RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

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



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,12:03   

Point mutations change the information in a sequence and can have major consequences.  The best known are deleterious, because we examine diseases for genetic components, but this doesn't have to be the case.  Duplications of DNA plus a point mutation in one of the pair are indisputably new information.  

Some of the myostatin blocker mutations are quite simple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ostatin
and show how you could get more body mass and muscle for the same Shannon information (if you "broke" the myostatin blocker gene without deleting anything) or even from less of the vague information that IDists like to talk about (cases that result from deletion of a gene or portion of a gene).

See regular cows and http://mhpstrong.com/wp-cont....cow.jpg
regular and "bully" whippets
http://articles.elitefts.com/wp-cont....cs1.jpg
regular mice and "supermice"
http://www.havokjournal.com/wp-cont....g11.png
and google to learn about Liam Hoekstra.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,12:06   

Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 19 2015,11:19)
Quote
That explanation is incompatible with the previous definition. A point mutation produces a unique DNA sequence.  You are trying to be as vague as possible. Some mathematician.

You misunderstood what I said there. I said "point mutation" singular ... not sequence of point mutations.



So you agree that point mutations can happen. So, what law (biological, chemical, physical, or logical) prevents multiple point mutations from happening over time?

Quote

EXAMPLE

GCATTUCAGUUGATUCCATATGGCTU
GCATTUCAGTUGATUCCATATGGCTU

The U has been point-mutated to a T ... I don't consider the whole sequence new information. I'm not even going to consider it "new information" until there is a reasonably sized sequence of unique information.


What is the "reasonably sized sequence"?

What units?

Why?

Quote


Let's set it to be bigger than you could create by chance.



Why?

Show that something other than chance AND known biochemical processes control mutations.
Quote


For example, a sequence of 200 nucleotides that is unique to that organism requires 1 in 4^200 chance of arriving at randomly in the traditional way of monkeys typing randomly on a base-4 keyboard. So I want to see how the process of evolution could theoretically produce something of that complexity ... i.e. too difficult to get using monkeys, yet functional.

This is an EXTREMELY common misconception among creationists.

Somehow, they all have this notion, that like computer program... DNA springs into existence, fully formed, with the exact sequence that needs to exist for the organism now.

1) This is false. Each gene, allele, ERV, SNP, etc has a long history of existence. This long history shows the many changes each one of these genes (et. al.) has gone through to reach the point it is now.

You are actually saying that biologists must defend the creationist point of view... that is that all genes (et. al.) must have appeared exactly as they are now.

2) Your value of 1 in 4^200 does not include any of the other thousands of values that can directly or indirectly affect the sequence. You need a bit for methylation. You need bits for histone complexes. You need bits that include regulatory sequences. etc. etc. etc.

You can't even accurately calculate the probability for these events.

3) Even if you could, you are not considering the number of attempts. AND the value of successful, but not complete attempts. Genes are not computer programs that must be formed exactly correct or they will not work. There are plenty of genes that work pretty well. The literature is full of examples of this... I've given you papers that show this. It also exists in evolutionary algorithms.

Further, as has been shown to you both in biochemical examples and genetic algorithms examples, mutations that would cause deleterious effects can be propagated through the population and eventually result in a net benefit.

For example, Joyce's Darwinian Evolution on a Chip paper shows that in less than 72 hours, there were four complexes of mutations that resulted in a 92 fold increase in substrate attachment efficiency.

Of course, you have also ignored (apparently) both living examples in humans of mutations that confer large advantages. That of the HIV immunity of a small group of Northern Scandinavians and the heart disease immunity of a small group of Italians.

Finally, I think it important to point out that your sequence specificity requirement doesn't actually match reality. There are several genes in the human population with several thousand alleles. You do know that alleles are variations in a gene, yes? That is, the variation of a DNA sequence.

For example, HBB-A has some 2000+ alleles and HBB-B (IIRC) has over 3000 alleles.

Another point is that THIS is what Dawkin's WEASEL program was trying to show. That, while it would take very, very long time for monkeys to randomly produce the phrase, any form of selection reduces that time significantly.

Talking about mutations and genes is meaningless without including selection, drift, and the multiple other methods of winnowing.

Edited by OgreMkV on Jan. 19 2015,12:06

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

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

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,14:48   

The allele thing is the creationism killer. Any simulation of evolution has to include the possibility of neutral and nearly neutral variations.

And the ability of neutral and slightly detrimental variations to give rise to beneficial inventions.

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

  
cryptoguru



Posts: 53
Joined: Jan. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,15:43   

Quote

Creepto ate the dog.
Creepto ate the hog.

In Creepto-speak there is no new information.  I guess you'd need something like this:

Creepto ate the dog.
Creepto prepared the mongoose in a rich butter sauce.


You should definitely be proud of yourself Bilbo, those English lessons are starting to pay off.

Of course I was being arbitrary ... my definition of "new information" is substantial unique sequences in a genome (i.e. not shared with assumed relative species) that wouldn't be expected by a series of random events.

So if you showed me

BILBO PAID OVER THE ODDS FOR SHOES
and
BILBO PAID OVER THE ODDS FOR HOES

Although both those sentences make sense to me, I can quite easily explain that the first one arose by chance rather than any optimisation process requiring natural selection.

So I'm asking for a unique sequence that couldn't just arrive fully formed by accident ... i.e. I want proof of the evolution process producing something hard that Bilbo couldn't just cook up by throwing a die.

Saying ... "well here we are ... tada, the human!" is just begging the question, so I'm after proof of the theory

Quote
So, what law (biological, chemical, physical, or logical) prevents multiple point mutations from happening over time?

