ARK Encounter opens today!

[buckshot24]

Let's continue be fair here, you "understand" it in the same way that you know you're better than me or any number of scientists at math or whatever.

I'm not spiritually deceived. I've been pretty clear on that. No way pure intelligence leads people to believe a self replicating molecule could turn to blue whales, jellyfish, and pine trees by not replicating itself perfectly. No way whatsoever.

 

[agent00f]

You've not demonstrated that.

I've directed you to apply your own math to yourself instead of other mammals. It appears you actually understand just how wrong it is, but can't bring yourself to admit it because that would imply you were wrong your entire life.

Again in all fairness most people are not good enough to do so, esp. in such a public manner. So you're not in some way particularly moronic.

You brought up mathematics and you asked what I would do if somebody told me that math was wrong (which is ridiculous enough).

This is you, there's no denying it: "In math there are proofs in Darwinian biology there are fairy tales based on conjecture."

Why would someone who knows proofs don't apply to science say that?

I'm not spiritually deceived. I've been pretty clear on that. No way pure intelligence leads people to believe a self replicating molecule could turn to blue whales, jellyfish, and pine trees by not replicating itself perfectly. No way whatsoever.

Are you seriously nominating yourself to the realm of pure intelligence? Right after that "I know math better than you" debacle?

 

[buckshot24]

I've directed you to apply your own math to yourself instead of other mammals. It appears you actually understand just how wrong it is, but can't bring yourself to admit it because that would imply you were wrong your entire life.

I haven't thought like this my entire life. Like dropping a trillion trillion grains of sand from height it isn't amazing that one grain reached the ground first. With mutations that require 2 or 3 simultaneous changes it never need happen. 100% of the time there will be a single grain that hits the ground first.

This is you, there's no denying it: "In math there are proofs in Darwinian biology there are fairy tales based on conjecture."

Why would someone who knows proofs don't apply to science say that?

Where do you get the idea that I think they do? I'm telling you why your comparison between Darwinian Theory and mathematics doesn't work.

Are you seriously nominating yourself to the realm of pure intelligence? Right after that "I know math better than you" debacle?

You really should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Subyman]

I understand it, I don't buy it.

You don't understand it. You should write a book if you do completely understand it but have new information that the field doesn't know. There is a Nobel for you.

 

[buckshot24]

You don't understand it.

Yes I do.

You should write a book if you do completely understand it but have new information that the field doesn't know. There is a Nobel for you.

If it were merely intellectual I wouldn't need to write a book, nobody would accept it.

 

[abj13]

It didn't, you didn't understand my argument. You were corrected multiple times.

Why do you keep saying I'm cherry picking data? I can use your numbers if you like, there is a range of mutation rates that have been mentioned. Yours is a little more than 3 times as likely which really doesn't help you any.

Those should be 10^-9 etc etc.

I used that number from this paper.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2910838/
So what?
Why? You blithering moron! My argument has nothing to do whatsoever with what you're trying to make it out to be.
Nope, you're a dolt if you think that is what I was saying. Are you a dolt or a liar?

:biggrin:

Did you read that paper? Buckshot gets caught googling up things again, just like how you like to reconstruct the past. You were shown the correct information and you refused to acknowledge it, and now you claim its my fault. Hilarious. This is what the paper labels as the denominator: /site/cell division DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS?

Your moronic calculation of 1x10^-9 x 1x10^-9 1X10^-9 = 1 x10^-27 is calculating the rate per site per cell division that 3 mutations will occur at the same nucleotide site.

To illustrate what your moronic math is actually calculating, you are calculating the rate that the following event occurs:

AGCGCGTTATGCA will become AGCGTGTTATGCA in the next generation is 1x10^-9.
For AGCGCGTTATGCA to become AGCGTGTTATGCA (with an intermediate of AGCGAGTTATGCA) is 1x10^-18.
For AGCGCGTTATGCA to become AGCGTGTTATGCA (with an intermediates of AGCGAGTTATGCA and AGCGGGTTATGCA) is 1x10^-27.

You think you are calculating the rate in which three mutations can occur in a cell. YOU ARE NOT. If you were saying 1x10^-27 is the rate in which three nucleotide substitutions occur in a single cell in a single generation at a single site, that would be correct. But you did not. Your math doesn't calculate what you think you are calculating. Another buckshot failure.

When it is said that 175 spontaneous mutations PER diploid genome per generation occurs, that is the number of mutations a single organism will develop and pass on over a generation.

I'm not saying that any change within the entire genome is only going to happen once every 10^9 cell divisions. Ridiculous.

Any change requiring 3 simultaneous mutations will happen once every 10^27 cell divisions.

