"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Both of which were Intelligently Designed and controlled by setting up a materialistic environment that mimicked the early earth by supplying just the most basic requirements in order to be as accurate as possible ... and neither of which produced any new life but formed the precursors to amino acids in a relatively short time, these precursors are the foundational building blocks of amino acids which were self replicating showing how both contemporary life and natural selection could originate via thermodynamics and availability of materialistic material causing competition and thereby giving any organism better adapted to it's environment a natural advantage leading it to be naturally selected to continue reproducing.FYP

So both of them were Intelligently Designed and controlled ... and neither of them came within 'an asses roar' of producing any new life.

Glad we have clarified that then!!

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

I have presented this mathematical proof ... and all I got was Evolutionists running around in circles and shouting like scalded cats ... but no evidence or substantive argument was presented against my figures or my conclusions.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68206676&postcount=1121

Here is another one :-

If every cubic millimetre of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe volume 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 infinitesimal 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 protein using non-intelligenlty directed processes.

:D:D

THAT'S YOUR PROOF!!! :pac::D

What does that "proof" in the post you linked to even prove, that you are
using incorrect figures to make a point & are totally happy with that?
That you've already been told your figures were wrong but you're
using it again as proof of whatever point you're trying to make?

1) You got the number of galaxies in the universe wrong.

2) The weight of the universe in tons and grams
(I assume you mean mass because we all know that when we do science we don't use colloquial
terms, weight is defined as mass times acceleration due to gravity, but you're a scientist - you
knew that)
is incorrect because you got that figure from a 10 year old book that
based it's calculation off of an incorrect number of galaxies and stars.

Now, even if you had the correct figures all you did was do some
calculation with no point other to show that a snail could carry an electron
across the universe (even though electrons have no definite shape or position).

---

Why do you continue to talk about permutations as if it's a case
against evolution? What has this got to do with anything and
how the hell is it supposed to be an iron clad proof against evolution?
How does your theory of permutations explain evolution is false when
we see evolution in labratories with fruit flies?

Oh, and how do permutations even come into "the equation" when
there has been repeatable proof in the labratory that with only the
bare minimum of materialistic ingredients amino acid precursors
and self replicating entities were reproduced??????????

Marcus.Aurelius

JC, evolution is not chance.

Wake up.

Why won't you wake up????

Improbable

J C wrote: »

Here is another one :-

If every cubic millimetre of the supposed 93 billion light year diameter Universe volume 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 infinitesimal 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 protein using non-intelligenlty directed processes ... there is simply not enough time or matter in the universe to do so!!

Seriously, I've responded to this 3 times and you seem to just ignore it. Proteins fold by nucleation condensation and not by whatever method you or others who are not biochemists have invented in your head. As a qualified biochemist, I really have to just flat out tell you that you are WRONG.

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

:D:D

THAT'S YOUR PROOF!!! :pac::D

What does that "proof" in the post you linked to even prove, that you are
using incorrect figures to make a point & are totally happy with that?
That you've already been told your figures were wrong but you're
using it again as proof of whatever point you're trying to make?

1) You got the number of galaxies in the universe wrong.

2) The weight of the universe in tons and grams
(I assume you mean mass because we all know that when we do science we don't use colloquial
terms, weight is defined as mass times acceleration due to gravity, but you're a scientist - you
knew that)
is incorrect because you got that figure from a 10 year old book that
based it's calculation off of an incorrect number of galaxies and stars.

Now, even if you had the correct figures all you did was do some
calculation with no point other to show that a snail could carry an electron
across the universe (even though electrons have no definite shape or position).

---

Why do you continue to talk about permutations as if it's a case
against evolution? What has this got to do with anything and
how the hell is it supposed to be an iron clad proof against evolution?
How does your theory of permutations explain evolution is false when
we see evolution in labratories with fruit flies?

Oh, and how do permutations even come into "the equation" when
there has been repeatable proof in the labratory that with only the
bare minimum of materialistic ingredients amino acid precursors
and self replicating entities were reproduced??????????

These proofs are very important ... because they set the upper limits on the combinatorial space that can be 'searched' by non-directed systems ... and it is so small that we can definitively and scientifically state that non-intelligently directed systems cannot produce life.

Calm down ... all of your objections have already been dealt with on my previous proof ... and I have just presented another proof where none of your objections are an issue!!!:cool:

J C

Improbable wrote: »

Seriously, I've responded to this 3 times and you seem to just ignore it. Proteins fold by nucleation condensation and not by whatever method you or others who are not biochemists have invented in your head. As a qualified biochemist, I really have to just flat out tell you that you are WRONG.