None ... never said it couldn't


Quote
Somehow, they all have this notion, that like computer program... DNA springs into existence, fully formed

You're straw-manning again Mr Ogre McCarthy ... I never said that's what I think evolutionists believe ... and I obviously don't believe that. My point was that if you compare a chimp to a human there are unique sequences of DNA in humans, evolution needs to explain how a sequence that big can appear over time (yes kazillions of years if you like) ... but it still has to be functional and there right? So whether it was caused by thousands of point mutations, or a whole bunch of splicing and point mutations and stuff until you got that unique functional sequence that comprises compressed instruction sets for building proteins. You need to demonstrate that.

AVIDA is not demonstrating that level of magic, it just optimises the combination of some functions to create logical functions. We're not talking a few logical operands on the genome that have been created, we're talking MULTI-DIMENSIONAL SUPERCODES ... Supercodes ... supercodes ... super... (echoes into distance)

and Lenski has some E. Coli on his farm E-I-E-I-O
But on that farm there's not a chicken E-I-E-I-O
(join with me Bilbo)

So Lenski hasn't observed anything unbacteria-like going on yet after 60,000 generations, and AVIDA is unable to model anything more complicated than joining a few assembler instructions in sequence and rewarding the organism every time a logical function is found. METHINKS IT IS NOT A WEASEL YET

More proof please

BTW Kevin, please don't write the word Allele again ... you're banned from using it from now on from overuse.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,16:02   

Quote
So Lenski hasn't observed anything unbacteria-like going on yet after 60,000 generations
And this is supposed to be a surprise?

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

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,16:15   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 19 2015,16:02)
Quote
So Lenski hasn't observed anything unbacteria-like going on yet after 60,000 generations
And this is supposed to be a surprise?

Only because creationists think that we should see bacteria giving birth to a crocoduck if evolution were true.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,16:18   

Your straw man reeks of oil of ad hominem.

It's fairly ready to disprove evolution if you define evolution as creationism minus a deity.

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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,16:31   

This is why it's impossible to have a discussion with a creationist.  They just don't possess human brains.

Creepto's argument from incredulity expressed thusly:

Quote
So to summarise my answer ... when I'm talking about new information ... I'm talking about a unique DNA sequence in an organism. I can't see how it would ever be possible (argument from incredulity) for random mutation to create that much dumb luck (argument from incredulity)even given billions of years. That's not an argument from incredulity (OH, YES IT IS!!)... that's me saying from my knowledge of statistics (No, you haz not!!) I can't see how it could ever be possible (argument from incredulity), so the extraordinary claim of evolutionists (argument from incredulity) needs to be demonstrated in a model that addresses the difficult-to-believe parts (argument from incredulity) of the claim, not just that we can randomly arrive (argument from incredulity) at something useful sometimes



That argument of Creepto's is quite incredible!  Really, this is better than GG?  Perhaps, but only on the Loony Tunes scale.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,16:37   

Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 19 2015,15:43)
Quote

Creepto ate the dog.
Creepto ate the hog.

In Creepto-speak there is no new information.  I guess you'd need something like this:

Creepto ate the dog.
Creepto prepared the mongoose in a rich butter sauce.


You should definitely be proud of yourself Bilbo, those English lessons are starting to pay off.

Of course I was being arbitrary ... my definition of "new information" is substantial unique sequences in a genome (i.e. not shared with assumed relative species) that wouldn't be expected by a series of random events.

So if you showed me

BILBO PAID OVER THE ODDS FOR SHOES
and
BILBO PAID OVER THE ODDS FOR HOES

Although both those sentences make sense to me, I can quite easily explain that the first one arose by chance rather than any optimisation process requiring natural selection.



I'd like to point out that this is ANALOGY and therefore, not really good for talking about evolution or even genetics.

What's interesting though, is that it actually proves the point that evolution works by incremental steps that actually work.

Of course, unlike words, DNA/proteins can have variations that make small changes to efficiency. As, the aforementioned papers I mentioned to you show.
Quote


So I'm asking for a unique sequence that couldn't just arrive fully formed by accident ... i.e. I want proof of the evolution process producing something hard that Bilbo couldn't just cook up by throwing a die.


So, you're asking for proof that evolution doesn't work?

Man, you are all over the place.

You do understand that selection is involved... and multiple other factors. right?

Whatever, it's been shown to happen. Already. You don't accept the evidence, but the models and the experiments and the observations and the whole genome studies and the partial genome studies all show that this happens.
Quote


Saying ... "well here we are ... tada, the human!" is just begging the question, so I'm after proof of the theory


Which shows you know nothing about science.
Quote


 
Quote
So, what law (biological, chemical, physical, or logical) prevents multiple point mutations from happening over time?

None ... never said it couldn't



That's not true. You have stated multiple times that it contradicts that laws of nature and logic.

What laws were you referring to?

Quote


 
Quote
Somehow, they all have this notion, that like computer program... DNA springs into existence, fully formed

You're straw-manning again Mr Ogre McCarthy ... I never said that's what I think evolutionists believe ... and I obviously don't believe that.



It's not obvious at all that don't believe that. You have stated it multiple times.

You want to know what the odds are that a modern gene sequence can appear by random processes. That's what you asked for.

You don't understand that modern genes (and their various alleles) came from the previous generation's genes (and their various alleles) and those came from the previous generation's genes (and their various alleles), etc, etc, etc.
Quote


My point was that if you compare a chimp to a human there are unique sequences of DNA in humans,


Not as many as you seem to think.
Quote

evolution needs to explain how a sequence that big can appear over time (yes kazillions of years if you like) ... but it still has to be functional and there right?


There was an entire issue of Nature devoted to this, several years ago. Surely  you have read all those articles right? Those whole genome studies of Pan and Homo and Gorilla shows this.

Oh, I'm sorry, do you require a step-by-step, mutation-by-mutation change.

I'm sure we can do that, right after you provide a step-by-step ancestral tree for yourself, from present, to the first human. Can't do that? It's unreasonable? Yeah, we know.

Quote


So whether it was caused by thousands of point mutations, or a whole bunch of splicing and point mutations and stuff until you got that unique functional sequence that comprises compressed instruction sets for building proteins. You need to demonstrate that.



