and for you then to bring up some other examples of macroevolution that had forgotten about...

I have not presented the definition for macroevolution. What I have presented is examples that contradict the evolutionist hypothesis that macroevolution is simply a series of microevolutionary events. You are trying to restrict my counter arguments if I can’t give examples which contradict the evolutionist hypothesis that macroevolution is simply a series of microevolutionary events.

Actually, I really don’t think I need other examples that contradict this evolutionist hypothesis concerning micro and macroevolution but I also don’t think I need to yield up the right to give further examples.

Originally Posted by Schneibster

I would have said page 69 was where this thread jumped the shark.

Whatever that means.

Did I mention on this page that there is no selection process that can evolve a gene from the beginning?

You all have a good weekend!

[cyborg]

1267650600228229401496703205376

[Lonewulf]

Originally Posted by cyborg

1267650600228229401496703205376

Therefore, God does not exist.

[Schneibster]

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Therefore, God does not exist.

And the number of eggs in a dozen is twelve.

[Dr Richard]

Originally Posted by kleinman

You have yet to present a definition for macroevolution.

I cannot present a scientific definition of macroevolution as I not not believe it exists as a genuine entity.

You are the one who believes that there is a real, scientific distinction between "microevolution" (which you assert occurs) and "macroevolution" (which you assert cannot occur).

What I am trying to understand is why you believe this is that case.

For you to believe this, you must have some very strict defitions which rigidly seperate the two, otherwise a microevolutionary event may be labelled as a macroevolutionary event and your theory would collapse.

Quote:

I don’t evade the question, what I evade is your condition that I not raise other examples of the impossibility of the microevolutionary steps leading to macroevolution concept

Of course, I understand that you are obviously well used to such debates on internet forums. As a creationist, you must have to be careful never to get too closely pinned down to a scientific defintion. I am not trying to trap you into some kind of error however (how could I if you are correct?). I have to say I am howver disappointed in your inabillity to define "insulin" (this, for a doctor?) and your very own concept of "macroevolution".

Quote:

I’m accepting for the sake of discussion that there is no distinction between micro and macroevolution and that evolutionists suggest that a series of microevolutionary steps can lead to a macroevolutionary change. I have not presented this definition. What I have presented are examples which contradict this evolutionist hypothesis. I am happy with the examples I have presented and if others come to mind, I will present those as well

Quote:

I have not presented the definition for macroevolution.

Post #2778

Quote:

The goal post for macroevolution is the transformation of a gene from some initial function to a new and completely different function and the evolution of a gene from the beginning.

Ok then, I will work with this quotable set of goalposts.

So far Kleinman, you have been trying a bottom up approach to achieve a workable set of conditions for your macroevolutionary event.

After 70 pages, this has not got you very far.

I'd like to try a top down approach instead.

Was the divergence of humans and chimps from their most recent common ancestor a macroevolutionary event according to your goalposts above?

If you believe it was, would you please state which genes supposedly evolved de novo and/or transformed from some initial function into a new and completely different function?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally Posted by kleinman

I don’t want to refute you string cheese hypothesis of evolution. I think that evolutionists far and wide should embrace your logic. The only hypothesis that can compete on an equal footing is Cruftborg’s cruft theory of evolution. I give you an open field to discuss either the string cheese or cruft hypothesis of evolution now that we know there is no selection process to evolve a gene from the beginning.

We know you get it, you got cruft.

The only part of this which is written in English (highlighted) is known to be a lie (see my sig for further details).

The rest of it appears to be the word-salad of a man suffering from hebephrenic schizophrenia.