Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Options
Comments
-
Originally Posted by J C
... not exactly forever, in the case of HELLO a random system would take 456,976 attempts on average. However, you are correct that with biomolecules above a chain length of about 60 Amino Acids, with a combinatorial space of 10^79 it would effectively take forever!!!
Morbert
Not with selection pressures.
Random mutations will never produce a specific functional sequence ... because the combinatorial space is so vast as to make it a mathematical impossibility. Mutations can degrade existing CFSI ... and in the process they can produce some unusual phenomena ... but they can never produce CFSI, in the first place.Originally Posted by J C
Such an overview system that is 'aiming' for a pre-determined word would always be intelligently designed ... why would a non-intelligently directed system select for the 'O' in HELLO in a meaningless i.e. non-functional word like 'EROIO ... and continue to select for and 'preserve' it through other equally meaningless i.e. non-functional words like DFVDO, SDVDO, ... etc.
The same problem exists with intermediate sequences between functional proteins ... they lose all functionality ... and there is no 'yellow brick road' of increasing functionality for NS to 'follow' between functional proteins.
Morbert
Functionality is not lost in biological systems, even if it lost in the English language. The biological EROIO is more functional than, say, EROII. You have been corrected on this before.
If you doubt me try 'moving' from the sentence 'Creation rocks!!!'... to 'Evolution is a load of baloney' changing one letter randomly at a time ... and see how long it takes you!!!Originally Posted by J C
As an intelligent agent you can determine, in advance what you want ... and you can intelligently design a sytem to produce it ... or you could simply write the word HELLO in the first place ... and save yourself a lot of bother writing a computer programme to do so.
When it comes to Materialistic Evolution there is no intelligence at work ... and such a system doesn't 'know' what it wants ... and it is therefore is never going to get it due to the enormity of the combinatorial spaces involved!!
Morbert
The bit in bold is irrelevant. The bit in italics is wrong.
Materialistic Evolution cannot efficiently 'search' the combinatorial space of biomolecules ... because random mutations cannot produce functionality for NS to select.Originally Posted by J C
The problem is that your hypothesis only works with an intelligent input ... and my maths proves that even billions of years will not make any difference for a non-intelligent system ... such is the vastness of the non-functional combinatorial space that is involved with even a simple biomolecule.
Morbert
Your math does not prove this. It assumes functionality is lost with all mutations, which is untrue.
... and even more to the point, mutation cannot produce specific functional biomolecules ... because the non-functional combinatorial space is simply so vast that it would defeat the 'searching out specific functional biomolecules because the combinatorial space is this vast:-
If every cubic millimetre of the volume of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively would only produce 1.56E+107 permutations in the 13.9 billion years supposedly since the Big Bang ... which is an infinitesimally small fraction of the 1.27E+130 permutations of amino acids in a 100 chain protein.
So you can forget about ever producing even one small specific protein for a specific function, using non-intelligently directed processes ... there is simply not enough time or matter in the universe to do so.0 -
Whenever Sponsoredwalk is schooling J C i cant help but think of this....:Dhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvvwNR3vF440
-
If you doubt me try 'moving' from the sentence 'Creation rocks!!!'... to 'Evolution is a load of baloney' changing one letter randomly at a time ... and see how long it takes you!!!
Creation rocks
greation rocks
Creation rocks
dreation rocks
sreation rocks
ereation rocks
eseation rocks
egeation rocks
exeation rocks
egeation rocks
exeation rocks
eqeation rocks
ejeation rocks
eveation rocks
Do we really need to waste all this time? I've already done this J C,
remember the environment is intelligently selecting what is beneficial
and what is not beneficial. Nature is intelligent.
It seems J C is no christian at all but simply a deist :rolleyes:0 -
sponsoredwalk wrote: »Creation rocks
greation rocks
Creation rocks
dreation rocks
sreation rocks
ereation rocks
eseation rocks
egeation rocks
exeation rocks
egeation rocks
exeation rocks
eqeation rocks
ejeation rocks
eveation rocks
Do we really need to waste all this time? I've already done this J C,
remember the environment is intelligently selecting what is beneficial
and what is not beneficial. Nature is intelligent.
It seems J C is no christian at all but simply a deist :rolleyes:0 -
... the problem isn't with selection ... the problem is producing anything to select!!