Uh oh, you just said exactly what you claimed you didn't say. Classic buckshot. Gets caught making up stuff, and now watch him flail. And then he'll keep on posting thinking the final word will somehow mitigate the fact he doesn't understand the numbers he posts. Just wait until he would rather talk about his stupid list than actually owning up to the fact he doesn't understand what he is posting.

 

[abj13]

Where do you get this ridiculous idea from?

Do you actually ever read and think about what you write on here?

 

[agent00f]

I haven't thought like this my entire life. Like dropping a trillion trillion grains of sand from height it isn't amazing that one grain reached the ground first. With mutations that require 2 or 3 simultaneous changes it never need happen. 100% of the time there will be a single grain that hits the ground first.

Sure, but notice that some grain always hit the ground first, just like you were born instead of any number of possible permutations, or evolution was taken in one direction instead of countless others.

As for "simultaneously", just like grains that hit the ground at close enough to the same time to be effectively simultaneous, "simultaneous" mutations only have to occur within a window whereby the first mutation doesn't kill the animal/offspring. Most mutations don't kill the animal.

Where do you get the idea that I think they do?
I'm telling you why your comparison between Darwinian Theory and mathematics doesn't work.

I never compared evolution and math, I just said your math was terrible, which it is. In your head somewhere that tied into evolution somehow, and along came this sentence revealing how the two are related in your mind.

You really should be ashamed of yourself.

No, I think people portraying themselves as something they're not should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[abj13]

Most mutations don't kill the animal.

Sadly, this fact has been mentioned to him multiple times in multiple threads. He doesn't understand basic biology but acts like he does. He just plagiarizes arguments that Michael Behe has previously made in support of intelligent design.

 

[BxgJ]

Yes I do.
If it were merely intellectual I wouldn't need to write a book, nobody would accept it.

Then what is it?

 

[buckshot24]

:biggrin:

Did you read that paper? Buckshot gets caught googling up things again, just like how you like to reconstruct the past. You were shown the correct information and you refused to acknowledge it, and now you claim its my fault. Hilarious. This is what the paper labels as the denominator: /site/cell division DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS?

Your moronic calculation of 1x10^-9 x 1x10^-9 1X10^-9 = 1 x10^-27 is calculating the rate per site per cell division that 3 mutations will occur at the same nucleotide site.

It can but that isn't how I was using it. Any specific 3 changes in one generation is going to happen once every 10^27 cell divisions.

You think you are calculating the rate in which three mutations can occur in a cell.

In one generation, this is what it is calculating. Not just any 3 mutations at any spot.

YOU ARE NOT. If you were saying 1x10^-27 is the rate in which three nucleotide substitutions occur in a single cell in a single generation at a single site, that would be correct.

In three specific spots. Not in a single spot 3 times.

But you did not. Your math doesn't calculate what you think you are calculating. Another buckshot failure.

If I have 3 nucleotides and the mutation rate for each one is 10^-9 what are the odds that each nucleotide would mutate in a single generation? 10^-27

When it is said that 175 spontaneous mutations PER diploid genome per generation occurs, that is the number of mutations a single organism will develop and pass on over a generation.

Absolutely I agree.

Uh oh, you just said exactly what you claimed you didn't say. Classic buckshot. Gets caught making up stuff, and now watch him flail. And then he'll keep on posting thinking the final word will somehow mitigate the fact he doesn't understand the numbers he posts. Just wait until he would rather talk about his stupid list than actually owning up to the fact he doesn't understand what he is posting.

I'll take responsibility for my part but you've completely misunderstood me.

 

[buckshot24]

Do you actually ever read and think about what you write on here?

Where do you get that idea from? I don't believe that and my comment to agent0 doesn't support that idea.

 

[agent00f]

You think you are calculating the rate in which three mutations can occur in a cell. YOU ARE NOT. If you were saying 1x10^-27 is the rate in which three nucleotide substitutions occur in a single cell in a single generation at a single site, that would be correct. But you did not. Your math doesn't calculate what you think you are calculating. Another buckshot failure.

When it is said that 175 spontaneous mutations PER diploid genome per generation occurs, that is the number of mutations a single organism will develop and pass on over a generation.

To clarify, his "logic" doesn't actually involve these science facts/details, but rather seems to revolve around the general idea that something like an eye requires several interconnected components to work, therefore they must've mutated "simultaneously".

I suppose we can explain biology or whatever to refute this, but unfortunately buckshot already knows all biology better than actual biologists, just like he knows math better than anyone good at math.

Someone can tell him Dunning & Kruger designed, nee, immaculately conceived this posterchild to demonstrate their theory; and he'll take it as evidence proof of creation.

 

[buckshot24]

Sure, but notice that some grain always hit the ground first, just like you were born instead of any number of possible permutations, or evolution was taken in one direction instead of countless others.

Yes one grain is always going to hit first. There aren't countless directions evolution can take. You ever do protein folding? How many of those "proteins" are useful vs garbage?

As for "simultaneously", just like grains that hit the ground at close enough to the same time to be effectively simultaneous, "simultaneous" mutations only have to occur within a window whereby the first mutation doesn't kill the animal/offspring. Most mutations don't kill the animal.

How small or large do you think the window is? Say a bacteria gets one out of 5 mutations needed to make a leap from one protein to another. How long is that first one going to be in population waiting for the other 4? I don't think the window is large enough to change the numbers significantly.

I never compared evolution and math, I just said your math was terrible, which it is. In your head somewhere that tied into evolution somehow, and along came this sentence revealing how the two are related in your mind.

I say evolution is wrong, you say I'm a novice, you say what if somebody said math was wrong who was a novice. You compared it by doing that. I told you why it doesn't work and Math is different because there are proofs. What happened 4 billion years ago is complete conjecture and not in the same league as math.

You've not demonstrated why my math is horrible. I suppose we'll wait for that?

No, I think people portraying themselves as something they're not should be ashamed of themselves.

I agree, please stop doing so.

 

[buckshot24]

To clarify, his "logic" doesn't actually involve these science facts/details, but rather seems to revolve around the general idea that something like an eye requires several interconnected components to work, therefore they must've mutated "simultaneously".

Your posts have been a test and I've had to refrain from calling you names a few times. You are being completely dishonest. I apologize for thinking these bad things about you.

You are living in fantasy land if you think you can get from a mouse like creature to a blue whale with single point mutations, you're going to need something more complex than that along the way.

I suppose we can explain biology or whatever to refute this, but unfortunately buckshot already knows all biology better than actual biologists, just like he knows math better than anyone good at math.

I don't believe either of those things mr dishonest.

 

[Carson Dyle]

Nah, fundamentalist Muslims believe in this ark crap too. I wonder if buckshot....

It ain't the boat they'd be targeting. :\

 

[agent00f]

Yes one grain is always going to hit first. There aren't countless directions evolution can take. You ever do protein folding? How many of those "proteins" are useful vs garbage?
How small or large do you think the window is? Say a bacteria gets one out of 5 mutations needed to make a leap from one protein to another. How long is that first one going to be in population waiting for the other 4? I don't think the window is large enough to change the numbers significantly.
I say evolution is wrong, you say I'm a novice, you say what if somebody said math was wrong who was a novice. You compared it by doing that. I told you why it doesn't work and Math is different because there are proofs. What happened 4 billion years ago is complete conjecture and not in the same league as math.

There's an actual carbon dated fossil record of these very long evolutionary paths, and successes/failures of evolution are evident in however tiny window of time we can see as humans. Even if you as one person can't really grasp the math behind it (and honestly nobody expects you to since it's non-trivial), that doesn't mean something magical must've put all that there.

Magic is what relatively dumb/ignorant people long ago used to explain things they don't really understand. The boundary of human knowledge has eventually come to encompass biodiversity, even if you're personally not there yet.

You've not demonstrated why my math is horrible. I suppose we'll wait for that?
I agree, please stop doing so.

Your math is horrible for the same reason that you're alive today instead of countless other possible combinations of your parents, the mating of which is itself rather a coincidence along with many other unlikely circumstances in history that led to it. The world certainly would've went on had things been different.

Evidently there were also plenty (a majority) of evolutionary dead ends where things didn't work out, but for some reason the current path is impossible whereas you don't think of yourself as impossible.

 

[agent00f]

Your posts have been a test and I've had to refrain from calling you names a few times. You are being completely dishonest. I apologize for thinking these bad things about you.

You are living in fantasy land if you think you can get from a mouse like creature to a blue whale with single point mutations, you're going to need something more complex than that along the way.
I don't believe either of those things mr dishonest.

It's a matter of public record above that despite all evidence to the contrary you believe yourself to be smart/knowledgeable in these fields.

All those teachers in all those years were unable to disabuse that notion, so I suppose stubbornly persisting is your way of proving that unlikely things don't happen.

 

[BxgJ]

Your posts have been a test and I've had to refrain from calling you names a few times. You are being completely dishonest. I apologize for thinking these bad things about you.

You are living in fantasy land if you think you can get from a mouse like creature to a blue whale with single point mutations, you're going to need something more complex than that along the way.
I don't believe either of those things mr dishonest.

It's amusing seeing you saying that, considering what you do best is refrain from answering questions that may make you uncomfortable. I know, and so do others, that you resist doing so because any beloved patriot in the armor of your bubble could lead to the collapse of your entire belief system. It's why when questioned on certain things, specifically any question of 'why?' that would make you explain the specific foundations of your belief system, that you recoil and resort to TheList.