Again, it's been done. You don't accept it. Fortunately no one who does the work cares what you think.

Quote


AVIDA is not demonstrating that level of magic, it just optimises the combination of some functions to create logical functions. We're not talking a few logical operands on the genome that have been created, we're talking MULTI-DIMENSIONAL SUPERCODES ... Supercodes ... supercodes ... super... (echoes into distance)



Because we all know that EQU is just an optimization of NAND, right?

Quote


and Lenski has some E. Coli on his farm E-I-E-I-O
But on that farm there's not a chicken E-I-E-I-O
(join with me Bilbo)



I find it funny that whenever creationists are given the information that they desire, they immediately transition to "It's still a bacteria".

You obviously only read one article in my blog.

http://www.skepticink.com/smilodo....l-a-dog

Quote

So Lenski hasn't observed anything unbacteria-like going on yet after 60,000 generations, and AVIDA is unable to model anything more complicated than joining a few assembler instructions in sequence and rewarding the organism every time a logical function is found. METHINKS IT IS NOT A WEASEL YET

More proof please


And no one, except creationists, expect him to. He's discovered, for all intents and purposes, a new species.  It's happened before.

Perhaps you need to learn a little more about biology and why no one expects to find a crocoduck.

As far as AVIDA, I think it's clear to everyone that the organisms created the coding structure for logic functions without any input from humans.

That's pretty impressive, except to someone who must, for whatever reason, deny that such a thing happened.
[/quote]

BTW Kevin, please don't write the word Allele again ... you're banned from using it from now on from overuse.[/quote]
Wow, you've been on this forum for almost 3 whole days and already have the power of banning.

You are either supremely arrogant or an utter ass, with a significant fraction voting for both.

Unlike you, I use terminology as is appropriate.

Finally, I note that while you responded to a minor point I made, you ignored some significant questions. I'm sure that this was a minor oversight on your part, for your reference, I've included those questions below.

What is the "reasonably sized sequence"?

What units?

Why?

edit: because I keep forgetting about the preview bug.

Edited by OgreMkV on Jan. 19 2015,16:37

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

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

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,16:37   

The writing is better. The ideas are pretty standard straw man boilerplate.

The basic argument is that you can never get from there to here by walking. No calculations presented.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,16:47   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 19 2015,16:31)
This is why it's impossible to have a discussion with a creationist.  They just don't possess human brains.

Creepto's argument from incredulity expressed thusly:

 
Quote
So to summarise my answer ... when I'm talking about new information ... I'm talking about a unique DNA sequence in an organism. I can't see how it would ever be possible (argument from incredulity) for random mutation to create that much dumb luck (argument from incredulity)even given billions of years. That's not an argument from incredulity (OH, YES IT IS!!)... that's me saying from my knowledge of statistics (No, you haz not!!) I can't see how it could ever be possible (argument from incredulity), so the extraordinary claim of evolutionists (argument from incredulity) needs to be demonstrated in a model that addresses the difficult-to-believe parts (argument from incredulity) of the claim, not just that we can randomly arrive (argument from incredulity) at something useful sometimes



That argument of Creepto's is quite incredible!  Really, this is better than GG?  Perhaps, but only on the Loony Tunes scale.

It's funny because this is the exact same line of thinking that tripped of Behe in the Kitzmiller trial.

Behe: The maths say it's a really big number.
Rothschild: But there's 7 orders of magnitude more bacteria in one ton of soil... 16 orders of magnitude more bacteria on Earth... and that's in any one year... of which we have to consider the multi-billion year history of the planet.
Behe: Well, yeah... but...

There is no "but". There's only the really big, scary number and the creationist demand that we produce a modern protein by totally random processes... and crypto has stated multiple times.

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

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

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,16:56   

That, plus the minor detail that a modern bacterium is adapted to it's current ecosystem and isn't bloody likely to evolve into a squirrel.

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

  
cryptoguru



Posts: 53
Joined: Jan. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,17:41   

Quote
That, plus the minor detail that a modern bacterium is adapted to it's current ecosystem and isn't bloody likely to evolve into a squirrel.

Not even a squirrel was likely to evolve into a squirrel.

It's just amazing what variety a little bit of random mutation, a fight for survival and an overactive imagination can do. (don't forget 3D graphics and bold statements of fact in narration over the top)

Well this HAS been fun gentlemen ... I think we've done a full circle, which probably means you're right and I'm wrong, just because you say so. And because it makes complete sense, right!

Also remember to say that I don't know anything about biology, or evolution ... or mathematics ... or the mystical natural selection angel after I'm gone.

It's time for QED to give his closing statement ... and for Bilbo to do his Sesame Street ending ... "and today we learned the number 6 and the letter Z and learned all about how evolution is a fact ... and that's a fact children ... see you all next week"

And probably time for Kevin to get the wrong end of a stick again and gnaw on it.

It's been an absolute pleasurable pleasure

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,18:06   

Flounce II.

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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,18:09   

Flounce Deux for the amateur MMA "expert."

That's what I call cut-and-run.

Too bad.  I was working on a post showing how a point bit mutation or a frame shift didn't necessarily cause a program to crash.  It would do something different quite likely, but it would do something!

In the early days of using microprocessors we were so tight on RAM that tight code and very clever programming was not only the rage but often necessary.  I recall writing an algorithm that changed a couple of lines of command code depending on what was going on.  It might be "shift left" in one iteration and "shift right" in another.

So, Creepto summary:

Knows jack about the theory of evolution.
Knows jack about statistics.
Knows jack about probability.
Knows jack about chemistry.
Knows jack about the English language.
Knows jack about computers.

The perfect creationist!  

He's probably asking himself, "Who's Jack?"

  
JonF



Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,18:09   

Yeah, standard creationist refusal to learn.

Tell you MMA pals you're too much of a pussy to learn about what you're criticizing. Plus no mathematician would make claims about such a complex process based on intuitionp plus ignorance of the system.