Random mutations will never produce a specific functional sequence ... because the combinatorial space is so vast as to make it a mathematical impossibility. Mutations can degrade existing CFSI ... and in the process they can produce some unusual phenomena ... but they can never produce CFSI, in the first place.
Of course, functionality is lost in biological systems ... and for the same reason that it is lost in the English language ... when random changes are made to words ... because both genes and words are carriers of information ... and all functional information degrades when random changes are made to it!!!
If you doubt me try 'moving' from the sentence 'Creation rocks!!!'... to 'Evolution is a load of baloney' changing one letter randomly at a time ... and see how long it takes you!!!
Intelligent agents can overcome combinatorial space by making organised co-ordinated choices ... random systems can do nothing other than 'blindly' search the combinatorial space for an eternity ... producing no specific fuinctionality, as it does so!!
Materialistic Evolution cannot efficiently 'search' the combinatorial space of biomolecules ... because random mutations cannot produce functionality for NS to select.
Of course functionality is lost with mutagenesis ... why are Evolutionists so (sensibly) reticent about undergoing mutagenesis???
All this is wrong because mutations can increase biological information, and selection pressures will guide mutation patterns through the space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation... and even more to the point, mutation cannot produce specific functional biomolecules ... because the non-functional combinatorial space is simply so vast that it would defeat the 'searching out specific functional biomolecules because the combinatorial space is this vast:-
If every cubic millimetre of the volume of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe had a 'machine' running the permutations for a 100 chain protein once every second, they collectively would only produce 1.56E+107 permutations in the 13.9 billion years supposedly since the Big Bang ... which is an infinitesimally small fraction of the 1.27E+130 permutations of amino acids in a 100 chain protein.
So you can forget about ever producing even one small specific protein for a specific function, using non-intelligently directed processes ... there is simply not enough time or matter in the universe to do so.
The bit in bold is irrelevant. The bit in italics is wrong; there is no proof for your assertion.0 -
Advertisement
-
... you're cheating by 'retaining' the 'e' and the 'v' at the beginning ... random mutagenesis is also just as likely to 'mutate' the 'e' and the 'v' as they are to mutate any of the letters in the other positions in the series.
Those mutations would be deleterious, and would be removed from the population by selection pressures. Often these perssures are too strong, and populations cannot evolve rapidly enough, which is why most biological systems are extinct today.
But not always.0 -
All this is wrong because mutations can increase biological information, and selection pressures will guide mutation patterns through the space.The bit in bold is irrelevant. The bit in italics is wrong; there is no proof for your assertion.
... and why is a combinatorial space of 10^130 irrelevant ... if you are arguing that a random process produced the functionality that NS selects?0 -
Those mutations would be deleterious, and would be removed from the population by selection pressures. Often these perssures are too strong, and populations cannot evolve rapidly enough, which is why most biological systems are extinct today.
But not always.0 -
... you're cheating by 'retaining' the 'e' and the 'v' at the beginning ... random mutagenesis is also just as likely to 'mutate' the 'e' and the 'v' as they are to mutate any of the letters in the other positions in the series.
I have to break it down in baby steps, again You're either mentally
incapable of abstraction or just in total denial, I really don't know which it is.
Creation rocks
greation rocks
ireation rocks
(These all have plenty of children, greation rocks has 10 children,
ireation rocks has 4, these genes are not harmful).
dreation rocks
sreation rocks
ereation rocks
eseation rocks
egeation rocks
exeation rocks
Each particular exeation rocks has 10 daughter " exeation rocks", okay, in
1 generation it has 10 children. 9 of them live normal, one of them
actually mutate the red e hxeation rocks. :eek: This one does not have
the environmental advantage anymore!! It may survive and
have children but because of the competition it may not! Anyway,
the rest of the chain comes from any of the other 9 children,
egeation rocks
exeation rocks
Okay, after two generations this last " exeation rocks" has 7 children:
2 of it's children produce "exeatikn rocks", "exeTation rocks"
and two just die because the code messed up. 3 Children with
"eqeation rocks" are left to pass " eqeation rocks" on through the
generations. Oh, and remember that every previous generation has
plenty of children containing "eqeation rocks" as well.
eqeation rocks
ejeation rocks
eveation rocks
Woah! :eek: Now after 3 more generations, where each generation had
plenty of children made of "exeation rocks" another one mutated with
something good because the environment selects "eveation rocks".
