"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

robindch wrote: »

and he's abandoned his discredited work in mathemagics .

And now I've another fake field I want to be an expert in.

robindch wrote: »

he's abandoned his discredited work in mathemagics

Calling that huckster a mathemagician seriously discredits the work of
mathemagicians like Arthur Benjamin

J C wrote: »

I have repeatedly pointed out that whether the Abiogenesis of an organism from 'simple chemicals' occurs in one step ot a million steps the probabilities remain the same ... and they are statistical impossibilities!!!
.

JC do you actually know how a mathematical proof works?

Cause showing one big number that that you've pulled out of your ass is bigger than another number you've pulled out of your ass is not "proof".
And it certainly isn't a proof when you've been shown to use all the wrong numbers and shown you can't grasp junior cert level science or maths.

And unless you actually have proof (which you don't because you are a liar) then you cannot say something is an impossibility.
Unless you're ok with lying, which you obviously are.

5uspect wrote: »

Of course bioinformatics is really just statistical analysis so it doesn't really matter if you accept evolution or ID. The stats are the stats.

The stats are the stats ... but the key issue is how one interprets them.

Some claim they show how the impossible can happen ... Creation Scientists stick with the possible!!

J C wrote: »

The stats are the stats ... but the key issue is how one interprets them.

Some claim they show how the impossible can happen ... Creation Scientists stick with the possible!!

Yes, it is how you interpret them. This is the fundamental hucksterishness of
creationists - they interpret everything in accord with their preconceived
beliefs. You know your trade well...

robindch wrote: »

JC said that he's learned all he knews from "Bioinformatics [...] from the ID 'side of the house'".

This almost certainly means that he's acquired what he knows from a christian fundamentalist numerologist named William Dembski who was at the forefront of the ID crusade up to the point at which it was holed and sunk in the Dover trial. Following that, the ID movement, the infamous Wedge Strategy and creationism in general has been in decline. Dembski's ID Lab was closed, I think in 2006, and he's abandoned his discredited work in mathemagics and is now working as a "research professor in philosophy" in a minor religious outfit somewhere in the bible belt.

Dembski's ramblings can be viewed at his website and he uses neither software nor hardware to demonstrate anything, since (a) it may well not be able to demonstrate what his financial backers want him to demonstrate and (b) his arguments are consequently expressed in pseudo-mathematical language only. Where these have any discernible meaning at all, they have been comprehensively disproven.

William Dembski is indeed an amazing man. According to your Wiki link, Prof. Dembski has pursued multiple degrees as follows:-
BA psychology (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1981)
MS statistics (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1983)
SM mathematics (University of Chicago, 1985)
PhD mathematics (University of Chicago, 1988)
MA philosophy (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1993)
MDiv theology (Princeton Theological Seminary, 1996)
PhD philosophy (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1996).

He is now a research professor of philosophy at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary at Fort Worth, Texas, and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture ... which puts him in the 'top flight' of the Intelligent Design Movement worldwide.

J C wrote: »

He is now a research professor of philosophy at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary at Fort Worth, Texas, and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture ... which puts him in the 'top flight' of the Intelligent Design Movement worldwide.

Which in turn puts him just over Holocaust deniers and geo-centrists in terms of over all credibility, intelligence and honesty.

J C wrote: »

... I hope that your scientific judgement is better than your erroneous judgement of my academic credentials!!!:(

Once again, I only can hope that your scientific judgement is somewhat better that your erroneous judgement of my academic credentials.

Well since you refuse to tell us exactly what those supposed credentials are (of course that is your right to refuse) and since you demonstrate complete ignorance of even the basic principles of science (in particular biology), mathematics and statistics, we can only assume that these academic credentials are as imaginary as your friend in the sky.

Even if you do not wish to reveal your identity, you could at least name one academic discipline in which you have published a peer reviewed article (answers in genesis, or other such waffle does not count). Which journals have you published in?
You could tell us what course you have taken at advanced levels of biology/physics/chemistry/biochemistry/mathematics/statistics. That would not reveal your identity. Moreover, it would establish some common ground from which a genuine debate can proceed (rather than the smart ass comments of which you are so fond).

