RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (12) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   
  Topic: Thread for Cryptoguru, Evolution, Evolutionary Computing, etc< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2015,15:36   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 20 2015,13:22)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2015,18:49)
Yep, it's been fun. Cryptoguru has been utterly crushed. Shown to have limited knowledge of biology... and computing for that matter (which is odd because he claims to be an expert).

He does seem to be an expert in using creationist arguments, without understanding the implications. He is definitely an expert in not answer questions asked of him and demanding that we answer all his questions (even though they make no sense) perfectly.

In other words, he will go on and claim that he won.

I will definitely link back to this thread in any further replies to crypto elseswhere. And remind him that he ignored several questions by myself and others and he might want to get on those...

Thanks everyone!

I've found claims of expertise on the part of antievolutionists to be routinely exaggerated. The examples of old-school "creation scientists" claiming doctoral degrees who either didn't have them or were based on things tantamount to diploma mill paper were legendary. In discussions online, it is a commonplace that an antievolutionist will attempt to bolster a bogus claim with an appeal to personal authority. The late Bob Schadewald had a wonderful phrase about the general social phenomena in creationist circles about claiming that they themselves comprised a group of "top scientists": "the elevation of mediocrities". It does work out to another way to say "a big fish in a small pond", but it was so elegantly stated.

Cryptoguru's various complaints about computer models did seem to indicate that he didn't have much of a grounding in computational theory. There are many ways to get to a paycheck in computer technology that do not require that, so I don't really have an issue with the claim that someone is paying him for computer work, but I have deep suspicions about the relevance of his experience to what he is trying to discuss. (Cryptography itself seems to have a closer-than-usual relation to computational theory, so that aspect is pretty puzzling.) He certainly didn't let his deep specific ignorance of Avida stop him from making baldly ridiculous claims about it.

On a related note: approach with Extreme Caution any book whose author perceives a need to place "Ph.D" after their name on the cover.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2015,16:57   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 19 2015,19:51)
So, my question to my fellow Mornington Crescent travelers is this:  what would you find on the heath?

I'd play Heathrow Terminal 4, and expect to find a Boeing 747, though not necessarily in conjunction with either a tornado or a junkyard.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2015,13:25   

Quote (KevinB @ Jan. 20 2015,22:57)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 19 2015,19:51)
So, my question to my fellow Mornington Crescent travelers is this:  what would you find on the heath?

I'd play Heathrow Terminal 4, and expect to find a Boeing 747, though not necessarily in conjunction with either a tornado or a junkyard.

You've obviously never experienced Terminal 1 on Christmas Eve, which bears an uncanny resemblance to both.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2015,16:27   

I find it especially amusing when an article comes out the same week (or day) we're discussing something.

http://www.nature.com/ng....96.html

Quote
We describe a new computational method for estimating the probability that a point mutation at each position in a genome will influence fitness. These 'fitness consequence' (fitCons) scores serve as evolution-based measures of potential genomic function. Our approach is to cluster genomic positions into groups exhibiting distinct 'fingerprints' on the basis of high-throughput functional genomic data, then to estimate a probability of fitness consequences for each group from associated patterns of genetic polymorphism and divergence. We have generated fitCons scores for three human cell types on the basis of public data from ENCODE. In comparison with conventional conservation scores, fitCons scores show considerably improved prediction power for cis regulatory elements. In addition, fitCons scores indicate that 4.2–7.5% of nucleotides in the human genome have influenced fitness since the human-chimpanzee divergence, and they suggest that recent evolutionary turnover has had limited impact on the functional content of the genome.


--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2015,00:21   

Quote (Amadan @ Jan. 20 2015,15:36)

 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 20 2015,13:22)
    
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2015,18:49)
Yep, it's been fun. Cryptoguru has been utterly crushed. Shown to have limited knowledge of biology... and computing for that matter (which is odd because he claims to be an expert).

He does seem to be an expert in using creationist arguments, without understanding the implications. He is definitely an expert in not answer questions asked of him and demanding that we answer all his questions (even though they make no sense) perfectly.

In other words, he will go on and claim that he won.

I will definitely link back to this thread in any further replies to crypto elseswhere. And remind him that he ignored several questions by myself and others and he might want to get on those...

Thanks everyone!