... and please tell me what happens to the folding and functionality of a protein when an 'incorrect' amino acid is present along a critical amino acid sequence ... or are you saying that 'any random sequence' will do to produce a specific functionality?

Improbable

J C wrote: »

... and please tell me what happens to the folding and functionality of a protein when an 'incorrect' amino acid is present along a critical amino acid sequence ... or are you saying that 'any random sequence' will do to produce a specific functionality?

It can completely destroy the protein. It can make absolutely no change whatsoever. It can create a better functioning protein. So in other words, anything can happen. What was your point? And what does it have to do with your argument that "there isn't enough time to search the permutations"? You're avoiding the fact that you're just wrong on that proof and don't want to admit it. Simply admit the fact that you were wrong about it, try reading the paper that I linked to you by Alan Fersht quite a few pages ago.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

These proofs are very important ... because they set the upper limits on the combinatorial space that can be 'searched' by non-directed systems ... and it is so small that we can definitively and scientifically state that non-intelligently directed systems cannot produce life.

Calm down ... all of your objections have already been dealt with on my previous proof ... and I have just presented another proof where none of your objections are an issue!!!:cool:

Haha, you are absolutely deluded! This is the most bat∫hit crazy excuse
I've ever read. Do you understand your answer merely said "I did an
irrelevant calculation about combinatorics without showing any of the
work I did other than to label the figures involved in my "calculation"
and therefore that proves evolution is wrong". This actually satisfies you!
What has your calculation got to do with anything we've been talking
about? Your "proof" did nothing, it said nothing and means nothing.
I haven't said anything relevant to your new "proof" except to say it has
nothing to do with our conversation so it's not a proof. You've said
nothing & haven't responded properly to what I wrote. You're happy with
fudging figures and not admitting it as well, this constitutes proof for you!
And you wonder why creation science is a contradiction in terms and
why big marxist elitist evolutionismists like me block you noble fellow's
from tenure and job opportunities :rolleyes:

J C

House wrote: »

JC, evolution is not chance.

Wake up.

Why won't you wake up????

I agree that it cannot happen by chance ... and I have mathematically proven that this is the case ...
... and yet the only mechanism postulated by evolutionists for producing the 'variety' that NS is supposed to select is a chance mechanism (Mutation).

Waiting patiently for the dust and smoke to be produced by the Evolutionists to hide their scientific nakedness!!!:eek:

This is your chance to get to the heart of this matter ... so if ye are serious about debating this issue ... let's have calm reasoned debate ... and no running around in circles shouting 'liar, liar, pants on fire' ... or its equivalent.

J C

Improbable wrote: »

It can completely destroy the protein. It can make absolutely no change whatsoever. It can create a better functioning protein. So in other words, anything can happen. What was your point? And what does it have to do with your argument that "there isn't enough time to search the permutations"? You're avoiding the fact that you're just wrong on that proof and don't want to admit it. Simply admit the fact that you were wrong about it, try reading the paper that I linked to you by Alan Fersht quite a few pages ago.

If it is along a critical sequence, it will completely destroy the functionality of the protein. It's the same with any other information-rich system ... and the only way of overcoming the vastness of the non-functional combinatorial space that is there for all information-rich systems is the appliance of intelligence.
Trying to 'search' it using random processes like Mutation will be defeated by the sheer scale of the non-functional combinatorial space that is there.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

I agree that it cannot happen by chance ... and I have mathematically proven that this is the case ...
... and yet the only mechanism postulated by evolutionists for producing the 'variety' that NS is supposed to select is a chance mechanism (Mutation).

This is your chance to get to the heart of this matter ... so if ye are serious about debating this issue ... let's have calm reasoned debate ... and no running around in circles shouting 'liar, liar, pants on fire' ... or its equivalent.

"Only mechanism" J C, I hate to say it but you're either completely ignorant
of evolution, despite once being an evolutionist, or lying about what you know.
After a debate this long and the amount of dishonesty idk tbh...

Evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from
ancient ancestors. Evolution is responsible for both the remarkable
similarities we see across all life and the amazing diversity of that life—
but exactly how does it work?

Fundamental to the process is genetic variation upon which selective
forces can act in order for evolution to occur. This section examines the
mechanisms of evolution focusing on:

• Descent and the genetic differences that are heritable and passed on to the next generation;

• Mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift, and natural selection as mechanisms of change;

• The importance of genetic variation;

• The random nature of genetic drift and the effects of a reduction in genetic variation;

• How variation, differential reproduction, and heredity result in evolution by natural selection; and

• How different species can affect each other’s evolution through coevolution.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIMechanisms.shtml

Remember this post! Do you see here, there are 6 bullet points in this
list. How important is chance among these factors? Where is the
bullet point devoted to chance J C? Do you see it's only part of some of
them?

edit: here is the cliff notes version, it'll probably make more sense to you seeing as
we're still at a high school level of understanding...

