Re: The Living Dead


Seanpit wrote:
> Ron O wrote:
> > Seanpit wrote:
> > > Ron O wrote:
> > >
> > > > How do you know that? Answer the question. It isn't in the papers
> > > > that you cite, because I know for a fact that Crow admits that he
> > > > doesn't understand the mechanism by which these mutations are removed.
> > > > We don't know everything, and Crow is too good of a scientists to claim
> > > > otherwise.
> > >
> > > Perhaps Crow doesn't know how the detrimental mutations are removed
> > > because there isn't any good way to remove them? How have you helped
> > > solve the problem that is in fact quite a mystery indeed?
> >
> > This is the same stupidity that ID is based on. Some idiot can't
> > imagine something so it is impossible. Since anyone with half a brain
> > knows that science doesn't know everything, what is your excuse? This
> > is such a lame argument that you should be ashamed to put it forward.
>
> And so, if you can't present anything besides ID to explain a given
> phenomenon, what makes to think that you have to search for a non-ID
> explanation until you find one? Where in science is that a
> requirement? How long will you search before you given up and accept
> that ID might actually be a viable explanation for some things that
> humans aren't actually responsible for? How long would you wait before
> suggesting ID yourself if you saw the same person winning the
> California Lottery over and over again? It is possible - right? But
> is it likely? ; )

Name a single instance where your intelligent designer has been found
to be responsible for anything that we can study in nature and I'll
grant you that you can consider the option. 100% failure means what?
ID has never won the lottery. ID has never been a verifiable
explanation. Never means just that, never. All that has ever happened
is that ID retreats to the next untestable level. That isn't
verification that is failure. Why should ID be a viable option in
science when it has a 100% failure rate as an explanation?

>
> > > > Demonstrate that this many pregnancies are required of human females.
> > >
> > > Read the papers Ron. This estimate is not based on my calculations.
> > > Don't take my word for it. I've directly quoted several relevant
> > > sections to these papers and you still don't understand. Look again at
> > > the following quote:
> >
> > I would bother to read the papers, but it would be a waste of time
> > since I am not currently interested in that line of research.
>
> Then you have nothing to say here now do you? You haven't read the
> papers and you're not about to read them because you are not interested
> in them. Yet, somehow you feel qualified to tell me I'm wrong when I
> only present what the authors of these papers are saying themselves.

This is so brain dead that you should be embarrassed. I probably have
read more population genetics papers than you will ever read. Heck, I
majored in genetics. Why do you think that I can cut through your crap
and tell you why your bogus junk doesn't matter?

>
> >Why
> > would it be a waste of time, because it doesn't matter if I read them
> > or not. Your arguments are bogus and you know it.
>
> LOL - That's just too funny Ron. These particular arguments, arguments
> that you are calling "bogus", such as the high required birth rates,
> are not mine. The authors themselves present them.

Not funny just true. Demonstrate otherwise.

>
> > The simple reason
> > that I can say that is that you will not put forward your own junk for
> > evaluation.
>
> What?

Put your own evidence that you claim is better than the evidence for
common descent. You claim to have it, but you never put it forward for
evaluation.

>
> > The reason why you will not do this is because you know
> > that your junk is worse off than the real science that you try to
> > obfuscate and don't like.
>
> I'm putting forward what the authors themselves are saying Ron.

This is just real science that you can obfuscate and bull*** about.
What you need to do is put up the evidence that you claim that you have
that supports your beliefs that is better than the evidence that you
claim isn't good enough for common descent. Simple, but you are just
being stupid about it. It is called denial, and in cases like yours it
seems to be pathological.

>
> > Demonstrate that it is worth going to read the papers. Put up your
> > evidence for your beliefs that is as good as the evidence for common
> > descent that you claim isn't good enough.
> >
> > That is simple and direct, since you have claimed to have such
> > evidence, all you have to do is put it forward.
>
> You're one of the biggest self-deluded people here if you keep talking
> this way. You think "I don't have to read the evidence you're talking
> about because I already know that whatever you say is already wrong. No
> need to look into it any further."

Just prove it. Put up your evidence. Let's see it. Who is deluded?
Look in the mirror. Why can't you do something as simple as is being
requested? Don't you think that there is something mentally wrong with
a person such as yourself. Really reread this series of posts and
pretend that it is someone like Pagano making your lame excuses.

