tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post9138216489588868529..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Here Are Those Two Protein Evolution Falsifications That Have Evolutionists Rewriting Their ScriptUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89725870758801143012012-04-03T00:27:38.939-07:002012-04-03T00:27:38.939-07:00Maybe you should try actually reading the paper in...<i>Maybe you should try actually reading the paper instead of butchering it<br /><br />"On a rugged landscape, the adaptive walk can become trapped by local fitness optima. To find the global peak on the rugged landscape, the adaptive walk requires enormous sequence diversity."<br /><br />"Although adaptive walking in our experiment must have encountered local optima with basin sizes of 1, 2, and probably 3, the observed stagnations are likely due only to the mutation-selection-drift balance."</i><br /><br />Well you got the right part of the paper. Now you just need to understand it. They only randomized one part of one protein. The majority of the phage was fixed at the extant design. The search was not over the entire phage design space, only that of the segment of one protein. But that doesn’t sound as good.<br /><br /><br /><i>No authors cite every last paper done in the last 50 years which support the underlying principles behind biology. That work has already been demonstrated and accepted. The papers are there for everyone to read, and for certain Creationist to lie about.</i><br /><br />Ah yes, “the papers are there, trust us.” There’s no need to look behind the curtain, it has all been proven (to our satisfaction). We know the truth, so move along, nothing to see here. Strange that the authors didn’t cite a single one of this mysterious massive database of “tens of thousands” of papers, while they did cite one meager paper that grasped for straws and “suggested” a solution. Just trying to fool us I guess.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-64132776454623688712012-03-31T18:21:45.558-07:002012-03-31T18:21:45.558-07:00Scott: "Your expectation that it should be si...Scott: "Your expectation that it should be simple to duplicate in the lab has nothing to do with your assumptions about how knowledge is created?"<br /><br />To be clear, I think it is impossible to reproduce in the lab because of this; "Secondly, we design vesicle-level processes such that they do not introduce an extra burden for survival that is independent of the replicator dynamics itself; e.g., we neglect the problem of substrate uptake through membranes". When replicator studies are done in the lab, this is what limits 'growth' and therefore the ability of nature to select.<br /><br />Scott: "Are we unable to criticize our explanations for how we make progress, find errors in these explanations and discard them?"<br /><br />Not without using language, and that is based on inductive reasoning.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15649251202132354972012-03-31T13:49:25.887-07:002012-03-31T13:49:25.887-07:00John: The reason they could not get it to work in ...John: The reason they could not get it to work in the lab certainly has nothing to do with my assumptions. Besides their computer program did not model the replicators by their structure anyway, and it assumed the ability to replicate from the get go.<br /><br />Your expectation that it should be simple to duplicate in the lab has nothing to do with your assumptions about how knowledge is created?<br /><br /><br />John: Did you learn that via the principle of induction?<br /><br />Are we unable to criticize our explanations for how we make progress, find errors in these explanations and discard them?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57740290309187605832012-03-30T23:22:39.471-07:002012-03-30T23:22:39.471-07:00Scott: "Because you're assuming we should...Scott: "Because you're assuming we should simply be able to use induction to mechanically extrapolate what the first replicators were, the conditions under which they appeared, etc"<br /><br />The reason they could not get it to work in the lab certainly has nothing to do with my assumptions. Besides their computer program did not model the replicators by their structure anyway, and it assumed the ability to replicate from the get go.<br /><br />Scott: "We create theories using conjecture, then test those theories using observations, not vice versa."<br /><br />Did you learn that via the principle of induction?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-83115472193594807602012-03-30T14:42:41.248-07:002012-03-30T14:42:41.248-07:00Cornelius Hunter