I've found claims of expertise on the part of antievolutionists to be routinely exaggerated. The examples of old-school "creation scientists" claiming doctoral degrees who either didn't have them or were based on things tantamount to diploma mill paper were legendary. In discussions online, it is a commonplace that an antievolutionist will attempt to bolster a bogus claim with an appeal to personal authority. The late Bob Schadewald had a wonderful phrase about the general social phenomena in creationist circles about claiming that they themselves comprised a group of "top scientists": "the elevation of mediocrities". It does work out to another way to say "a big fish in a small pond", but it was so elegantly stated.

Cryptoguru's various complaints about computer models did seem to indicate that he didn't have much of a grounding in computational theory. There are many ways to get to a paycheck in computer technology that do not require that, so I don't really have an issue with the claim that someone is paying him for computer work, but I have deep suspicions about the relevance of his experience to what he is trying to discuss. (Cryptography itself seems to have a closer-than-usual relation to computational theory, so that aspect is pretty puzzling.) He certainly didn't let his deep specific ignorance of Avida stop him from making baldly ridiculous claims about it.

On a related note: approach with Extreme Caution any book whose author perceives a need to place "Ph.D" after their name on the cover.

From Norway, “The Mystery of Life – Intelligent Causation in Nature”

https://d3oh18gu5j3rjh.cloudfront.net/9788271....71....0

ETA Sure looks designed, but intelligent?

Edited by Quack on Jan. 22 2015,14:17

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2015,00:26   

Deleted.

Edited by Quack on Jan. 22 2015,00:34

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2015,07:54   

The 'crypt-keeper' may be beyond the reach of reason, lost deep in his confusions and errors, but this would repay his attention:
Winning vs. Not Losing

Evolution never requires 'the best', it only ever "requires" the adequate, the 'good enough'.  It is pitiless and remorseless in that there is no point at which it can be guaranteed that there will be 'good enough'.  The universe, far from being 'fine tuned' for life, is incredibly hostile to it.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2015,09:24   

There's a thread at UD where they are arguing that unexpected permissiveness or robustness in the genome -- allowing mutations that have little or no effect on viability -- is a certain sign of Jebus.

They are citing the book, "Arrival of the Fittest" as evidence against evolution.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2015,13:08   

the islands of functions are incredibly isolated. That proves Baby Jesus Intelligent Designer! You know what's even more proof? The exact opposite!

Socrates's grandkids these are not...

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2015,15:29   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2015,13:08)
the islands of functions are incredibly isolated. That proves Baby Jesus Intelligent Designer! You know what's even more proof? The exact opposite!

Socrates's grandkids these are not...

Makes sense. The best evidence for design would be evidence that evolution works.

If evolution works, it is designed. Therefore Jebus.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2015,17:25   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 22 2015,15:29)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2015,13:08)
the islands of functions are incredibly isolated. That proves Baby Jesus Intelligent Designer! You know what's even more proof? The exact opposite!

Socrates's grandkids these are not...

Makes sense. The best evidence for design would be evidence that evolution works.

If evolution works, it is designed. Therefore Jebus.

Dembski didn't like it when I pointed out that his triad of properties for a designer were shared by natural selection.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2015,20:00   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 22 2015,17:25)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 22 2015,15:29)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2015,13:08)
the islands of functions are incredibly isolated. That proves Baby Jesus Intelligent Designer! You know what's even more proof? The exact opposite!

Socrates's grandkids these are not...

Makes sense. The best evidence for design would be evidence that evolution works.

If evolution works, it is designed. Therefore Jebus.

Dembski didn't like it when I pointed out that his triad of properties for a designer were shared by natural selection.

So far, in the years since Darwin's Black Box... no ID proponent has even tried to talk about the "I".  They just talk about the "D"...

O.o

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Cubist



Posts: 559
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2015,21:51   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 22 2015,20:00)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 22 2015,17:25)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 22 2015,15:29)
   
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2015,13:08)
the islands of functions are incredibly isolated. That proves Baby Jesus Intelligent Designer! You know what's even more proof? The exact opposite!

Socrates's grandkids these are not...

Makes sense. The best evidence for design would be evidence that evolution works.

If evolution works, it is designed. Therefore Jebus.

Dembski didn't like it when I pointed out that his triad of properties for a designer were shared by natural selection.

So far, in the years since Darwin's Black Box... no ID proponent has even tried to talk about the "I".  They just talk about the "D"...