What a poseur.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,18:18   

Congrats to Cryptoguru for reading some of the responses and making some changes to his argumentation. This is not commonly observed in these sorts of exchanges. Plus, welcome back to the beginning of the second farewell tour. (I wrote that last sentence before the second flounce.) I'm still not inclined to accept changes in the original challenge, though, so I will be specifically noting those.

                 
Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 19 2015,07:45)

[...]

Section D:
comparison of AVIDA to biological evolution
1) an analogy must be drawn between AVIDA commands and the genome
2) it possibly makes most sense (I concede) to assume that AVIDA commands are analogous to codons (and not proteins), so that any mutation will always create a set of valid codons.
3) the level AVIDA is selecting at is therefore analogous to a folded functional protein.


A problem with (3) is that I've already pointed out the level of selection is the Avidian, not any sub-sequence of its genomic instruction sequence.

         
Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 19 2015,07:45)

Section E:
problems with model
1) the multi-dimensionality of the genome due to multiple reading frames means that a point mutation in the genome will likely affect the expression of multiple proteins (19K coding genes code for at least 100K different proteins in the human genome). Mutations in AVIDA are mutually exclusive and therefore don't have a regressive effect on the expression of other COMMANDS. This is not a trivial difference, it is analogous to the difference between a bisection method (AVIDA mutation) and a bisection method where the root can change at each iteration (Genome mutation).


This is not in the original challenge, and is thus irrelevant to answering the original challenge. The Avida instruction set includes "mov-head", "jump-head", and "set-flow", which can and do change expression dramatically. Avida itself has been used to perform in silico experimentation on overlapping genes:

                 
Quote

One consequence of overlapping genes is to reduce the tolerance for mutation. Virtual experiments conducted within the past several years using a software system called Avida have indicated that overlapping reduces the probability of accumulating so-called neutral mutations in a gene (mutations that have no effect). Neutral mutations are unlikely with overlapping genes, because the mutation must have no effect on two genes with different reading frames.


But like I said, that's all irrelevant to the original challenge.

                 
Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 19 2015,07:45)

2) It is not just multiple reading frames that introduce polymorphism into the genome, but regulatory genes can effect the expression of an entire coding gene. This non-linearity is not modelled in AVIDA, which is a linear sequential code (like assembler). That is, the Genome executes a higher-level language than a sequential instruction set.


Again, this concern is nowhere to be seen in the original challenge, and is thus irrelevant to the original challenge. Plus, the Avida documentation notes:

                 
Quote

One major concept that differentiates this virtual assembly language from its real-world counterparts is in the additional uses of nop instructions (no-operation commands). These have no direct effect on the virtual CPU when executed, but often modify the effect of any instruction that precedes them. In a sense, you can think of them as purely regulatory genes. The default instruction set has three such nop instructions: nop-A, nop-B, and nop-C.


But like I said, that's all irrelevant to the original challenge.

                 
Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 19 2015,07:45)


3) AVIDA enforces selection by rewarding at the functional level ... it identifies a function as a logical operation and rewards the organism that is presenting it. This is equivalent to natural selection providing feedback scores to the organism on a per-protein level. e.g. protein 1 7/10, protein 2 3/10, protein 3 9/10. This kind of micro-management can't happen in real-life as natural selection is blind and is applied not even to an organism but an entire population. This feature artificially boosts the productivity of hopeful combinations of commands, which otherwise wouldn't be encouraged.


Bogus in many particulars. Group selection is about as dead a concept as it is possible to get in biology. Not so long ago, Cryptoguru asserted this:

                 
Quote

1) evolution mutates DNA on a nucleotide level affecting function (gene level) and selects on the organism level.


which appears to be that rarity in logical fallacies, a contradiction. It also indicates that Cryptoguru's conceptual movement on this particular is in a bad direction.

Avida does not examine the genomic instruction sequence to recognize something. It examines the output from the IO instruction of the Avidian that indicates that it correctly performed a behavior, in the Lenski et al. 2003 paper the rewarded behaviors comprised a set of nine logic operations. An Avidian can internally compute every logic function around and receive exactly zero extra CPU cycles of merit if it fails to output the results to the environment via the IO instruction. I've already mentioned this before. The assertion that things are otherwise is a persistent misunderstanding on Cryptoguru's part.

Avida's award of merit for Avidian behaviors is analogous to biological organisms getting better/more nutrition, or greater movement efficiency, or better artifact construction (nest, hive, or tools) due to a favorable trait. There is really nothing to object to on this point, and this is no problem for the model.

As far as the final quoted sentence goes, some traits have to have relative benefits in order to simulate natural selection. This has to happen in the model since it happens in biology. This is not a problem for the model.

                 
Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 19 2015,07:45)


4) The level of variability in AVIDA compared to the genome is like comparing solving a Rubik's cube with cracking 2048-bit RSA encryption. The logical functions which AVIDA selects and guide the optimisation process are trivial ... and also non-distinct. There are infinitely many ways to implement the EQU function using the AVIDA instruction set. Proteins are specific in their form, not just in an abstract functional way. The likelihood of randomly selecting a combination of AVIDA commands that performs a logical function is extremely high, I don't know if it's even possible to work this out considering there are infinitely many combinations that could represent each logical function. (e.g. inc dec inc dec inc dec is equivalent to leaving a register unchanged). In the genome the possibility of just mutating 3 neighbouring nucleotides anywhere in the genome to produce a different codon is less than the chances of winning the national lottery twice in a row, and two proteins with different amino acid chains can likely never be equivalent in function. (unless randomness of function is the required function for the protein)



Again, this concern is nowhere to be seen in the original challenge, and is thus irrelevant to the original challenge. The original challenge made no restrictions on the size of a novel function.