The phages that rapidly found th...<i>Cornelius Hunter<br /><br />The phages that rapidly found the local fitness maxima were perfectly good and workable. They just weren't as optimized as the wild phages.<br /><br />No, you’ll need to learn more about biology in order to overcome your “evolution is a fact” dogma. The phages did not find any “local fitness maxima.” Nor did even a single protein “find” such a maxima. The researchers randomized merely a segment of a single protein.</i><br /><br />Maybe you should try actually reading the paper instead of butchering it<br /><br />"On a rugged landscape, <b>the adaptive walk can become trapped by local fitness optima.</b> To find the global peak on the rugged landscape, the adaptive walk requires enormous sequence diversity."<br /><br />"Although <b>adaptive walking in our experiment must have encountered local optima</b> with basin sizes of 1, 2, and probably 3, the observed stagnations are likely due only to the mutation-selection-drift balance."<br /><br />Falsehoods on top of falsehoods just make you look worse every day CH.<br /><br /><i>Well then you should make sure to tell the authors about these “tens of thousands” of papers. </i><br /><br />No authors cite every last paper done in the last 50 years which support the underlying principles behind biology. That work has already been demonstrated and accepted. The papers are there for everyone to read, and for certain Creationist to lie about.<br /><br /><i>T: Are you going to go with the stupid Creationist demand that every genetics paper produced must replicate the decades of work that came before it?<br /><br />You’ve argued strenuously that evolution must be a fact. Unfortunately the science just doesn’t back that up, creationism or no creationism.</i><br /><br />So I guess the answer is yes, you really are going that stupid Creationist route.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3337111806831844212012-03-30T13:01:57.354-07:002012-03-30T13:01:57.354-07:00If your computer model only has 2 entities, why ca...If your computer model only has 2 entities, why can't they get it to work in the lab? Maybe they made too many assumptions?<br /><br />Because you're assuming we should simply be able to use induction to mechanically extrapolate what the first replicators were, the conditions under which they appeared, etc. <br /><br />However, as Karl Popper pointed out, induction is a myth. <br /><br />We create theories using conjecture, then test those theories using observations, not vice versa.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87642681412962749032012-03-30T09:43:48.596-07:002012-03-30T09:43:48.596-07:00The phages that rapidly found the local fitness ma...<i>The phages that rapidly found the local fitness maxima were perfectly good and workable. They just weren't as optimized as the wild phages.</i><br /><br />No, you’ll need to learn more about biology in order to overcome your “evolution is a fact” dogma. The phages did not find any “local fitness maxima.” Nor did even a single protein “find” such a maxima. The researchers randomized merely a segment of a single protein.<br /><br /><br /><i>Double LOL! That study wasn't done in a vacuum CH. There are tens of thousands of others that show how the mechanisms of genetic variation work.</i><br /><br />Well then you should make sure to tell the authors about these “tens of thousands” of papers. That sounds very important, for the authors certainly should have cited some of those “tens of thousands” of papers. I’m sure they’ll be delighted to hear from you. One paper you can scratch off the list, though, is the one paper the authors actually did cite as “suggesting” the importance of recombination or DNA shuffling, since it doesn’t solve the problem like those other “tens of thousands” of papers do.<br /><br /><br /><i>Are you going to go with the stupid Creationist demand that every genetics paper produced must replicate the decades of work that came before it?</i><br /><br />You’ve argued strenuously that evolution must be a fact. Unfortunately the science just doesn’t back that up, creationism or no creationism.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-70189362005574398662012-03-29T23:38:22.322-07:002012-03-29T23:38:22.322-07:00Thorton: "1. There are selection mechanisms.&...Thorton: "1. There are selection mechanisms."<br /><br />If your computer model only has 2 entities, why can't they get it to work in the lab? Maybe they made too many assumptions?<br /><br />Thorton: "2. They don't."<br /><br />They do - http://tolweb.org/Bilateria/2459<br /><br />Hox genes for mice and fruitfly eyes are nearly identical. Aren't mice lucky they also independently developed eyes so they could take advantage of the same Hox gene? Isn't that just another example of painting the target before the shot (in this case literally :D )?<br /><br />Thorton: "If a sequence is beneficial it keeps being replicated as it. There are many know highly conserved sequences."<br /><br />From the RNA world? Really? Which?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17904230581828301988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77634847773816123862012-03-29T20:21:56.136-07:002012-03-29T20:21:56.136-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50617995783241880302012-03-29T13:01:06.651-07:002012-03-29T13:01:06.651-07:00Take your meds Louis, before the drool shorts out ...Take your meds Louis, before the drool shorts out your keyboard.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4615787063063957932012-03-29T12:58:21.744-07:002012-03-29T12:58:21.744-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54963986150030500972012-03-29T12:50:02.645-07:002012-03-29T12:50:02.645-07:00LOL!
Good job Louis. You made up for the last on...LOL!<br /><br />Good job Louis. You made up for the last one by drooling twice as much on this one.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61879146004836930182012-03-29T11:36:17.534-07:002012-03-29T11:36:17.534-07:00I apologize to the Red Sox for comparing them to L...I apologize to the Red Sox for comparing them to Louisvelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-89463530040105653592012-03-29T11:35:43.526-07:002012-03-29T11:35:43.526-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53974820503343724952012-03-29T11:10:37.476-07:002012-03-29T11:10:37.476-07:00Louis the fruit loop:
1. There are selection mech...Louis the fruit loop:<br /><br />1. There are selection mechanisms.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000542" rel="nofollow">Multilevel Selection in Models of Prebiotic Evolution II: A Direct Comparison of Compartmentalization and Spatial Self-Organization</a><br /><br />2. They don't.<br /><br />3. If a sequence is beneficial it keeps being replicated as it. There are many know highly conserved sequences.<br /><br />At least you didn't drool as much as normal on this one.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-22255677111371399212012-03-29T10:54:23.248-07:002012-03-29T10:54:23.248-07:00Yeah, right. Nothing you say is the truth, Thornto...Yeah, right. Nothing you say is the truth, Thornton. You pontificate about your alleged intellectual superiority but you are in fact stupid. Answer the questions I posed, goddammit, or admit your stupidity.<br /><br />1. How does prebiotic evolution occur without a selection mechanism?<br /><br />2. How can a selection mechanism decide which random sequence will be needed for an eventual life form that will not appear for millions of years afterwards?<br /><br />3. How can a sequence last millions of years without being destroyed by natural destructive forces?<br /><br />You cannot answer these questions because you are a bozo masquerading as a scientist. Nobody is fooled.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18523484365217464892012-03-29T06:13:27.210-07:002012-03-29T06:13:27.210-07:00Louis the fruit loop
At least we know how much we...<i>Louis the fruit loop<br /><br />At least we know how much we despise each other. That's one bright spot.</i><br /><br />I don't despise you at all Louis. I pity those like you with mental and emotional problems.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9685999063825328472012-03-29T06:11:25.195-07:002012-03-29T06:11:25.195-07:00Cornelius Hunter
No, the 1 in 10^63, 1 in 10^70, ...<i>Cornelius Hunter<br /><br />No, the 1 in 10^63, 1 in 10^70, 1 in 10^77, etc., do represent the number of evolutionary experiments that would be needed to get close enough to a workable protein design.</i><br /><br />LOL! Of course they don't. The phages that rapidly found the local fitness maxima were perfectly good and workable. They just weren't as optimized as the wild phages. In the real world an organism doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be better than its neighbors. <b>Differential</b> reproductive success, remember? Pretending to not understand the basics doesn't make you look very good at all.<br /><br /><i>That’s why the evolutionists didn’t give any details, but instead hmmed and hawed for a few sentences and dropped it like a hot potato.</i><br /><br />Double LOL! That study wasn't done in a vacuum CH. There are tens of thousands of others that show how the mechanisms of genetic variation work. Are you going to go with the stupid Creationist demand that every genetics paper produced must replicate the decades of work that came before it?<br /><br />I know you're getting paid to write this hooey, but you must think everyone is as clueless as the Creationists you pander to.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-85030360582109211502012-03-29T04:35:15.496-07:002012-03-29T04:35:15.496-07:00Yankees and Red SoxYankees and Red Soxvelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10957523527184649923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-21926729484829750212012-03-28T23:27:22.477-07:002012-03-28T23:27:22.477-07:00At least we know how much we despise each other. T...At least we know how much we despise each other. That's one bright spot.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2712733486437212992012-03-28T22:26:16.487-07:002012-03-28T22:26:16.487-07:00LOL! So now you're admitting that the number d...<i>LOL! So now you're admitting that the number doesn't represent the "number of evolutionary experiments that would be needed to get close enough to a workable protein design."<br /><br />That's the problem with lying about the actual contents of a scientific paper CH. You end up perjuring yourself.</i><br /><br />No, the 1 in 10^63, 1 in 10^70, 1 in 10^77, etc., do represent the number of evolutionary experiments that would be needed to get close enough to a workable protein design. Obviously you don’t understand the science here and this getting embarrassing. Again, the fitness landscape falls off rapidly as you move away from the native sequence and if a rugged landscape after that. You can’t just play rhetorical games with these numbers. They’ve been arrived at by different investigators, using different methods. This is what science is indicating.<br /><br /><br /><i>LOL! You mean all the other mechanisms of genetic variations besides single point mutations, mechanisms that have been well known and well documented for decades.</i><br /><br />Yes, precisely. You obviously don’t understand optimization and search either, or the curse of dimensionality. You don’t just magically move toward native sequences with non local moves. Sorry, but evolution doesn’t just happen. That’s why the evolutionists didn’t give any details, but instead hmmed and hawed for a few sentences and dropped it like a hot potato. It’s just astronomically unlikely to make a non local move that takes you even in the right direction in hyperspace. If you want to demonstrate it for us and explain how this happens, then be my guest. And while you’re doing it we’ll be contacting the Nobel prize people so they can get you your medal. This should be interesting.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53474263798698454242012-03-28T21:48:59.890-07:002012-03-28T21:48:59.890-07:00Cornelius Hunter