Improbable

J C wrote: »

If it is along a critical sequence, it will completely destroy the functionality of the protein. It's the same with any other information-rich system ... and the only way of overcoming the vastness of the non-functional combinatorial space that is there for all information-rich systems is the appliance of intelligence.
Trying to 'search' it using random processes like Mutation will be defeated by the sheer scale of the non-functional combinatorial space that is there.

No dude, it won't necessarily destroy the functionality. You're absolutely wrong... I don't know why you would think that there would only be a single amino acid which could fulfil a critical role when another amino acid might do it better... That second bit still has nothing to do with your argument... You're just throwing out nonsense I'm afraid. Seriously, go read the paper, it highlights EXACTLY why and how it's not a random process.

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

:D:D

THAT'S YOUR PROOF!!! :pac::D
Oh, and how do permutations even come into "the equation" when
there has been repeatable proof in the labratory that with only the
bare minimum of materialistic ingredients amino acid precursors
and self replicating entities were reproduced??????????
[/B]

This is equivalent to saying that if you mix iron filings in water that ferric oxide results ... and this can then be somehow taken to show that a videotape of John May in action was 'spontaneously produced'.

There is an inordinate information-rich gap between raw ferric oxide ... and the specified functional information that is recorded on a ferric oxide tape within a video casette recording ... of the vastly more information-rich John May!!!

J C

Improbable wrote: »

No dude, it won't necessarily destroy the functionality. You're absolutely wrong... I don't know why you would think that there would only be a single amino acid which could fulfil a critical role when another amino acid might do it better... That second bit still has nothing to do with your argument... You're just throwing out nonsense I'm afraid. Seriously, go read the paper, it highlights EXACTLY why and how it's not a random process.

If it is a critical sequence, the entire shape of the protein, and therefore its current functionality will be destroyed ... and that's why mutagenesis isn't a good idea.

Improbable

J C wrote: »

If it is a critical sequence, the entire shape of the protein, and therefore its current functionality will be destroyed ... and that's why mutagenesis isn't a good idea.

One more time. No. You're wrong.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

This is equivalent to saying that if you mix iron filings in water that ferric oxide results ... and this can then be somehow taken to show that a videotape of John May in action was 'spontaneously produced'.

There is an inordinate information-rich gap between raw ferric oxide ... and the specified functional information that is recorded on a ferric oxide tape within a video casette ... of the even more information-rich John May!!!

Are human beings made of iron and ferric oxide J C? Are human beings
made by mixing together two substances J C? How long are humans
in utero again? What is the process by which they are born? What needs
to take place? :rolleyes:

The stupid in what you just said... honestly you're showing yourself to be
such a buffoon with these kinds of remarks.

sponsoredwalk

Did you lie when you said evolution involves chance as the only mechanism
or was it just that you haven't been educated properly?

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

"mechanisms of evolution focusing on:


Descent and the genetic differences that are heritable and passed on to the next generation;
Mutation, migration (gene flow), genetic drift, and natural selection as mechanisms of change;
The importance of genetic variation;
The random nature of genetic drift and the effects of a reduction in genetic variation;
How variation, differential reproduction, and heredity result in evolution by natural selection; and
How different species can affect each other’s evolution through coevolution. ...

All of the above mechanisms are involved in micro-evolution within Kinds and using the initial genetic CFSI diversity infused at Creation.

They are simply sorting and selecting existing CFSI.

None of these mechanisms are capable of accounting for the supposed increase in brand new genetic CFSI that would necessarily be involved in 'evolving' something from Ponsdkind to Mankind.

I accept that micro-evolution (using pre-existing CFSI) occurs, indeed it appears to have been Intelligently Designed into organisms at Creation.
I don't accept that either Macro-evolution or abiogenesis occurred.
Evolutionists freely admit that they don't have a clue about how Abiogenesis occurred ... and life started

... I would call on them to be just as frank about the macro-evolution of new CFSI ... and indeed some have been!!

Zillah

J C wrote: »

All of the above mechanisms are involved in micro-evolution within Kinds and using the initial genetic CFSI diversity infused at Creation.

Could you define "kind" in terms of genetics and anatomy please? Also, if you could provide links to evidence that this is not just a baseless assertion to support your religious beliefs I would be very grateful.

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Are human beings made of iron and ferric oxide J C? Are human beings
made by mixing together two substances J C? How long are humans
in utero again? What is the process by which they are born? What needs
to take place? :rolleyes:

The stupid in what you just said... honestly you're showing yourself to be
such a buffoon with these kinds of remarks.