Proteins are not absolute, on-off switches of function for a given amino acid sequence/fold configuration. Proteins often exhibit partial functionality. Physiologists also know that proteins work better and worse for a given function at different temperatures. Proteins also often tolerate substitutions of amino acids without drastic changes in function. Even Douglas Axe's work shows that he had to go to swapping out large swaths of amino acids in order to almost entirely eradicate barnase function. So perhaps the two proteins are not equivalent; that does not mean that they are significantly different, which is what Cryptoguru's argument requires. See also Dayhoff's Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure, which shows the differences in the proteins used for the same purpose across a variety of organisms. Those often show multiple amino acid differences in even a relatively short protein like cytochrome-c. That's been around since the 50's, so there's not much excuse for not knowing that before spewing.

About "In the genome the possibility of just mutating 3 neighbouring nucleotides anywhere in the genome to produce a different codon is less than the chances of winning the national lottery twice in a row"...

That is really unclear. Does Cryptoguru mean the odds of getting a different codon given three neighboring nucleotides mutate? Three nucleotides specify a codon, given four nucleotides, that's a total of sixty-four possible codons. Randomly picking new values for each of the three nucleotides will only yield the same codon in 1/4*1/4*1/4 = 1/12 of the time, or about 8%. The complement of that is about 92%.  Does he mean instead, as I suspect, that single nucleotide mutations are rare, and that getting three adjacent ones are even rarer? True, but it doesn't work out as he seems to wish. Changing a single nucleotide would give a different codon by definition, and given a uniform sampling of codons, that yields about an 80% chance of a different codon that yields a different amino acid as a result. Yeah, the SNP event is ~1e-9, but a change in amino acid resulting is pretty common as a result of an SNP. One does not need to change all three nucleotides to get a different codon, nor to get a different amino acid as a result.

Nor do I buy the "probability is extremely high" gambit based on arm-waving. Cryptoguru should either show his work or give it up. Towards that work...Sure, there are infinite ways to get EQU function. And for each one of those, Cryptoguru needs to estimate the number of Avida programs of the same length that do not provide EQU function. For his claim, he needs to show that number is far from L^26-1, where L is the program length. A probability will incorporate that other number, and not just count the "hits". A sample of program lengths from the minimal EQU length to, say, 50, should suffice. My own assessment of probability of EQU, based on actually having used Avida, programmed Avida, and programming and testing Avida-ED changes, is that hitting on EQU randomly is a tiny, tiny probability. That's arm-waving, too, but with some experience to back it. Then there is the result in the Lenski et al. 2003 paper that directly addresses this concern experimentally:

             
Quote

At the other extreme, 50 populations evolved in an environment where only EQU was rewarded, and no simpler function yielded energy. We expected that EQU would evolve much less often because selection would not preserve the simpler functions that provide foundations to build more complex features. Indeed, none of these populations evolved EQU, a highly significant difference from the fraction that did so in the reward-all environment (P ~ 4.3 x 10^-9, Fisher's exact test). However, these populations tested more genotypes, on average, than did those in the reward-all environment (2.15 x 10^7 versus 1.22 x 10^7; P < 0.0001, Mann-Whitney test), because they tended to have smaller genomes, faster generations, and thus turn over more quickly. However, all populations explored only a tiny fraction of the total genotypic space. Given the ancestral genome of length 50 and 26 possible instructions at each site, there are ~5.6 x 10^70 genotypes; and even this number underestimates the genotype space because length evolves.


The only real numbers in this particular aspect of the discussion indicate that for Cryptoguru "extremely high likelihood" can refer to a probability smaller than 1 in 2.15 x 10^7. Your mileage may vary.

But like I said, that's all irrelevant to the original challenge.

                 
Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 19 2015,07:45)
DISCUSS!



Cryptoguru's original challenge has been met. If Cryptoguru wants to move on to a different challenge as his objections seem to indicate, he should at least acknowledge that his prior one was met before stating a new challenge.

Much of the discussion that ensued after Cryptoguru's original challenge was due to Cryptoguru's inability to focus on the terms of the challenge he himself wrote. There seems to be a curious vagueness about whether Cryptoguru wants a model of natural selection, a model of genetic inheritance, a model of codon replacement, or a model of abiogenesis itself. Certainly the objections raised afterwards have touched upon all of those. There is a concept called salience that Cryptoguru ought to get familiar with. A model aimed at determining whether new information can arise in computer code via an evolutionary process doesn't need to be freighted with most of the irrelevancies that he has discussed. In the extreme, it appears that Cryptoguru wants the equivalent for biology of the "theory of everything".

The other significant fraction of Cryptoguru's output concerned things that he believed were true, but weren't. For instance, the majority of Cryptoguru's claims concerning the Avida system were and are, charitably speaking, bunk. This didn't prevent Cryptoguru spouting falsehoods with fervor and vehemence, and ironically insisting that others had gotten their facts wrong on that score.

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

    
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,18:29   

Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 19 2015,13:43)
Quote

Creepto ate the dog.
Creepto ate the hog.

In Creepto-speak there is no new information.  I guess you'd need something like this:

Creepto ate the dog.
Creepto prepared the mongoose in a rich butter sauce.


You should definitely be proud of yourself Bilbo, those English lessons are starting to pay off.

Of course I was being arbitrary ... my definition of "new information" is substantial unique sequences in a genome (i.e. not shared with assumed relative species) that wouldn't be expected by a series of random events.

So if you showed me

BILBO PAID OVER THE ODDS FOR SHOES
and
BILBO PAID OVER THE ODDS FOR HOES

Although both those sentences make sense to me, I can quite easily explain that the first one arose by chance rather than any optimisation process requiring natural selection.

So I'm asking for a unique sequence that couldn't just arrive fully formed by accident ... i.e. I want proof of the evolution process producing something hard that Bilbo couldn't just cook up by throwing a die.

Saying ... "well here we are ... tada, the human!" is just begging the question, so I'm after proof of the theory

Quote
So, what law (biological, chemical, physical, or logical) prevents multiple point mutations from happening over time?