O.o

ID-pushers also don't talk about the Manufacturer. Which is rather a curious omission, if ID really is the dispassionate search for truth that ID-pushers like to claim ID is. After all, people have come up with any number of Designs for thingies that don't actually exist, on account of nobody manufactured any physical instances of those Designs. And leave us not forget that real scientists actually do have a protocol for detecting Design, a protocol which is based on forming a testable hypothesis of Manufacture. Because, like, if whatever-it-is wasn't Manufactured, there wouldn't be any whatever-it-is to declare Designed or otherwise, you know?

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2015,00:08   

Quote (Cubist @ Jan. 22 2015,19:51)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 22 2015,20:00)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 22 2015,17:25)
   
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 22 2015,15:29)
   
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2015,13:08)
the islands of functions are incredibly isolated. That proves Baby Jesus Intelligent Designer! You know what's even more proof? The exact opposite!

Socrates's grandkids these are not...

Makes sense. The best evidence for design would be evidence that evolution works.

If evolution works, it is designed. Therefore Jebus.

Dembski didn't like it when I pointed out that his triad of properties for a designer were shared by natural selection.

So far, in the years since Darwin's Black Box... no ID proponent has even tried to talk about the "I".  They just talk about the "D"...

O.o

ID-pushers also don't talk about the Manufacturer. Which is rather a curious omission, if ID really is the dispassionate search for truth that ID-pushers like to claim ID is. After all, people have come up with any number of Designs for thingies that don't actually exist, on account of nobody manufactured any physical instances of those Designs. And leave us not forget that real scientists actually do have a protocol for detecting Design, a protocol which is based on forming a testable hypothesis of Manufacture. Because, like, if whatever-it-is wasn't Manufactured, there wouldn't be any whatever-it-is to declare Designed or otherwise, you know?

Good points.

IMO the IDiots (cdesignproponentists) omit the manufacture part because it's the 'creation' part and using the 'c' word is a no-no in their agenda to dishonestly shove their religious dogma into schools, etc., and call it science.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2015,01:50   

Quote (Cubist @ Jan. 22 2015,21:51)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 22 2015,20:00)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 22 2015,17:25)
     
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 22 2015,15:29)
     
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 22 2015,13:08)
the islands of functions are incredibly isolated. That proves Baby Jesus Intelligent Designer! You know what's even more proof? The exact opposite!

Socrates's grandkids these are not...

Makes sense. The best evidence for design would be evidence that evolution works.

If evolution works, it is designed. Therefore Jebus.

Dembski didn't like it when I pointed out that his triad of properties for a designer were shared by natural selection.

So far, in the years since Darwin's Black Box... no ID proponent has even tried to talk about the "I".  They just talk about the "D"...

O.o

ID-pushers also don't talk about the Manufacturer. Which is rather a curious omission, if ID really is the dispassionate search for truth that ID-pushers like to claim ID is. After all, people have come up with any number of Designs for thingies that don't actually exist, on account of nobody manufactured any physical instances of those Designs. And leave us not forget that real scientists actually do have a protocol for detecting Design, a protocol which is based on forming a testable hypothesis of Manufacture. Because, like, if whatever-it-is wasn't Manufactured, there wouldn't be any whatever-it-is to declare Designed or otherwise, you know?

ID is best explained as the concept of magic in action. And that kind of magic is best explained by the existence of an Intelligent Magician. But what is the best explanation of His fondness of beetles?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2015,14:14   

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 23 2015,01:50)
But what is the best explanation of His fondness of beetles?

Perhaps He just got caught out by the order multiple in the Creation Supplies catalogue. (Like ordering 1000 boxes of paperclips, instead of 1 box of 1000 paperclips.)

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2015,14:54   

Quote (KevinB @ Jan. 23 2015,12:14)
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 23 2015,01:50)
But what is the best explanation of His fondness of beetles?

Perhaps He just got caught out by the order multiple in the Creation Supplies catalogue. (Like ordering 1000 boxes of paperclips, instead of 1 box of 1000 paperclips.)

"Customers who ordered tiger beetles also ordered:
Rove beetles
Stag beetles
Scarab beetles
Weevils
..."

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2015,15:01   

He couldn't resist free shipping.

ETA:

No doubt she subscribed to Mover Prime.