If for example you say that you have studied probability theory to an advanced level, that will help the debate in that we could assume that you understand the basic principles of probability and would be familiar with such concepts as probability spaces, distributions etc. You could then try to argue constructively that your so called mathematical ideas actually have some connection to genuine probability theory. On the other hand, since you offer no evidence of you supposed credentials and your mathematical ramblings are completely incoherent and illogical, you are indistinguishable from the many other unqualified cranks who claim to have made some astounding discovery but actually have nothing to back up their claims.

The same goes for your supposed credentials in other areas. How can anyone take your biological ramblings seriously when you have no evidence to support them, and we have no evidence that you have even a basic understanding of the principles of biology?

So J C, what are these credentials that you claim. Do you have a PhD or an M.Sc? If so, in what discipline?

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

And so it begins...

"So the calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino
acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is
(1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly,
mind-beggaringly improbable. This is then cranked up by adding on the
probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes until a figure is
reached that is so huge that merely contemplating it causes your brain to
dribble out your ears. This gives the impression that the formation of even
the smallest organism seems totally impossible. However, this is
completely incorrect."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

This is what JC is doing here:

This isn't what I am doing ... I am asking how it is proposed by Evolutionists that Materialistic processes 'searched' the combinatorial space of protein biomolecules to produce millions of specific functional biomolecules in specific functional relationships in each living organism ... when searching the combinatorial space to produce the sequence for just one small specific functional protein couldn't be done even using all of the matter and time in the Big Bang Universe.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

"Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function
of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random."

So you're problem lies with chemistry it seems as well.

... this isn't how proteins are formed ... they are produced under the direction of the cell's DNA and their specific sequence of Amino Acids is specified by the said DNA. So the problem for Materialists is to explain the production of the specific information in the DNA for the production of the specific amino acid sequence that provides the required functionality to the protein ... when the non-functional combinatorial space is effectively infinite.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

"Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler,
not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria ... but one or more simple
molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple
molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating
systems, then finally into simple organisms [2, 5, 10, 15, 28]. An
illustration comparing a hypothetical protobiont and a modern bacteria
is given below."

My proof doesn't concern itself with abiogenesis ... it looks at the multiple new functional proteins required at all of supposed stages in the evolution of Pondkind to Mankind ... and it asks the question as to how all of these functional proteins could be produced as and when they were 'needed' ... when the materialistic production of just one specific protein is a mathematical impossibility.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This is the answer to your bull**** about "the probability". There is no
probability, it's called chemistry, biochemistry, thermodynamics and
labratory experiments to back up your claims.
.

It's no more 'chemistry' than making a computer and running a computer programme on it, is 'electronics'.
Yes, the computer does involve electronics ... but the reason that it performs its specific functionality is due to the information encoded in its programme.
Similarly, living organisms use 'chemistry' ... but the reason that their biochemical systems perform their specific functionality is due to the information encoded in its DNA.

J C wrote: »

This isn't what I am doing ... I am asking how it is proposed by Evolutionists that Materialistic processes 'searched' the combinatorial space of protein biomolecules to produce millions of specific functional biomolecules in specific functional relationships in each living organism ... when searching the combinatorial space to produce the sequence for just one small specific functional protein couldn't be done even using all of the matter and time in the Big Bang Universe.

Again, I refer you to the video describing how this happens:



This time actually watch the video from the start to the end and also
read the stuff I've quoted from the link above in blue & you'll see that
all this talk of combinatorial space is meaningless. You are actually
spouting drivel, honestly. This question has been answered already.

I guess you didn't understand the big words in the video because you're
background in ID bio-bla-bla didn't teach you anything.

I'll explain the video by referencing times to what's going on to explain to
you why your talk of combinatorial spaces makes you look ridiculous.

01:26 - 4 arguments by creationists:
01:31 - Spontaneous generation of life in 1668 J C,
01:37 - Spontaneous generation of life in 1765 J C,
01:41 - Spontaneous generation of life in 1859 J C,
Were these 3 men creationists?

01:50 Argument about probabilities
Your argument is that complex life couldn't be formed - and nobody has
claimed compliex life did form back then.