None ... never said it couldn't


Quote
Somehow, they all have this notion, that like computer program... DNA springs into existence, fully formed

You're straw-manning again Mr Ogre McCarthy ... I never said that's what I think evolutionists believe ... and I obviously don't believe that. My point was that if you compare a chimp to a human there are unique sequences of DNA in humans, evolution needs to explain how a sequence that big can appear over time (yes kazillions of years if you like) ... but it still has to be functional and there right? So whether it was caused by thousands of point mutations, or a whole bunch of splicing and point mutations and stuff until you got that unique functional sequence that comprises compressed instruction sets for building proteins. You need to demonstrate that.

AVIDA is not demonstrating that level of magic, it just optimises the combination of some functions to create logical functions. We're not talking a few logical operands on the genome that have been created, we're talking MULTI-DIMENSIONAL SUPERCODES ... Supercodes ... supercodes ... super... (echoes into distance)

and Lenski has some E. Coli on his farm E-I-E-I-O
But on that farm there's not a chicken E-I-E-I-O
(join with me Bilbo)

So Lenski hasn't observed anything unbacteria-like going on yet after 60,000 generations, and AVIDA is unable to model anything more complicated than joining a few assembler instructions in sequence and rewarding the organism every time a logical function is found. METHINKS IT IS NOT A WEASEL YET

More proof please

BTW Kevin, please don't write the word Allele again ... you're banned from using it from now on from overuse.

cryptoguru, I'm trying to understand your arguments and I have some questions. First, will you please answer this one that I asked earlier:

Where do you get the idea that every biological entity evolves by exactly the same amount from one generation to the next? I would have said life form instead of biological entity but I'm including viruses, and not everyone thinks that viruses are life forms.

In regard to this:

"Of course I was being arbitrary ... my definition of "new information" is substantial unique sequences in a genome (i.e. not shared with assumed relative species) that wouldn't be expected by a series of random events."

I don't understand what you're asking for. Will you explain more fully and provide some examples of what would satisfy your definition of new information?

Also:

What is your stance in regard to CSI, FSCI, dFSCI, FSCO/I, and IC?

From an intelligent design perspective, how would you explain diseases, parasites, deformities/aberrations, and extinctions?

Do you believe that humans are not descended from earlier life forms?

Do you believe that all humans have identical genomes?

Do you believe that all butterflies have identical genomes?

Do you believe that all butterflies that can mate and have viable offspring with each other (the same 'biological species') have identical genomes?

Do you accept that evolution occurs, including evolution in/of humans? If so, do you believe that evolution has a goal? If so, what is the goal, especially in regard to humans? And do you believe that the goal was/is designed/created/directed by a supernatural 'God'?

--------------
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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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!

--------------
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: Jan. 19 2015,19:30   

Cryptoguru:

 
Quote

So Lenski hasn't observed anything unbacteria-like going on yet after 60,000 generations, and AVIDA is unable to model anything more complicated than joining a few assembler instructions in sequence and rewarding the organism every time a logical function is found. METHINKS IT IS NOT A WEASEL YET


Strike whatever-number-of-clueless-claims-he's-made-about-Avida.

Avida has been used to generate and evaluate UML models and for the generation of firmware for wireless sensors to be deployed in wireless sensor networks, and those are a couple of applications that I knew about before I left MSU back in 2009. MSU got the BEACON grant shortly thereafter, and things have been hot in the lab since then.

Question: how much research did Cryptoguru do about the topic of his claim before vomiting it forth? My guess is zero, zip, zilch, and nada.

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

    
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,19:51   

Surprisingly, one interesting thing came out of the Creepto exchange over on Smiledon's Retreat and that was an update to the Paley argument.

Paley imagined a pocket watch being found on the heath because the pocket watch was the most sophisticated instrument of his time.  Likewise, Creepto imagines the cell as a computer because it is the most sophisticated instrument of his time (although I might vote for the non-stick pan - I digress.)

So, over on Ogre's site I imagined Paley finding a fully charged iPhone on the heath.  He would pick it up and after a bit of fiddling let's say he turns it on.  Magic, he would think!  Sure, there's no ATT and no WiFi but he could run a few stand-alone apps and the camera.

Imagine his joy and wonder at this incredible thing!

But, by the next day when he gathered his scientific pals at his house, alas, the iPhone is discharged and sits there, mute and a black screen.  Nothing Paley does can revive it.

Subsequently, he and his friends take it apart and what do they see?  Nothing recognizable.  Not a single part.  It's just all black squares and strings of copper and a substance they can't recognize as plastic.  It's a total mystery.

I thought about this given Creepto's fascination with his computer analogy.  Why a computer?  Because that's all he knows.  He doesn't have the imagination to think beyond that analogy.

And, clearly, he doesn't have the faintest inkling about chemistry.

So, my question to my fellow Mornington Crescent travelers is this:  what would you find on the heath?

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,19:59   

Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 19 2015,17:41)
Not even a squirrel was likely to evolve into a squirrel.

http://www.newscientist.com/article....ng.html
Doesn't count because this is change in age of first reproduction and not DEATH.

http://web.mit.edu/~jfc.......dae.pdf
Doesn't count because it's a pain to deal with all that data, and it's only two genes and more than one point mutation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....._2.html
Doesn't count because it's just one population replacing another and I don't want to hear about alleles

 
Quote
From http://squirrelmapper.org/faq_evo....olution
What is the genetic difference between black and gray squirrels?

Black and gray squirrels are only different based on one gene. Alleles are variations on DNA sequences at a specific location on a chromosome (usually different forms of the same gene). The allele for squirrel fur color has two different possible sequences – one that codes for gray fur and one that codes for black fur. Each squirrel has two copies of this allele. If a squirrel has two copies of the gray allele, then it will be gray, but if it has either one copy of the gray and one of the black or if it has two copies of the black allele, then it will be black. The gray type is actually genetically recessive, which is somewhat counterintuitive since it is the more common genotype these days!

Most dark pigmentation in mammals is associated with the MC1R gene. The MC1R gene regulates how much brown/black pigment (eumelanin) versus pale red/yellow pigment (phaeomelanin) is added to hairs as they grow. When the alpha melanocyte-stimulating stimulating hormone (αMSH) binds to the MC1R gene, eumelanin (dark pigment) is produced; otherwise phaeomelanin (light pigment) is produced. In black squirrels, the MC1R gene has undergone a small deletion (24 base pairs of DNA) that corresponds to just 8 amino acids. This deletion hastens binding of the αMSH to the MC1R gene increasing production of eumelanin (the mechanism is not yet known). This is known as the EB allele. In the gray squirrel a complete MC1R gene (lacking the deletion) blocks binding of αMSH increasing production of phaeomelanin. This is known as the E+ allele. The EB allele is incompletely dominant to the E+ allele. So E+/E+ is the genotype of the gray squirrel, EB/EB is the genotype of the black squirrel, and EB/E+ (or E+/EB) is the genotype of the brown-black squirrel. In the field it’s hard to distinguish a black EB/EB from a black EB/E+ squirrel but look carefully: the EB/EB is jet black all over but and EB/E+ squirrel have mostly brown-black backs but a distinctly lighter-colored (often orange-colored) belly. It’s quite likely that there are other genes and alleles at work but at present this is our best understanding of the genetic mechanism at work.

Still just a damn squirrel.  What did I tell you?

Kaibab squirrels from Albert squirrels:  http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/levin/bio213/evolution/speciation.html
Doesn't count because I can't imagine a black belly and forelimbs leading to DEATH.  Plus no one saw it happen.

http://link.springer.com/article....6065.f0
Doesn't count because I was talking about TREE squirrels.

http://link.springer.com/article....-9250-7
Once again, not TREE squirrels, plus it talks about global warming, so it's clearly biased.

http://www.scielo.sa.cr/scielo.....0100020
Doesn't count because most of them have "sciurus" in their name, so of course they're all going to be similar.


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibr....br....4
Heck, that's birds and pine cones and they're still birds and pine cones, and besides which not one single squirrel died preferentially.  Also, if you are going to talk about co-evolution, you have to prove evolution first.

http://today.duke.edu/2003.......02.html
They left out one of the 51 genera of squirrels, so get back to me when they do a real study.

https://pure.york.ac.uk/portal.....29.html
Cranial characters support findings from studies of mandibles, which support molecular results ( http://goodnight.corral.tacc.utexas.edu/UAF........ses.pdf ), which confirm biogeographic patterns, which show that a high degree of sociality must have evolved twice.  Well, I've been antisocial my entire life, so I can't believe that would have happened.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed.....7921359
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibr....ipmunks
Lots of death, and all we get is bottlenecks.  I want evolution!!!


http://link.springer.com/article....ss=true
Oh for god's sake, I asked for squirrels, those are frigging chipmunks.

Well, that was fun.  Get back to me when you have someone who saw it happen.

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,20:39   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 20 2015,00:51)
So, my question to my fellow Mornington Crescent travelers is this:  what would you find on the heath?

Which part of the Heath?

Lots of condoms on West Heath.

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,21:03   

Quote (Driver @ Jan. 19 2015,20:39)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 20 2015,00:51)
So, my question to my fellow Mornington Crescent travelers is this:  what would you find on the heath?

Which part of the Heath?

Lots of condoms on West Heath.

I was thinking Heath Robinson who shot a condom from the Albert Memorial to Kensington Palace, that bounced into Pan's ... well, best not said where it bounced.

Enough said that Creepto couldn't find his way from South Kensington to Green Park on a Sunday, much less to Mornington Crescent on any day.

You will find me at King's Cross, platform 9 3/4.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,21:16   

On the moor, one might find a hound from hell.

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

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 19 2015,21:19   

Only in Kate's bush.

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2015,00:59   

Quote (Zachriel @ Jan. 19 2015,08:21)
cryptoguru: evolution mutates DNA on a nucleotide level affecting function (gene level) and selects on the organism level.

Evolution also involves recombination and the splicing of new structures from subcomponents.  

cryptoguru: The whole premise of natural selection can be simplified to be death.

That is also false. The whole premise of natural selection is reproductive success.


How true. Ratio of death is fixed at 100%. Ratio of reproduction most likely never reach that figure.

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

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2015,04:40   

Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 19 2015,08:39)
Cubism: (this is not directly about my last post but answering an earlier clarification from Cubism)

Bad start. For the record, cryptoguru: The 'handle' I use online does not, in fact, have an "m" in it. Said handle is Cubist, not Cubism. I don't find your (repeated!) Cubism-not-Cubist error to be offensive or anything, but I gotta admit it strikes me as indicative of… hmm… a certain level of attentiveness and/or general intellectual ability, let's say.

 
Quote
 
Quote
Does the mutated nucleotide sequence qualify as "new and novel genetic material"? Does the mutated nucleotide sequence contain any "new and novel genetic material"?

The issue here is one of scale…

…and a bad continuation following on from a bad start, in that it ignores my query re: how come you (cryptoguru) said that the "new information" of "genetic material" has to be both "novel" and "new".

Re-posting the paragraph about how come it's gotta be both "new" and "novel" which you ignored: Why must the "genetic material" of "new information" be both "new" and "novel"? I ask because "new" and "novel" strike me as basically synonymous, hence, using both words is gratuitous redundancy. But perhaps you weren't being redundant; perhaps you actually are using distinct referents for "new" and "novel", such that the two words are not, in fact, gratuitously redundant. Please explain how "genetic material" which is "new" differs from "genetic material" which is "novel".  Is it possible for "genetic material" to be "new" without also being "novel"? Is it possible for "genetic material" to be "novel" without also being "new"?

Perhaps you'll deign to honor the questions in that paragraph with answers, cryptoguru. Or not. [shrug]

Onward.