Edited by midwifetoad on Jan. 23 2015,15:02

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5787
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2015,15:22   

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 23 2015,13:54)
Quote (KevinB @ Jan. 23 2015,12:14)
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 23 2015,01:50)
But what is the best explanation of His fondness of beetles?

Perhaps He just got caught out by the order multiple in the Creation Supplies catalogue. (Like ordering 1000 boxes of paperclips, instead of 1 box of 1000 paperclips.)

"Customers who ordered tiger beetles also ordered:
Rove beetles
Stag beetles
Scarab beetles
Weevils
..."

VW Beetle...
Beetle Bailey...

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2015,16:24   

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 23 2015,15:22)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 23 2015,13:54)
 
Quote (KevinB @ Jan. 23 2015,12:14)
 
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 23 2015,01:50)
But what is the best explanation of His fondness of beetles?

Perhaps He just got caught out by the order multiple in the Creation Supplies catalogue. (Like ordering 1000 boxes of paperclips, instead of 1 box of 1000 paperclips.)

"Customers who ordered tiger beetles also ordered:
Rove beetles
Stag beetles
Scarab beetles
Weevils
..."

VW Beetle...
Beetle Bailey...

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

ie.  => Rock Ferry (Birkenhead), which forces the next move to be Pier Head, due to the Gerry Marsden codacil.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2015,11:01   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 18 2015,10:35)
Cryptoguru, condensed:

1.  All of biology and most of science is wrong.
2.  Frontloading.
3.  No evidence, no mechanisms.

I'll put the over/under on this thread at six pages.

The house wins.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 12 2015,19:31   

AND he's back... on Smilodon's Retreat. He refuses to come here.

Although, he hasn't said word one about information or DNA is a computer.

Now, he's on about how radiometric dating is flawed and can't work. I think he's using that dino bone "paper" with the black "tissue" as evidence. We won't say though.

He's also got this thing about birds... though I think I shut him up about that one too.

Cthulhu he's dumb.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
rossum



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2015,03:50   

Quote (KevinB @ Jan. 23 2015,16:24)
ie.  => Rock Ferry (Birkenhead), which forces the next move to be Pier Head, due to the Gerry Marsden codacil.

"Why did Jesus not appear in Liverpool?"

"Because his miracle of walking on the water is nothing special in Liverpool."

"How come?"

"The quality of Mersey is unstrained."

Ba-dum, tish.

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2015,05:17   

Quote (rossum @ Feb. 13 2015,03:50)
 
Quote (KevinB @ Jan. 23 2015,16:24)
ie.  => Rock Ferry (Birkenhead), which forces the next move to be Pier Head, due to the Gerry Marsden codacil.

"Why did Jesus not appear in Liverpool?"

"Because his miracle of walking on the water is nothing special in Liverpool."

"How come?"

"The quality of Mersey is unstrained."

Ba-dum, tish.

Given the atrociously Bard pun, are you playing Stratford Upon Avon, Stratford International or Fenny Stratford?

  
cryptoguru



Posts: 53
Joined: Jan. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2015,09:39   

I'm back through popular demand ... can't be bothered to read through all the replies since I last visited. But happy to debate on one topic at a time.
Yeah I never answered all the questions, because some I didn't read as there were so many, and some I didn't have time to answer as the conversation kept changing direction or different angles were being approached by different people at the same time, plus the entropy of contributors who think discussion is simply calling your opponent stupid and rejecting everything they say without basis. So let's take this at a more reasonable pace ... because I do have a life.

So McOgre (Kevin),
When you say I lost the debate about dinos->birds ... is that the one where you said that dinos evolved into birds and I showed that hundreds of birds in their modern form appear in the fossil record alongside dinos in the Cretaceous layer without transitional form? And you got upset because I said that therefore Velociraptor and T-Rex couldn't have been bird ancestors as they have been widely depicted in the media and literature and museums. And you just wanted to talk about Archaeopteryx? (which looks remarkably like a Hoatzin) And they've found another "earlier" Jurassic feathered bird fossil in China (Xiaotingia). Anyway the birds from dinos thing is quite funny, but even assuming evolution is true there's no proof for dino-bird evo at all, it's simply assumed. Arguing from similar morphology is stupid, as we could simply assert that sharks (fish) and dolphins (mammals) are closely related.