What you should answer, before you waste any more time of these people in this thread who take the time to interact with you and write thoughtful posts, is this. How can you claim to understand anything about the complexities of evolution, when you couldn't even understand how an interstellar cloud of gas could collapse (in the thread awhile back)?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=38226761#post38226761

It goes for awhile after that post.

You couldn't even give a scientific basis for your doubt, even for something that simple, and simply put me on the list when I kept questioning you. I know, you can't let anything disrupt the delicate foundation upon which your belief system resides. Don't you know about unstable foundations?

 

[IronWing]

It ain't the boat they'd be targeting. :\

They have something against dumb people?

 

[BurnItDwn]

1000 new genes?!! I think you don't know what you're talking about. If there were 1000 new genes from every baby we would die off in very short order. There are only 20k to 25k genes in humans to begin with. You say there aren't massive changes but posit 1000 new genes in a single generation! haha.
Educate yourself.
That is the Dr. Suess version. Don't you find it interesting that echolocation evolved TWICE in pretty much the same way? Once in bats and once in marine mammals like dolphins? Imagine the luck!

You missed the point and sank your teeth into the big number.
I just spat out a number, the actual value is not relevant.
Lets say it's .000001 then, it does't matter here what the actual number is. All that matters is if it happens at all or not at all.

It's not strange that 2 different creatures evolved ecolocation in pretty much the same way. It's pretty obvious that once they have evolved it, it helped their survival rates, so the ones who couldn't do sonar died and never mated. Other species which may have evolved echolocation independently likely died off or evolved differently.

 

[Subyman]

Yes I do.
If it were merely intellectual I wouldn't need to write a book, nobody would accept it.

Ah, so your stance is based on feelings. Interesting to know that your gut is good enough to dispute thousands of geniuses who have spent decades building evidence for evolution that is readily available for you to educate yourself. Couple numbers "don't add up" so you "don't buy it." Boy that was easy to tear down an entire field of science! Again, an easy argument such as yours should be relayed to the field of science lest they waste more resources!

 

[abj13]

It can but that isn't how I was using it. Any specific 3 changes in one generation is going to happen once every 10^27 cell divisions.
In one generation, this is what it is calculating. Not just any 3 mutations at any spot.
If I have 3 nucleotides and the mutation rate for each one is 10^-9 what are the odds that each nucleotide would mutate in a single generation? 10^-27

You still don't even know what you are even talking about. Bastardizing biology and googling up things is what you do best to try to support your creationism. I have repeatedly asked you what the denominator means. I show you exactly what your math is calculating, and you don't even address it. You still don't even understand what is meant by "nucleotide site." Which is quite hilarious that you posted a link to a scientific article that discusses this very topic. Did you read it? It spends several paragraphs on this various issue, and yet you still don't even understand it.

But this brings me back to something I purposely avoided in the beginning. What polymorphism in human population requires a simultaneous mutation in three different sites in one generation? What exactly is the biology behind this? Why should I even bother to try to explain these mutation rates that you don't understand, when you haven't even explained why three mutations are important?

I'll take responsibility for my part but you've completely misunderstood me.

Take responsibility? How? By claiming you didn't say something when you did?

I'm not saying that any change within the entire genome is only going to happen once every 10^9 cell divisions. Ridiculous.

Any change requiring 3 simultaneous mutations will happen once every 10^27 cell divisions.

Better yet, when are you going to finally talk about all these novel genes that you claim don't exist?

Long M, VanKuren NW, Chen S, Vibranovski MD. New gene evolution: little did we know. Annu Rev Genet. 2013;47:307-33.

 

[agent00f]

Proof for: why history is impossible.

The likelihood for any given person to be born, unique pairing of egg & sperm, each out of gazillions possible, each belonging to unique people out of gazillions possible.

Each action they ever choose to take, such as completely unlikely person Hitler choosing to apply for art school. Combined with another unlikely person in art school bureaucrat, choosing to reject him so he can move onto other things in life. This is only one event out of bazillions which must occur to reach just one event in history. Multiplied together they clearly form a number so staggeringly impossible that not even god can create a form large enough to write down nevermind will into reality.

QED.

 

[Subyman]

Proof for: why history is impossible.

The likelihood for any given person to be born, unique pairing of egg & sperm, each out of gazillions possible, each belonging to unique people out of gazillions possible.

Each action they ever choose to take, such as completely unlikely person Hitler choosing to apply for art school. Combined with another unlikely person in art school bureaucrat, choosing to reject him so he can move onto other things in life. This is only one event out of bazillions which must occur to reach just one event in history. Multiplied together they clearly form a number so staggeringly impossible that not even god can create a form large enough to write down nevermind will into reality.

QED.

Gotta be a succinct fallacy term for that.