02:59 The early earth was filled with organic molecules, this work is
based off a ****load of work too. Basically the fact that all of these
organic molecules were available tears apart your high probability.
Why? Well what are the chances of forming molecules when none of
the material to make molecules is around? Really high probability like
you say. What are the chances of making molecules when all of the
material is abundantly present? Really good. So, you talking about


"when searching the combinatorial space to produce the sequence for just one small specific functional protein couldn't be done"

is actually meaningless because all of the material is there to be
combined into any sequence. But remember there are forces
acting on what sequence forms, you can't join 10 hydrogen atoms
to one carbon, these kinds fo restraints act, but continue:

If a protein is made of 30 polymers (monomer chains), it's not that
complex. Now, if you have 2 Billion years a 30-polymer protein
chain, by normal genetic processes will build up and complexify,
this is the claim J C, simple to complex. This is what the thoery says,
further if you watch the video you'll see that they specifically say that
ALL KINDS of molecules could form, the polymer chains can be in any
form, ANYTHING! Then the claim is byu natural selection, that process
"everybody agrees on", in your words, takes over and selects the
good self-replicating molecules. Notice this self-replication is
driven by thermodynamics, it's unconscious.

03:22 Cells seperate from their environment by a phospholipid bilayer (wall).
If you don't understand this it means that carbon and hydrogen
atoms link, by chemical bonds, together & due to polar interactions,
which means electric charge is one-sided, molecules like water will
be attracted to the outer layer of the cell but the inner layer of the
cell actually repulses, by electric charge, molecules from seeping in.
The claim is modern ones are complex, in the early earth with
more elementary cell walls formed. Modern ones are so strong proteins
are needed to allow transport, but early cell walls were so elementary
that certain molecules could just fall in due to what I'll explain next.

04:00 These cell walls, under certain pH environments will become weaker
than normal, i.e. some pH's cause the cell walls to become slightly
permeable i.e. small molecules seep in. Think about it, certain things
dissolve in stomach acid which is pH around 2, it doesn't dissolve in
the air, around pH 7. It's gradual.

04:12 Okay, so the cell wall is made of nothing but hydrogen and
oxygen locked in simple chemical bonds, these are called fatty
acids. The claim is the cell wall/vesicle will, by basic chemical forces
incorporate stray fatty acids into the wall to enlarge it, this is growth!
Thermodynamics, meaning certain pH environments allow the cell wall
to attract more molecules - enlarging it!

04:27 Different shapes can form, the wall length grows faster than the
volume inside it meaning a hell of a lot of fatty acids are present. The cell
wall can break due to the environment, i.e. moving in an ocean and hitting
a rock, causing the cell to split into mini cells. The contents will not be
lost because strong chemical forces will cause the wall to reform quickly.

To recap so far, all we have is hyrogen and carbon atoms forming basic
bonds and due to the beautiful interaction known as polarity we can
form a circular ring with the water loving end of the molecule on the
outside of the cell, the water loving part directed inward. If you
have two of these you can form a ring, like the picture:



04:53 Now the internal material is explained. Here is another place your
ridiculous claims are shown to be hucksterish, your claim is:

"when searching the combinatorial space to produce the sequence for just one small specific functional protein couldn't be done"

but the video, based off a harvard professors work, shows that based off
the early earths environment there were hundreds of nucleotides.
This could have included DNA, RNA, anything.

"A nucleotide is composed of a nucleobase (nitrogenous base), a
five-carbon sugar (either ribose or 2'-deoxyribose), and one to three
phosphate groups."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide

Talk about complex! Well these complex molecules can self-polymerize,
this means that the can form more complex chains. Well the nucleotide
I quoted above is complex! The early earth couldn't have had that!
Read on!

05:10 recent experiments show this self-polymerization for complex
molecules!

05:18
A monomer (from Greek mono "one" and meros "part") is an atom or
a small molecule that may bind chemically to other monomers to form
a polymer.

Hydrogen bonds, which is due to polarity - i.e. nuclear forces being
one-sided - cause monomers to join together.

05:32, what's this, no special sequence??? :eek: It's just chemistry! :eek:
We have self replicating molecules made out of carbon and oxygen,
how is it life?

To make sure we're on the right page, first we described how cell walls,
i.e. vesicles can form from fatty acid chains which are nothing but
hydrogen and oxygen joined by atomic forces. Because of one-sided
forces we can form a circular shape blocking out lots of molecules.
Certain pH environments allow some odd molecules to pass through.