Anyway back to the original problem. (we can discuss the other issues once the allegations that I'm avoiding answering questions stops)

Let me rephrase my original question again, because it seemed to keep getting lost in piles of straw men.
Show me a mechanism that can generate the equivalent information of an ORFan gene (i.e. significant amount of new genetic material, not just a couple of point mutations in regulatory genes that switch other code off/on) using only random mutations and an environmentally driven competition model (i.e. doesn't cheat by rewarding micro-feature improvements that wouldn't be selectable in a natural environment.)
Avida cheats on 2 accounts, it rewards micro-feature improvements by testing if a logic function (target) has been achieved on mutation and not simply on the performance of the resultant organism ... and it only requires a small amount of new information to generate new features (e.g. 9 commands can perform EQU). ORFan genes represent thousands of unique sequences of base-pairs that must be demonstrated can arrive through simple mutation and natural selection.

For those who may be tempted to argue that you don't need to prove anything algorithmically, I've previously shown that the physical evidence is open to interpretation .... but even if it wasn't, you should be able to demonstrate that the general theory of evolution applied to biology can work in principle. (random mutation plus competition can create significantly quantifiable, more complex and apparently designed solutions to problems). We can't use known targets for this, or it is simply a stochastic search and not evolution. Mutation should also allow degeneration of functionality, in the genome, all the organism's functionality can be affected by mutation; even it's most basic operations are defined and built by the code itself. Therefore mutations should be able to break replication and all other basic survival processes of the organism, not only shuffle some existing functionality.

BTW: I'm not an ID person ... I'm a pure-pedigree young earth, bible-thumping creationist. (like Newton & Keppler & Boyle and loads of other religious wingnut scientists before me) But hold back on the abuse .. and the radio-dating arguments (which we can have a bit later if you like) ... let's stay on topic

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2015,10:06   

Pick up a copy of Wagner's "Arrival of the Fittest" and get back. Your  point mutations can accumulate indefinitely (as per the title of Wallace's original paper).

In lieu of that, please present an argument based on actual research, why mutations can't accumulate indefinitely.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
cryptoguru



Posts: 53
Joined: Jan. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2015,10:18   

Quote
please present an argument based on actual research, why mutations can't accumulate indefinitely


Of course mutations can accumulate indefinitely ... they do.
I'm asking you to prove that random accumulative mutations can create new functional code and not break the original code.
What we observe in biology is mutations accumulating in the genome and causing more degenerative disease every generation. Show me how THAT is not the case and that there is new information arising somewhere, somehow. Show me algorithmically how information could possibly arise randomly (without sneaking it in using target-based search algorithms) and without calling a point mutation on a regulatory gene "new information".
I want to see from an informatics perspective how useful, functional and non-linear information that solves a problem can arise automatically.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2015,10:32   

Quote (cryptoguru @ Feb. 17 2015,09:39)
I'm back through popular demand ... can't be bothered to read through all the replies since I last visited. But happy to debate on one topic at a time.
Yeah I never answered all the questions, because some I didn't read as there were so many, and some I didn't have time to answer as the conversation kept changing direction or different angles were being approached by different people at the same time, plus the entropy of contributors who think discussion is simply calling your opponent stupid and rejecting everything they say without basis. So let's take this at a more reasonable pace ... because I do have a life.

So McOgre (Kevin),
When you say I lost the debate about dinos->birds ... is that the one where you said that dinos evolved into birds and I showed that hundreds of birds in their modern form appear in the fossil record alongside dinos in the Cretaceous layer without transitional form? And you got upset because I said that therefore Velociraptor and T-Rex couldn't have been bird ancestors as they have been widely depicted in the media and literature and museums. And you just wanted to talk about Archaeopteryx? (which looks remarkably like a Hoatzin) And they've found another "earlier" Jurassic feathered bird fossil in China (Xiaotingia). Anyway the birds from dinos thing is quite funny, but even assuming evolution is true there's no proof for dino-bird evo at all, it's simply assumed. Arguing from similar morphology is stupid, as we could simply assert that sharks (fish) and dolphins (mammals) are closely related.


Cretaceous birds are often "modern" (used very loosely) in some aspects while not in others.  Xiaotingia is one of a growing number of fossils somewhere in the base of archaeopterygids, dromaeosaurs, and troodontids, and how it gets classified depends on how the groups are defined.  However, it isn't a bird in most senses of the word.  The most detailed analysis (Senter et al., 2012) found Archaeopteryx to be a avialian, Anchiornis to be a troodontid, and Xiaotingia to be a basal deinonychosaurian, but this is likely to change as new fossils are found of other critters and as definitions shift to accomodate the new information.  This complexity happens because all these guys are extremely similar in a great many details.  Modern classification of fossils without DNA depends on statistical analysis of similarity using many dozens of characters, because similarity overall matches relatedness in living forms.  Classification no longer rests on single characters picked by an expert (the "it has feathers, so it's a bird" school of classification), and absolutely never relied on gross similarities unsupported by similarities in fine details (your "Archaeopteryx looks like a hoatzin" idea). Archaeopteryx does not look very like a hoatzin at all when one looks at its fine details.  However, it does match Velociraptor in quite a lot of details.

Descent of birds from theropods is not an "assumption", but a comclusion, based on cladistic analysis of data from comparative anatomy.  No dinosaur experts claim that  Tyrannosaurus and Velociraptor were direct ancestors of birds: they are close relatives (Tyrannosaurus a bit less so), but T & V are Cretaceous, whereas birds apparently date back to the Jurassic.  

Bear in mind that the Cretaceous lasted about 80 million years (longer than the time since the non-avian dinosaurs went extinct), so the presence of primitive members of comparatively modern Neornithine bird groups by the end of the Cretaceous should not be confused with the abundance of Enantiornithine birds without any neornithines earlier in the Cretaceous.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2015,10:40   

Quote (cryptoguru @ Feb. 17 2015,10:18)
Of course mutations can accumulate indefinitely ... they do.
I'm asking you to prove that random accumulative mutations can create new functional code and not break the original code.

Sure. Here.

Zhao, L., Saelao, P., Jones, C. D. & Begun, D. J. Origin and Spread of de Novo Genes in Drosophila melanogaster Populations. Science (2014). doi:10.1126/science.1248286

and

Wu, D.-D. D., Irwin, D. M. & Zhang, Y.-P. P. De novo origin of human protein-coding genes. PLoS Genet. 7, e1002379 (2011).

Done.
Next.

We don't have to show it mathematically (although, that's trivial). Because it happens in the real world.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2015,10:41   

Cryptoguru at the plate:

 
Quote

Avida cheats on 2 accounts, it rewards micro-feature improvements by testing if a logic function (target) has been achieved on mutation and not simply on the performance of the resultant organism ... and it only requires a small amount of new information to generate new features (e.g. 9 commands can perform EQU). ORFan genes represent thousands of unique sequences of base-pairs that must be demonstrated can arrive through simple mutation and natural selection.


Three swings, three misses.

First, I have on at least two prior occasions corrected Cryptoguru's bizarre hallucinations regarding Avida and awarding merit. There is no merit to Cryptoguru's first claim.

Second, it is an interesting claim there, that a 9-instruction Avida program exists to instantiate EQU. The shortest known such program mentioned in the 2003 paper was 17 instructions long.

So let's see it, please. Let's have the listing so that we can confirm this discovery. Otherwise, it looks like just one more made-up dismissal, and since that is *all* that Cryptoguru has proven capable of before when it comes to Avida, I'm not going to waste time extending the benefit of doubt on this point.

The only "cheating" going on concerns Cryptoguru trying to be able to dismiss something he plainly has not a single clue about.

Third, the assertion that ORFans must be thousands of bases in length shows Cryptoguru apparently knows bugger-all about ORFans, too.

 
Quote

Das et al. noted that the sequence length distribution for the orphan genes, in the initial annotations of the yeast genome, peaks at 100–110 codons, which is closer to the arbitrary minimum length cut-off of 100 codons used in the original ORF definition


Fukuchi S and Nishikawa K. 2004. "Estimation of the number of authentic orphan genes in bacterial genomes." DNA Res. 2004 Aug 31;11(4):219-31, 311-313.)

That indicates that a bunch of ORFans exist with lengths shorter than where the distribution peaks.

(Alternatively, Cryptoguru might say that he meant that in sum, a genome's ORFans represent thousands of bases of sequence, but then that would be utterly irrelevant to an argument about the coding of any particular ORFan and thus stupid for him to bring up, so I'll go with the interpretation that leads to an inference of mere ignorance.)

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
  336 replies since Jan. 16 2015,08:04 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (12) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]