No, that is not what the number ...<i>Cornelius Hunter<br /><br />No, that is not what the number represents. Or perhaps your explanation is just not very clear. Just to be clear, the number, 1 in 10^63, equals the estimated fraction of sequences which would adopt the N-terminal domain of lambda repressor.</i><br /><br />LOL! So now you're admitting that the number <b>doesn't</b> represent the "number of evolutionary experiments that would be needed to get close enough to a workable protein design."<br /><br />That's the problem with lying about the actual contents of a scientific paper CH. You end up perjuring yourself.<br /><br /><i>No, they did not demonstrate a faster way. They pointed out that gradualism wouldn’t work, and so some other mechanisms must have been at play.</i><br /><br />LOL! You mean all the other mechanisms of genetic variations besides single point mutations, mechanisms that have been well known and well documented for decades. <br /><br /><i>There’s no question that the evidence is substantially against evolution, even as reported by the evolutionists.</i><br /><br />Oh dear, there goes the dishonest propagandist in you again. You must really need the DI's money something awful. I bet you wear out the door of the confessional asking forgivness for all the lies.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25406108616139697452012-03-28T21:25:49.331-07:002012-03-28T21:25:49.331-07:00Thorton:
Take the 10^63 number from this paper....Thorton:<br /><br /><br /><i> Take the 10^63 number from this paper. The authors were investigating how much mutational change a particular protein could tolerate and still function. The 1 in 10^63 represents the probability of working out of the total possible 92-residue sequences.</i><br /><br />No, that is not what the number represents. Or perhaps your explanation is just not very clear. Just to be clear, the number, 1 in 10^63, equals the estimated fraction of sequences which would adopt the N-terminal domain of lambda repressor.<br /><br /><br /><i>It says nothing about taking 10^63 tries or having to sample all possible sequences to get the working protein in the first place. Your use of the number would only be valid in the case all 92 residues self assembled all at once.</i><br /><br />You must not know much about proteins. What you are discussing here is precisely the problem. These fitness landscapes away from the native protein are rugged. That’s not controversial. Likewise, the fitness drops off rapidly as you move away from the native sequence. Everything science is telling us indicates you do not have smooth, gradual fitness landscapes sloping up to the native protein.<br /><br /><br /><i>The researchers estimate that to find the absolute fitness peak would take 10^70 tries if the evolution was limited to single random substitution mutations. But in the very next sentence they point out that real evolution incorporates many other mechanisms for genetic variation that greatly shorten the time, such as homologous recombination. So your use of the 10^70 number is pure bull.</i><br /><br />No, they did not demonstrate a faster way. They pointed out that gradualism wouldn’t work, and so some other mechanisms must have been at play. In other words, as usual the evolutionists assumed evolution from the outset. Negative results can do no harm to evolution, they merely indicate another sub hypothesis must be employed. The authors had nothing but speculation about recombination, and they admitted that recombination wouldn’t alter the landscape itself, but speculated that it “may affect the speed of search in sequence space.” Of course they’re going to speculate, they’re assuming evolution from the outset. They didn’t provide any details of how that could happen, because there are no details, merely speculation. There is no evidence of theory that recombination could solve this problem. Jumping from one sequence in a rugged landscape to some other location isn’t going to solve a 27+ orders of magnitude shortfall. All you are getting is a non local move. And it is a random move. It is not moving up some mythical fitness slope.<br /><br /><br /><i>I really don't get you CH. Half the time you seem like a decent enough guy, cracking jokes, running this blog with minimal censorship. Then you turn around and post the most egregious misrepresentations and lies about actual scientific work. These aren't simple differences in interpretations either. They're deliberate dishonesty on your part. How you look at yourself in the mirror is beyond me.</i><br /><br />Well you are certainly correct that “These aren't simple differences in interpretations.” What I am reporting is what the science is telling us. This is not particularly controversial. Evolutionists aren’t going to say “Gee, the science indicates evolution probably didn’t occur.” It isn’t going to happen as that simply is not one of the choices. It is not an option. They’ll always present another just-so story to explain the findings. But setting those aside and just looking at the evidence, there really isn’t a lot of room for different interpretations, as you say. And this is pretty easy to see when you study the science, and set aside the speculation and just-so stories.<br /><br />There’s no question that the evidence is substantially against evolution, even as reported by the evolutionists. Could this change? Sure. Does it mean evolution is necessarily false? No. But the scientific evidence does give pretty strong indications.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-41228789529006085702012-03-28T20:26:27.597-07:002012-03-28T20:26:27.597-07:00Louie the fruit loop
I was not talking to you, mo...<i>Louie the fruit loop<br /><br />I was not talking to you, moron. Kiss, kiss, kiss my you know what.</i><br /><br />Kiss your Mom? Again??<br /><br />Sorry, but I hate standing in line.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46155809685532056182012-03-28T20:21:08.639-07:002012-03-28T20:21:08.639-07:00Ah, that's funny. I never heard of that show.Ah, that's funny. I never heard of that show.Cornelius Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12283098537456505707noreply@blogger.com