>
> > > "The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to
> > > deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 - e^-U
> > > (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced
> > > to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40
> > > offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant
> > > size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the
> > > actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population
> > > size is probably higher." - Nuchman, Michael W., Crowell, Susan L.,
> > > Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans, Genetics,
> > > September 2000, 156: 297-304 (
> > > http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297? )
> >
> > Bumble bees can't fly because some guy calculated that it was
> > impossible.
>
> That was for a fixed-wing model. This is an urban legend Ron.
>
> Do you actually disagree with the numbers listed by these authors? If
> so, upon what basis do you disagree?

Urban legend? What does the data say? It says that there is something
interesting that we have to figure out. It doesn't say that life is
impossible or that all species are heading to extinction. We already
know that over 99% of the species that have ever existed didn't make
it. You obviously are not looking at the average to determine what
populations or subpopulations are going to give rise to the next
species.

What does the data tell you? It tells you that no matter what you
claim the species that make it are able to get rid of the detrimental
mutations for the simple reason that we can see the evidence in their
DNA. Explain the 3:1 ratio. It is that simple. The replacement
subsitutions once existed but they were removed by some mechanism.
This is consistent across all the species that I've seen data on.

So it looks like you are claiming bumble bees can't fly when you know
that they can.

>
> > The fact is that we see bumble bees flying and we observe
> > the after effects of removal of all these detrimental mutations. How
> > do you remove them all in just the few thousand years since the ark?
> > You can't just use some lame argument if it means that your own
> > explanation is bogus.
>
> You can remove many detrimental mutations in a relatively short time.
> That's not the problem. The problem is restoring the level of maximum
> fitness in a population to the original level of maximum fitness that
> the previous generation had. That's a whole different problem. That
> problem is what creates the notion of the "Living Dead".

Restoring what? How do you know that they ever lose it? And if they
do lose it how do you know that they aren't just going to go extinct
like greater than 99% of the previous species.

>
> > > >From this calculation, the number of births per female is 2 * (e^U).
> > >
> > > When U = 3, the number of required births is 2 * (2.72^3) = ~ 40 births
> > >
> > > And, this is felt to be a very low estimate. Consider the following
> > > excerpt, which I've already referenced in my original post to this
> > > thread:
> > >
> > > "Accurate estimates of Ud for most metazoans with large genomes
> > > (e.g., vertebrates) are not yet available but extrapolations from
> > > studies of humans and Drosophila (Mukai, 1979; Kondroshov, 1988; Crow,
> > > 1993) suggest that Ud > 5 is feasible. In this case an asexual
> > > population would have to have Rbest > e5 =148, a value far beyond the
> > > physiological/ecological capabilities of most vertebrates."
> > >
> > > http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/eemb/faculty/rice/publications/pdf/40.pdf
> > >
> > > For a *sexual* population, U=5 means that the average woman would have
> > > to have over 296 pregnancies.
> > >
> > > > There is that two fold estimate again.
> > >
> > > It's not my estimate. Read the papers.
> >
> > Again, why? We observe that the mutations have been removed. What is
> > your explanation for those observations?
>
> Many detrimental mutations have been removed, but not all of them. Not
> even close. Not all detrimental mutations are "recessively lethal"
> Ron. Very small detrimental effects build up over time in a population
> in a way in which the population as a whole can survive and even grow
> and thrive for quite some time. However, all the while the total
> maximum level of fitness of this slowly reproducing population is
> declining. That is why the vast majority of a population is called,
> "The Living Dead". Only a relatively few individuals in each
> generation are as fit as the maximally fit individuals in the previous
> generation.

Not all of them because it is obviously a continuous process that is
still going on. We can observe the intermediate stages in any
population that you want to study.

Mutations happen constantly. No big whoop.