Humans are infinitely more complex than a video tape ... and it is therefore much more ridiculous to believe that Humans weren't intelligently designed ... whilst accepting that video tapes are!!!

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

I accept that micro-evolution (using pre-existing CFSI) occurs, indeed it appears to have been Intelligently Designed into organisms at Creation.
I don't accept that either Macro-evolution or abiogenesis occurred.
Evolutionists freely admit that they don't have a clue about how Abiogenesis occurred ... and life started

... I would call on them to be just as frank about the macro-evolution of new CFSI ... and indeed some have been!!

This is hilarious You are like a textbook casestudy!

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought
of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[6] Thus, the distinction
between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only
difference between them is of time and scale.
...

The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same
processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims
misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not
accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed
evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution"
takes place.[5][12] Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary
change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins
of Earth's biodiversity.

Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community.[13] While
details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific
community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common
descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data.
Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common
descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the
"fact of evolution".[14][15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution

Macroevolution is microevolution!

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
If it is a critical sequence, the entire shape of the protein, and therefore its current functionality will be destroyed ... and that's why mutagenesis isn't a good idea.

Improbable
One more time. No. You're wrong.

So are you saying that mutagenesis is a good idea ?:eek:

... you first honey!!!

... BTW I like your Username .. I think that 'Improbable' is a good name for an Evolutionist ... and 'Impossible' would be an even better one!!:)

Improbable

J C wrote: »

So are yo saying that mutagenesis is a good idea ?:eek:

... you first honey!!!

... BTW I like your Username .. I think that 'Improbable' is a good name for an Evolutionist ... and 'Impossible' would be an even better one!!:)

Mutagenesis is neither good nor bad, its impartial and doesn't have feelings... The bit that I was referring to was: "If it is a critical sequence, the entire shape of the protein, and therefore its current functionality will be destroyed". That is just wrong.

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

So are yo saying that mutagenesis is a good idea ?:eek:

... you first honey!!!

... BTW I like your Username .. I think that 'Improbable' is a good name for an Evolutionist ... and 'Impossible' would be an even better one!!:)

It would describe our task in this conversation accurately...

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Did you lie when you said evolution involves chance as the only mechanism
or was it just that you haven't been educated properly?

Have a look here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68317939&postcount=1490

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

Have a look here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68317939&postcount=1490

J C wrote: »

I agree that it cannot happen by chance ... and I have mathematically proven that this is the case ...
... and yet the only mechanism postulated by evolutionists for producing the 'variety' that NS is supposed to select is a chance mechanism (Mutation).

So you were lying then?

Have a look here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68318118&postcount=1493

You're such a fool at this stage it's unbelievable...

J C

Zillah wrote: »

Could you define "kind" in terms of genetics and anatomy please? Also, if you could provide links to evidence that this is not just a baseless assertion to support your religious beliefs I would be very grateful.

The definitive test for a Created Kind is the ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary within a Kind.

Many members of Baramin are also allocated to various Kinds provisionally on the basis of phenotype, even though they don't cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary within the particular Kind.

sponsoredwalk

Wtf is Barmin? The only thing I can find is a Russian surname Barmin and
dog collars by Barmin, is this creationist "nomenclature"

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So you were lying then?

Have a look here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68318118&postcount=1493

You're such a fool at this stage it's unbelievable...

wrote:

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought
of as the compounded effects of microevolution.[6] Thus, the distinction
between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only
difference between them is of time and scale.

... this is a load of baloney ... it is equivalent to saying that adjusting the seats or steering wheel in a car, using the pre-existing 'built-in' mechanisms for doing so is the same as designing and manufacturing the car (or indeed the adjustment mechanisms) in the first place.

Please note that some of these mechanisms can 'adjust' spontaneously ... but the design and manufacture of them could never be achieved spontaneously.
Similarly, the minor fluctuations of micro-evolution are a fundamentally different phenomenon to their intial design, in the first place ... and that is why Bacteria always remain bacteria ... and they have done so for over 600 million 'Evolutionist Years'!!

Similarly, Starfish remain Starfish ... and have done so for 500 million 'Evolutionist Years'!!
...etc. ... etc. ...

... and you can only adjust your car seat within pre-determined limits!!

.

Zillah

J C wrote: »

The definitive test for a Created Kind is the ability to cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary within a Kind.

Many members of Barmin are also allocated to various Kinds provisionally on the basis of phenotype, even though they don't cross-breed or cross-breed with an intermediary within the particular Kind.

Er, "barmin" aside, you're saying that your methods are completely incapable of understanding or investigating extinct species, who, by definition, cannot breed with anything?