If this one has plenty of children they all have an advantage, if this
one dies before having children or doesn't etc... then this gene
dissappears.0 -
sponsoredwalk wrote: »I have to break it down in baby steps, again You're either mentally incapable of abstraction or just in total denial, I really don't know which it is.
See here.0 -
Advertisement
-
Every random change to CFSI is deleterious ... and it will soon result in reduced functionality ... and it will therefore be selected against!!
Your own theory contradicts that :rolleyes:
You hold that evolution can happen on a rapid time line but only with mutation combinations that God already decided (which you call pre-existing :rolleyes:)
So a random mutation could cause the same mutation you claim would come from God. So not every random mutation is deleterious since a random mutation could stumble upon one of these pre-existing combinations. That is a lie based on your own theory.
Well done JC for once again contradicting yourself. You astound us with your ability to make nonsense up on the spot not realizing that it contradicts the other nonsense you have already said. Almost as if all of it was made up0 -
Step 1: Admit that mutation produces things for nature to "select" but insist that because nature is not intelligent it cannot select the "good" mutations and works no better than a random process. Essentially admit to the existence of mutation but deny the effectiveness of natural selection. Exhibit A:When it comes to Materialistic Evolution there is no intelligence at work ... and such a system doesn't 'know' what it wants ... and it is therefore is never going to get it due to the enormity of the combinatorial spaces involved!!
Step 2: When step 1 is thoroughly debunked, i.e when it is unequivocally shown that natural selection works just fine without intelligent guidance, insist that there is nothing for it to select. Essentially admit to the effectiveness of natural selection but deny the existence of mutation. Exhibit B:... with nothing to select ... selection pressures can guide nothing
Step 3: Never, but never, admit to the existence and effectiveness of both components of evolution simultaneously. Only ever admit to one at a time (when backed into a corner) and then immediately switch to talking about the other, and hope to your non-existent god that no one notices that you've conceded your entire argument. Unfortunately for J C we're not mentally retarded.0 -
... with nothing to select ... selection pressures can guide nothing
Mutations are selected.Never mind the empty phrases ... please tell us WHY it is wrong?
I did.Morbert wrote:The bit in italics is wrong; there is no proof for your assertion.... and why is a combinatorial space of 10^130 irrelevant ... if you are arguing that a random process produced the functionality that NS selects?
Because it has nothing to do with the natural selection of beneficial mutations.Every random change to CFSI is deleterious ... and it will soon result in reduced functionality ... and it will therefore be selected against!!
Not every random change to biological information is deleterious.0 -
The problem faced by proponents of Evolution isn't the selection mechanism (everybody accepts that NS is capable of selection)For the Nth time let me repeat that I accept that Natural Selection occurs ...
He admits natural selection occurs, i.e. nature chooses in the way
I went through here:sponsoredwalk wrote: »
greation rocks
ireation rocks
(These all have plenty of children, greation rocks has 10 children,
ireation rocks has 4, these genes are not harmful).
dreation rocks
sreation rocks
ereation rocks
eseation rocks
egeation rocks
exeation rocks
Each particular exeation rocks has 10 daughter " exeation rocks", okay, in
1 generation it has 10 children. 9 of them live normal, one of them
actually mutate the red e hxeation rocks. This one does not have
the environmental advantage anymore!! It may survive and
have children but because of the competition it may not! Anyway,
the rest of the chain comes from any of the other 9 children,
egeation rocks
exeation rocks
Okay, after two generations this last " exeation rocks" has 7 children:
2 of it's children produce " exeatikn rocks", "exeTation rocks"
and two just die because the code messed up. 3 Children with
"eqeation rocks" are left to pass " eqeation rocks" on through the
generations. Oh, and remember that every previous generation has
plenty of children containing "eqeation rocks" as well.
eqeation rocks
ejeation rocks
eveation rocks
Woah! Now after 3 more generations, where each generation had
plenty of children made of "exeation rocks" another one mutated with
something good because the environment selects "eveation rocks".
If this one has plenty of children they all have an advantage, if this
one dies before having children or doesn't etc... then this gene
dissappears.
But he doesn't accept evolution because0 -
... with nothing to select ... selection pressures can guide nothing
Never mind the empty phrases ... please tell us WHY it is wrong?