>
> < snip >
>
> > > > > You're wrong as far as the problem at hand is concerned. Selective
> > > > > breeding of only the fittest with the fittest is one way to slow down
> > > > > the decline. Random breeding or inbreeding, only speeds up the overall
> > > > > decline of a population and hastens either extinction or a dramatic
> > > > > increase in reproductive rates to overcome the problem.
> > > >
> > > > Where did you read this, cite the paper. I've never seen this
> > > > conclusion, ever. Just think for a moment, you can't
> > > > determine the fittest unless you inbreed.
> > >
> > > http://www.lifesci.ucsb.edu/eemb/faculty/rice/publications/pdf/40.pdf
> >
> > Bull***. Put up the quote. Really I'm not going to bother to go read
> > anything that you claim because it isn't worth the time. Until you can
> > demostrate that you can actually reason, why should I? Heck, I only
> > respond to your quackery when you respond to one of my posts, your
> > posts aren't even worth reading.
>
> The entire paper in the reference is about this problem Ron. If you
> won't read it, why should I bother. You've been wrong on all of your
> other challenges in this thread so far Ron. You were wrong about the
> minimum birth requirements not going into the hundreds. You also
> called that number "BS" if I recall. Just read the paper Ron. It isn't
> that long of a paper or all that difficult to read.

The entire paper. Gee, you know what that means, it means that if I
tilt my monitor at the right angle and read it with the right rose
colored glasses I might get the same meaning out of the paper that you
do.

I stand by my statement that I have never seen such a conclusion in a
genetics paper on this topic.

>
> I've never seen someone who claims to be a scientist argue that someone
> else is wrong about what a paper says while refusing to actually read
> the paper in question.

Because I know how mentally incompetent you are. No one should trust
anything that you conclude from a paper. Look at how you avoid
demonstrating that you can be rational. Why not present your evidence
for your beliefs? If you really had some, you would present it.
Pretendiing like you are is just pathological.

>
> > What is your evidence for your beliefs and why is that bogus evidence
> > better than what science has? If you can't do that why should anyone
> > listen to you?
>
> I've just given you the reference Ron - a reference to a real article
> in a real scientific journal. What more can I do if you won't read it?

You know what I am talking about. The evidence for your beliefs that
you claim is better than the evidence for common descent that you claim
isn't good enough. You know, evidence for your version of what
happened. This act is just pathetic.

>
>
> "You can take a horse to water . . . "

If you only understood what you write yourself.

>
> > > > > I don't shrug such numbers off. There certainly are far less specified
> > > > > functions in low level sequence space. Some functions may have ratios
> > > > > as low as 1 in 5 or 1 in 2 or even 1 in 1. However, these are not what
> > > > > I would call "fairly specified" functions. And, there certainly are
> > > > > functions that do indeed show ratios lower than 1 in 1e30 per 100aa.
> > > > > That's the whole point. This level of minimum functional complexity is
> > > > > much higher than the levels you are talking about - which are even
> > > > > easier to evolve.
> > > >
> > > > What is unspecified about new enzymatic function? Demonstrate that the
> > > > functions that you are interested in are more "specified" than the
> > > > antibody functions. You are out of the ball park by 18 orders of
> > > > magnitude and you still claim that you can make viable conclusions?
> > > > How?
> > >
> > > You need to read the papers by Sauer et al., which I've referenced
> > > several times recently in this forum, which describe protein-based
> > > functions with ratios as low as 1 in 1e62 per 100aa. Estimated ratios
> > > for other types of protein-based functions, like cytochrome c are at
> > > least as low as 1 in 1e30 per 100aa (most recent Yockey estimate).
> > >
> > > John F. Reidhaar-Olson and Robert T. Sauer, "Functionally Acceptable
> > > Substitutions in Two [alpha]- helical Regions of [lambda] Repressor,"
> > > Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics, 7:315, 1990 p. 315
> >
> > Who the heck cares? No matter what, you stil have to figure out how
> > antibodies work if these guys estimates mean anything.
>
> They only work at low levels of functional complexity.

Define low levels and differentiate them from what you claim to be high
levels. What is low level about specific binding of an antigen. Is it
the number of amino acids involved. The antigenic residues can be
spread across the surface of the antigen, they don't have to be
consecuative. The number of antibody residues that interact with the
antigen is probably just as high as any enzymatic function.

>
> > Really, we have
> > reality and it conflicts with these estimates, what would you go with,
> > your bogus inferences from these estimates or reality? How do
> > antibodies work if they only have a maximum of 10e12 sequences tested?
> > Why should anyone believe what you claim about some 10e62 claim when it
> > seems to be 50 orders of magnitude wrong?
>
> The functions that these antibody tests have discovered have all been
> lower level functions having much higher ratios in sequence space.
> None of these discovered functions have been of the types discussed in
> the papers written by Yockey and Sauer. If you think this is wrong,
> why hasn't anyone challenged the estimates of Yockey and Sauer in the
> literature? If you think this is wrong, then please do provide your
> own references.

