"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Like I have said you can call it (CFSI) genetic information or critical biochemical sequences if you want.


koth
No. regardless of the title, CFSI has nothing to do with evolution.

Glad that we have established that genetic information and critical biochemical sequences have nothing to do with evolution
So how did genetic information and critical biochemical sequences arise then? ... by Intelligent Design, perhaps!!!:eek:

koth wrote:

where is their list (or number of) transitions of all stages of evolution to arrive at homo sapien? that's without even getting into their 'random generating specified events' misunderstanding of evolution.

The maths is saying that non-intelligently directed processes cannot produce even a few critical biochemical sequences ... never mind anything to do with the supposed transition form Microbes to Man.

koth wrote:

currently on my phone, so can't post any links (which you'll probably ignore yet again) until tomorrow at the earliest.

Must be a long phone call ... hope you're on an unlimited call package.:D
... could you ask them if they have any links that support anything that you are saying on this thread.:eek:

Sarky wrote: »

Hey, if you can show me where he provided a robust definition of cfsi, I'll happily eat my words.

Otherwise, he's a liar.

He may be right ... or he may be wrong about CFSI ... but he is not a liar.
You guys claim to be open-minded ... and to go where the evidence leads.
... yet when presented with new evidence and new scientific concepts, with considerable explanatory power ... ye gang up on the person presenting the information ... and spend most of your energies trying to discredit the messengers ... rather than logically and politely discussing the evidence and the science.

koth wrote: »

that's a shockingly bad statement for someone who claims to have a high level of education to make.

by the farcial reasoning, 2+2=5:rolleyes:

I meant it in the sense of 2+2=4 ... i.e. the fact that Dr Dembski has correctly done the maths means that he has effectively disproven M2M Evolution ... and thereby debunked the biggest religious movement currently on Earth.

... and that is why you guys can't constrain you emotional oubursts ... because your 'God' ... of Evolution has been found to have feet of clay.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Dembski has done no such thing. Show me one non creationist who supports his work. Just one. From any branch of science.
As people have repeatedly asked you, stop using made up terms like M2M evolution. That sounds like some kind of dodgy boyband. The term is evolution.

You just don't get it do you? We're standing by evolution because there's evidence for it. It's not because we worship it. If a sound theory which contradicted popped up tomorrow which (sound meaning one which can actually be verified) then I don't think anyone would have an issue accepting it. Except you of course becuase you'd probably stick your head in the sand about that one as well along with Dumbski et al.

Your bias and emotional commitment to Evolutionism is clear for all to see.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Ah. So you don't have one. Well. This is awkward.

I've just given you one ... and while its very awkward for Evolutionism ... its 'game set and match' to ID.:)

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No, they really don't. Ignoring for a second you're (again) using a term you've repeatedly been told is nonsense, All you've done at the very most is point out that genetic material is complex functional specified information. This is, as I've said before a ridiculously vauge and simple description. It does not prove a thing. Just because you can't comprehend the fact something so amazing can happen naturally doesn't mean it can't, it just means you don't understand it.

Could you please enlighten us as to how you think it happened then.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I assume you mean how evolution happened?
I think it happened the same way as anyone who's studied the subject without an agenda thinks it happened. As a result of millions of years of genetic mutation, with favourable mutations being retained via natural selection.

Has a single favourable mutation that didn't result from a loss / damage to genetic information ever been observed?

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

This is supported by:
a) The fossil record.
Which shows no gradual change ... and no change over hundreds of millions of years (so-called 'living fossils')
... but which shows billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down under water all over the Earth ... which is incontrovertible evidence for a worldwide flood and extinction event (for anybody without an agenda).
b) Observable micro evolution (which you've admitted is a reality yourself)
Which is only the juggling, sorting and selection of existing genetic information ... that was infused at Creation..
c) The absence of a remotely viable alternative
Creation by intelligence(s) unknown is the only viable scientific explanation.
d) The presence of 'useless' features in centain species which would have had a use in the species' ancestors
Current functions have been discovered for practically all of these supposed vestigial structures
And many other things people far more intelligent than me could add, I'm sure.
I'm all ears!!!

J C wrote: »

Not a very good argument for Abiogenesis ... I must admit.
... here is a video on evolution ... and its invalidity..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALXP_lyRmcE

By 1:40 he has already demonstrated that he does not understand evolution.

koth wrote: »

link as promised.

Thanks Koth.

Now lets look at how this mutation worked ...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18172-gene-change-in-cannibals-reveals-evolution-in-action.html
Quote:-
In 51 survivors and their descendants, they discovered a hitherto-unknown variant of PRNP, the gene which makes prions, the proteins that spread the disease. These prions become malformed and in turn make all healthy prions they encounter malformed as well, in a chain reaction that ultimately destroys brains by turning them into a spongy mush.
'Beneficial' mutations are extremely rare ... and when they do occur, they are observed in all cases to be the result of damage to the systems within the organism via a loss of functionality i.e. a loss of CFSI ... which is going in the opposite direction to what is required to transit from microbes to men.
For example, there is a 'beneficial' mutation for insects on islands that results the loss of flight, as this prevents them from being blown out to sea and drowned.
The Kuru resistance gene mutation is similar in that it inhibits the production of the Kuru prion by a loss of CFSI ... through the substitution of glycine for a valine amino acid in Codon 127.
The propagation of the prion depends on the presence of normally folded protein in which the prion can induce misfolding. People who do not express the normal form of the prion protein cannot develop the disease ... because of a mutation that has resulted in the expression of an abnormal protein ... so that the Kuru prion cannot induce misfolding, thereby causing the disease.
... so this is an example of a 'beneficial' mutation resulting from a loss of the CFSI - for producing normal protein folding in the target protein for Kuru.

Quote:-
Initially, Mead and his colleagues thought that because the variant had never been seen before, it must have damaging rather than beneficial effects. "We thought we'd found the trigger for how kuru happens, that someone ate the brain of someone with the mutation and that's how the disease started spreading through the cannibalistic funeral feasts," he said.
"Instead, we found the complete opposite, which is that it was protective."
It is protective against Kuru ... by damaging normal protein folding.
This is similar to the Sickle Cell Anaemia mutation ... which is damaging to blood cells, but the heterozygous form of the allele confers tolerance to Malaria Disease i.e. it is an example of a rare 'beneficial' mutation that results from a loss of CFSI.