... and why is a combinatorial space of 10^130 irrelevant ... if you are arguing that a random process produced the functionality that NS selects?
J C we have told you so many times what is wrong with this eqaution....:mad:
To begin with you are still using the diameter of the universe and have not (DESPITE BEING ASKED BY FLUFFYBUMS) changed this figure in your so called proof.... Also your proof does not take into account the laws of chemistry, biochemistry,thermodynamics.
the fact that you have not changed your proof to include these factors is not really surprising....(obviously you have just copied and pasted this proof from somewhere else and are not able to change the figures....:D)
Also J C are you forgetting about Richard Lenski's experiment....
If your so called proof (AND OVERALL UNDERSTANDING OF EVOLUTION) is correct then nothing ever should have happened to those E. coli EXCEPT AS YOU SAY....A REDUCTION IN FUNCTIONALITY....?
But thats not what happened J C is it now........how does your proof explain the definite increase in the E. coli functionality.....How does your proof explain how two mutations on the own useless but together enabled the E. coli to process citrate...?
J C you said above mutations are a random process but NOBODY HERE IS SAYING THAT0 -
And exhibit C: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.
Admit that natural selection exists but provide a "proof" against production of "CFSI" that does not take account of natural selection in any way whatsoever. Never ever acknowledge that admitting the existence of natural selection should in some way invalidate a calculation that assumes pure randomness.
Ah the intellectual bankruptcy of the creationist mind0 -
Who the hell would honestly use a snail in a proof......0
-
And exhibit C:
Admit that natural selection exists but provide a "proof" against production of "CFSI" that does not take account of natural selection in any way whatsoever. Never ever acknowledge that admitting the existence of natural selection should in some way invalidate a calculation that assumes pure randomness.
Ah the intellectual bankruptcy of the creationist mind
J C please reiterate your proof taking into account natural selection....like the good man said;)0 -
J C please reiterate your proof taking into account natural selection....like the good man said;)
The selection component (NS) can select ... but with no practical hope of random mutation ever producing, even one specific functional biomolecule, NS will have nothing to select from in a Materialistic Evolutionist 'world'.
The actual reason that NS has so much genetic variety to select from is because of the diversity of CFSI that was infused into all of the original genomes at Creation.0 -
J C you said above mutations are a random process but NOBODY HERE IS SAYING THATThe natural selection of random genetic mutations can give rise to specific proteins for specific functions.0
-
Advertisement
-
The supposed 'production' component of Evolution (mutation) is random ... and therefore the proof figures are applicable to it.
The selection component (NS) can select ... but with no practical hope of random mutation ever producing, even one specific functional biomolecule, NS will have nothing to select from in a Materialistic Evolutionist 'world'.
The actual reason that NS has so much genetic variety to select from is because of the diversity of CFSI that was infused into all of the original genomes at Creation.
Or the experiment citric eating e.coli for which the exact random mutations that allowed them to do so are known?
Also stop calling it a proof because it's no such thing.
Every time you call it that you are either lying or showing how incompetent you are in maths.0 -
So JC in your fantasy land how do you resolve the cases of nylon eating bacteria?
Or the experiment citric eating e.coli for which the exact random mutations that allowed them to do so are known?
Also stop calling it a proof because it's no such thing.
Every time you call it that you are either lying or showing how incompetent you are in maths.
... and how do you solve the problem of efficiently 'crossing' combinatorial space via random mutations?0 -
... these are all examples of pre-existing CFSI.
And also again you've admitted that evolution happens and that these are examples of exactly what you're asking for.
Because you are either too dense to understand the science or your position is inherently dishonest and contradictory.... and how do you solve the problem of efficiently 'crossing' combinatorial space via random mutations?0 -
The supposed 'production' component of Evolution (mutation) is random ... and therefore the proof figures are applicable to it.
The selection component (NS) can select ... but with no practical hope of random mutation ever producing, even one specific functional biomolecule, NS will have nothing to select from in a Materialistic Evolutionist 'world'.
The actual reason that NS has so much genetic variety to select from is because of the diversity of CFSI that was infused into all of the original genomes at Creation.
NS will select beneficial mutations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Selection0 -
... these are all examples of pre-existing CFSI ... and the requirements of breaking down something is quite basic in comparison with the CFSI required to manufacture something.