You keep repeating that, but I haven't seen you demonstrate that "lower
level" is any different from "higher level." Make the distinction or
admit that you can't.

>
> > > > > > That you try and
> > > > > > shrug it off is just a reflection on your boneheaded willful ignorance
> > > > > > on this subject. Somehow you have to get your estimate to reflect
> > > > > > reality. 18 orders of magnitude off isn't a number to sneaze at. Your
> > > > > > above bogus arguement about detrimental mutations depends on estimates
> > > > > > that could be two fold off, that isn't even 1 order of magnitude. Why
> > > > > > do you think that you are onto something when you are still so far out
> > > > > > of the ball park on this bogus estimate?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not out of the ballpark at all. There are functions that do indeed
> > > > > require such higher levels of specificity as well as sequence sizes
> > > > > that go into the thousands of residues - all of which are specified to
> > > > > at least 1 in 1e30 per 100aa.
> > > >
> > > > What are they? Demonstrate that they exist.
> > >
> > > "Extrapolating to the rest of the protein indicates that there should
> > > be about 10^57 different allowed sequences for the entire 92-residue
> > > domain. Clearly, this is an extraordinarily rough calculation, and we
> > > do not intend to suggest that we can accurately determine how many
> > > sequences would actually adopt a structure resempling the N-terminal
> > > domain of [lambda] repressor. However, the calculation does indicate in
> > > a qualitative way the tremendous degeneracy in the information that
> > > specifies a particular protein fold."~John F. Reidhaar-Olson and Robert
> > > T. Sauer, "Functionally Acceptable Substitutions in Two [alpha]-
> > > helical Regions of [lambda] Repressor," Proteins: Structure, Function,
> > > and Genetics, 7:315, 1990 p. 315
> >
> > This just claims that there is a 92 residue domain involved, but it
> > also claims that their estimate is that 10^57 sequences will do the
> > same function just in that limitation, what about a different protein
> > or a dimer or tetramer?
>
> A dimer or tetramer having more than 92 residues would not produce the
> same ratio. The authors themselves quote Yockey as supporting their
> estimate for about 1 in 1e62 sequences with this particular type of
> function in all of sequence space for 92aa proteins.

So what. Who says that you can't get the same function using two
peptides, or a larger protein? You are still orders of magnitude off
and you can't deal with it. Just look at your other junk, you claim
that a 2 fold difference is significant and you can't explain 18 orders
of magnitude, but you still claim that you must be right. How bogus is
that?

>
> > What do you think "degeneracy" means in terms
> > of the antibody example? What about matching another DNA sequence that
> > would have worked just as well as a repressor site? How many of those
> > are around if they all have around a 10^57 degeneracy for proteins that
> > would interact with them?
>
> That doesn't matter. What matters is the ratio for this particular
> function.

Who cares? Explain how antibodies work. What is that ratio?

>
> Read the papers Ron. You'll be better off.

Deal with reality and you'd be better off. Got any evidence that you
can deal with this topic rationally? I've never seen any. Present the
evidence that you have been pathetically dodging. Evaluate it with the
same level of scrutiny and what do you come up with?

I don't have to read these genetics papers to tell that you are just a
mental case, that should get some help. Really, just get someone that
you trust to walk you through your denial, and inablitity to deal with
reality. Either that or put up your evidence and show us how good it
is compared to the science that you don't like. Why do you think that
you have to dodge presenting the evidence that you claim that you have?
I didn't make the claim, you did. You said that you had evidence that
was better than the evidence for common descent that you claimed isn't
good enough. So what is your idea of what happened and what is the
evidence backing it up?

This so simple that even you should be able to do it, so why do you
avoid doing it?

Get some help. I only respond to your posts if you respond to one of
mine. You know that I don't chase you around the net. I think that
you have a problem. I can't help you deal with it. Someone that you
trust has to help you.

Ron Okimoto

>
> < snip more personal comments >
>
> > Ron Okimoto
>
> Sean Pitman
> www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Loading