 
Quote
 
Quote
Does the mutated nucleotide sequence qualify as "new and novel genetic material"? Does the mutated nucleotide sequence contain any "new and novel genetic material"?

The issue here is one of scale ... changing a single nucleotide and getting new functionality is more adequately describing a side-effect of switching a control gene rather than amazingly arriving at a new functional sequence through mutation and selection.

You may be right that "scale" is, indeed, the "issue". But regardless of whether or not "scale" is any kind of "issue" anywhere, I note that you didn't answer either of the questions in the text you quoted. That's okay, I can ask those questions again.

[clears throat]

Let's say that Sequence X is the arbitrary 150-nucleotide sequence "gcc tac agg gat cgt ggg gac ctt acg aat ggc ctt ttt gac tat tct tcg aat cta agc tca gca tca ttc ccg tct acg gga agt ccc ttc cca ata cat atc ctc ggc acc gca ctt gca ggc tca cgc ttc gcg tca ttt agg tca". Let's also say that Sequence X1 is the 149-nucleotide sequence "gcc tac agg gac gtg ggg acc tta cga atg gcc ttt ttg act att ctt cga atc taa gct cag cat cat tcc cgt cta cgg gaa gtc cct tcc caa tac ata tcc tcg gca ccg cac ttg cag gct cac gct tcg cgt cat tta ggt ca" that results when one removes the "t" from the fourth codon in Sequence X.

One: Does Sequence X1 qualify as "new and novel genetic material"? It's a yes-or-no question, cryptoguru; either yes, Sequence X1 does, in fact, qualify as "new and novel genetic material", or no, Sequence X1 does not, in fact, qualify as "new or novel genetic material". It's all well and good to go on about "probability" and "scale" and yada yada, but I really would like to see a yes or a no, and thus far, I ain't seen a yes or a no.

Two: Does Sequence X1 contain any "new and novel genetic material"? Again, it's a yes-or-no question, to which either yes, it does or no, it doesn't would both be relevant responses. Going on about "scale" and "probability" and yada yada, contrariwise, is not a particularly relevant response, as best I can tell.

Quote
So evolution claims that all the differences between a chimp's DNA and ours are caused by random mutation on 2 hereditary lines from a common ancestor. Find a sequence of unique DNA in the human genome (yup you can use the "junk DNA" now too, now we know it's not junk). Now that string you're holding has arrived by random mutation ... selection has preserved it, but mutation created it. That's what I mean by new/novel/unique information.

That's nice. You didn't mention "unique" before. Please explain how "genetic material" which is "unique" differs from "genetic material" which is either "new" or "novel".  Is it possible for "genetic material" to be "unique" without also being either "new" or "novel"? Is it possible for "genetic material" to be "novel" without also being "new" or "novel"?

Does Sequence X1 qualify as "unique"?

 
Quote
You may be able to handwave that the switching of a few control genes could happen randomly…

I'm not handwaving a thing, cryptoguru. I'm attempting to get you to explain the meaning of your statement that "New information is new and novel genetic material…".

 
Quote
So to summarise my answer ... when I'm talking about new information ... I'm talking about a unique DNA sequence in an organism.

Groovy. Is Sequence X1 a "unique" DNA sequence?

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2015,07:22   

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.

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

    
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2015,08:55   

Just in case he pops back in, didn't want him to miss this.

     
Quote (cryptoguru @ Jan. 18 2015,14:39)
final point to N. Wells

Natural Selection is about death. It doesn't matter what the reasons are for advantage, whether it's because some are stronger, or shorter, or bluer, or have better ovaries, or avoid nightclubs .. whatever. The selective agent is death. If an organism dies before it can reproduce it will be removed from the gene pool. Things that haven't died yet compete for resources, eventually a hereditary line will die off removing it from the competition (death again).

The whole premise of natural selection can be simplified to be death. Differential reproduction is a misleading concept, because the preservation of an advantageous trait can only occur when eventually all other competing hereditary lines are extinct. (death). Otherwise you evolutionists would expect to see millions of intermediate evolutionary stages living now alongside the "favoured" one ... and you don't believe that, so all other lines must become extinct to allow the favoured line to become the parent to the next stage. (I obviously think this is crackers ... I'm just explaining that the evolutionary concept of natural selection is very simple)

My point is that the evolutionary concept of natural selection is easy to model, you just set natural conditions and environments for the organisms to live and compete in and see which survive, you shouldn't be measuring the advantages and rewarding them ... nature does not do that, it just provides conditions for death, those who survive it are considered "selected".

I don't see what all the fuss is about ... just trying to demystify the Natural Selection deity.

Bye for now

Crypto, no one but you treats 'Natural Selection' as a deity, or a putative deity.  Not least because there's nothing magic about it.  You almost get it, but your prejudices prevent you from seeing how badly you beg the question and distort the facts, all to reach a pre-determined answer that fits your biases rather than the facts.  If that means the facts have to be changed, too bad for the facts, right?
I've bolded and italicized one of the significant parts where you goe completely wrong.  
I've underlined the next significant bit where you go completely wrong.  Note in particular the error where you assert that there is, or evolutionists somehow thing there is or must be an a priori 'favored  one'.  Ludicrous and a fantasy of your own imagination and biases.
We do, in fact, see exactly what you assert we do not but should expect.  It's (slightly) obscured in the present because we do not yet have the next stages with respect to which everything now alive is an 'intermediate'. But more to the point, within any species (an artificial distinction, entirely conceptual) we see a wide variety of traits -- cats, cows, rats, rutabagas, dogs, dolphins, none are cookie-cutter identical to all other members of the species.  Your conception is that a 'species' is a set of identical clones, which is ludicrous.  No one but creationists make this claim or try so hard to mask the underlying reality of variation within constraints.
Your argument hasn't a leg to stand on.  It has all the conceptual rigor of a fever dream.  It's content has all the grounding in facts and evidence that the DT's do.

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

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


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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