Then we described chains of monomers which are simple atoms of anything
joining together in random sequences.

Now for the fun part!

05:53 Only small atoms or molecules can pass in, not big ones!
Once a lot pass inside they can join together and form sequences.
Inside they are trapped due to size!

06:07 In oceans etc... movement of these things away from heat sources
allows the insides to work it's magic.

06:43 Inside the cell, ions cause osmotic pressure to increase, i.e. the
cell pushes outwardsp/url] to stop internal flow.
This push gives the cell with more internal structure strength to
withstand another molecule stealing outer fatty acids, however this
cell with all the pressure working will steal the fatty acids of another
cell.

---

The rest should now be intelligible. Nothing special is required, no such
thing as probabilities are required to explain this.

Early genomes were completely random & contained no genetic information.
Because they could replicate and divide without caring what was inside is
the reason they are around.

Oh, and because of this explanation, any cell with more insides basically
had a "natural" advatage to "eat" it's neighbours thereby feuling the need
for more and more internal structure - intelligent sequencing or no
intelligent sequencing.

The rest of your argument is answered by all of this.

So, there is no need for "intelligent" sequences inside the cell because
reproduction and natural selection are driven by things like how much
internal polymers there are, not by what the sequence is. From these
sequences you can have many internal subsequences etc... all this
crazy stuff going on from here, but the point is that even though the sequences are totally random we still have reproducing cells that
naturally compete.

We have a billion years or so to work with completely random sequences
before the origin or eukarya J C, all this has yet to come.

J C wrote: »

I have never seen so many just so stories and a few Creationist 'strawmen' thrown in for good measure!!!

... in any event, this video is all about abiogenesis ... whereas a my proof is about the inability of materialistic processes to evolve the Complex Functional Specified Information found in the amino acid sequence of proteins!!!

But you've denied abiogenesis in this thread. Do you now accept it?

You started off criticizing natural selection and evolution.
Then we got you to admit you accept natural selection.
Funnier still was the fact that you're whole argument rests on microevolution.
Even now when you claim "whereas a my proof is about the inability of
materialistic processes to evolve the Complex Functional Specified
Information found in the amino acid sequence of proteins in so-called
'higher organisms' like Mammals!!!", this is the concept of microevolution,
again you're criticizing the thing you told us was what you accept
I mean you're such a joke, can't stop chaning your mind, trying to
deceitfully cover up all the lies - where does it end? J C your god will
never forget the fact you've been lying to us all this time.

Now, if you deny abiogenesis you deny everything I wrote which means
you deny chemistry J C, you deny basic chemistry. :pac:

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

You started off criticizing natural selection and evolution.
Then we got you to admit you accept natural selection.
Funnier still was the fact that you're whole argument rests on microevolution.
Even now when you claim "whereas a my proof is about the inability of
materialistic processes to evolve the Complex Functional Specified
Information found in the amino acid sequence of proteins in so-called
'higher organisms' like Mammals!!!", this is the concept of microevolution,
again you're criticizing the thing you told us was what you accept
I mean you're such a joke, can't stop chaning your mind, trying to
deceitfully cover up all the lies - where does it end? J C your god will
never forget the fact you've been lying to us all this time.

Now, if you deny abiogenesis you deny everything I wrote which means
you deny chemistry J C, you deny basic chemistry. :pac:

... more evasion of the central issue ... the origin of the CFSI ... as distinct from its selection or recombination!!!

For the Nth time let me repeat that I accept that Natural Selection occurs ... but I don't accept that a selection process can account for the CFSI that it is selecting from.

... and my mathematical proof ... proves that the production of CFSI by non-intelligent methods is a mathematical impossibility.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

By the way, everything I wrote about abiogenesis disproves your
joke-proof but I feel dirty for even considering it because it's so
stupid, I mean the whole idea just reeks of brain rot. I'm surprised anyone
over the age of 5 would consider it & I truly feel dirty for indulging

I would suggest that you go and confess your 'dirty little Evolutionist sin' to your nearest Evolutionist 'High Priest'.:D

Morbert wrote: »

Natural selection accounts for increase in biological information.

Please tell me how this works?