... and how do you solve the problem of efficiently 'crossing' combinatorial space via random mutations?
Natural selection of beneficial mutations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Selection0 -
Well you see JC seeing as how you think ignoring questions is an honest thing to do, there is no reason why I should answer your question.
... and the reason that you haven't anwered ... is because there isn't an answer ... because it is a mathematical impossibility.0 -
I'm not ignoring anything ... I am answering your questions ... it is you who isn't answering my question about how to solve the problem of efficiently 'crossing' combinatorial space via random mutations?... and the reason that you haven't anwered ... is because there isn't an answer ... because it is a mathematical impossibility.
Every time you say this you are lying.
So please address the mountain of points against your bull**** mathematical proof that you've been ignoring. Cause if you don't, or if you ignore this point, you're a hypocrite as well as a liar and someone who couldn't pass junior cert maths.0 -
I'm not ignoring anything ... I am answering your questions ... it is you who isn't answering my question about how to solve the problem of efficiently 'crossing' combinatorial space via random mutations?
... and the reason that you haven't anwered ... is because there isn't an answer ... because it is a mathematical impossibility.
Natural selection of genetic mutations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution0 -
The supposed 'production' component of Evolution (mutation) is random ... and therefore the proof figures are applicable to it.
The selection component (NS) can select ... but with no practical hope of random mutation ever producing, even one specific functional biomolecule, NS will have nothing to select from in a Materialistic Evolutionist 'world'.So JC in your fantasy land how do you resolve the cases of nylon eating bacteria?
Or the experiment citric eating e.coli for which the exact random mutations that allowed them to do so are known?
J C lenski's experiments have shown a clear increase in your so called 'CFSI' YOU CANNOT DENY THIS. not to mention countless other experiments.....:rolleyes: JC natural selection will select wether the mutations are beneficial, neutral or damaging (there either for the trash or for the oven JC) so THEREFORE YOU MUST FACTOR IT INTO YOUR STUPID PROOF!!
According to your proof these mutations in the E. coli could be compared to me winning the Euro millions 10 yotta times over IN THE SPACE OF A FEW YEARS... these are all examples of pre-existing CFSI ... and the requirements of breaking down something is quite basic in comparison with the CFSI required to manufacture something.
HERE WE GO AGAIN JC.... YOUR STILL EXPECTING A CHICKEN TO GIVE BIRTH TO A RABBIT...:rolleyes:
... and how do you solve the problem of efficiently 'crossing' combinatorial space via random mutations?
MORBERT HAS ANSWERED THISI'm not ignoring anything ... I am answering your questions ... it is you who isn't answering my question about how to solve the problem of efficiently 'crossing' combinatorial space via random mutations?
ANOTHER ONE FOR THE LIE BUCKET
You ignored me and ghostbuster!!!!!!
red shift
introns
you didnt factor natural selection, the laws of chemistry biochemistry thermodynamics into your proof
you are still using the diameter of the universe in your proof.....
clear evidence J C that you are jumping through hoops to deny the fact that creationism is complete bull****
... and the reason that you haven't anwered ... is because there isn't an answer ... because it is a mathematical impossibility.
Your proof proove's nothing because your figures relate to nothing that influences mutations!!!! You have just multiplied a load of random figures together so as to end up with a big number and then say there now GOD DID IT....:cool:0 -
Advertisement
-
... these are all examples of pre-existing CFSI ... and the requirements of breaking down something is quite basic in comparison with the CFSI required to manufacture something.
Ah yes, CSI, which I see you're now calling CFSI (presumably the f stands for fantasy). The assertion that when new and never before seen functionality spontaneously appears in an organism that the genetic sequence for this new functionality was always there but not "expressed", i.e. completely undetectable but you say it was there anyway.
J C, let's say I've sequenced the entire genome of an organism. Presumably this genome is chock full of "unexpressed C(F)SI". So tell me, when looking at this genome how do I pinpoint the sections of "unexpressed C(F)SI"? The problem is that from my perspective there appears to be little difference between "unexpressed C(F)SI" and something that simply isn't there. Surely you must have some evidence that this C(F)SI was there in an "unexpressed" fashion and aren't just making a bald assertion that it was there all along without the slightest shred of evidence?0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement