"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

wrote:

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.

... 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.

wrote:

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.

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!!!

wrote:

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.

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.

wrote:

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.

Of course functionality is lost with mutagenesis ... why are Evolutionists so (sensibly) reticent about undergoing mutagenesis???

... 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.

J C wrote: »

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:

J C wrote: »

... 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.

Morbert wrote: »

All this is wrong because mutations can increase biological information, and selection pressures will guide mutation patterns through the space.

... with nothing to select ... selection pressures can guide nothing

Morbert wrote: »

The bit in bold is irrelevant. The bit in italics is wrong; there is no proof for your assertion.

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 wrote: »

... 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.

J C wrote: »

... 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.

J C wrote: »

... 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 THAT

Who the hell would honestly use a snail in a proof......

keppler wrote: »

J C please reiterate your proof taking into account natural selection....like the good man said;)

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.

J C wrote: »

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.

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.

J C wrote: »

... these are all examples of pre-existing CFSI.

Again with your made up word.

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.

J C wrote: »

... and how do you solve the problem of efficiently 'crossing' combinatorial space via random mutations?

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.

J C wrote: »

... 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_Selection

J C wrote: »

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?

What thread have you been reading?

J C wrote: »

... and the reason that you haven't anwered ... is because there isn't an answer ... because it is a mathematical impossibility.

Again JC, you haven't shown it's impossible because you don't actually understand maths.
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.

J C wrote: »

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'.

King Mob wrote: »

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

J C wrote: »

... 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 THIS

J C wrote: »

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?
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: