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. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

1…5253555758…101

Comments

  • #1622
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    It should ... but it isn't ... now go figure!!!:)
    clearly the maths isn't as solid as you'd have us believe.
    ... or so we are told by Evolutionists who seem to ignore the inconvenient truth that Agnostics, like Profs Hoyle and Crick were also ID proponents,

    that does nothing to disprove what I said about creationists re-branding under the term 'Intelligent Design'. These aren't actions of honest scientists but that of some religious folk trying to pervert the science lessons in school because it doesn't gel with Genesis.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1623
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    In the scientific world repeating claims, based on evidence should make them acceptable ... and with the notable exception of ID ... this is largely the case.
    what evidence? Links?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1624
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    SW wrote: »
    clearly the maths isn't as solid as you'd have us believe.
    The maths is 'watertight' ... but the need to believe in Evolution is so strong that even the 'queen of sciences' is ignored and denied on the ID issue.
    I say this with no pride or condemnation ... as I once did that myself also.

    SW wrote: »
    that does nothing to disprove what I said about creationists re-branding under the term 'Intelligent Design'. These aren't actions of honest scientists but that of some religious folk trying to pervert the science lessons in school because it doesn't gel with Genesis.
    Creationists have no need to re-brand anything ... we already have an excellent brand called Creation Science ... and it is winning against all competition ... including the ID and Evolution brands, within the conventional scientific marketplace.


  • #1625
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,142 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    J C wrote: »
    It should ... but it isn't ... now go figure!!!:)

    ... or so we are told by Evolutionists who seem to ignore the inconvenient truth that Agnostics, like Profs Hoyle and Crick were also ID proponents,

    Crick WAS NOT an IDiot!


  • #1626
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    The maths is 'watertight' ... but the need to believe in Evolution is so strong that even the 'queen of sciences' is ignored and denied on the ID issue.
    I say this with no pride or condemnation ... as I once did that myself also.
    The more likely explanation is that the maths isn't watertight. But it does make for a better story to spin it as being watertight and dismissed despite that it is watertight because scientists just don't like ID. So I can see why those that have religious objections to evolution would do that even if it isn't honest behaviour.


    Creationists have no need to re-brand anything ... we already have an excellent brand called Creation Science ... and it is winning against all competition ... including the ID and Evolution brands, within the conventional scientific marketplace.
    I'd suggest you read up on ID, particularly in America, where the events occured as described.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #1627
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    It should ... but it isn't ... now go figure!!!:)

    ... or so we are told by Evolutionists who seem to ignore the inconvenient truth that Agnostics, like Profs Hoyle and Crick were also ID proponents,


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick#Views_on_religion
    "Crick was especially critical of Christianity:
    "I do not respect Christian beliefs. I think they are ridiculous. If we could get rid of them we could more easily get down to the serious problem of trying to find out what the world is all about.":
    Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children"

    Thanks to PopePalpatine for link.



    Now show us where Crick said he was an ID proponent.


  • #1628
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Crick WAS NOT an IDiot!
    I never said he was ... in fact, he was an amazing man of insight and brilliance ... who defined the mathematics ... that eventually led to the modern ID movement within science.


  • #1629
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,142 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    J C, if Crick were alive today, and you told him that he's a creationist, he'd either laugh in your face or sue you for libel.


  • #1630
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    obplayer wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick#Views_on_religion
    "Crick was especially critical of Christianity:
    "I do not respect Christian beliefs. I think they are ridiculous. If we could get rid of them we could more easily get down to the serious problem of trying to find out what the world is all about.":
    Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children"

    Thanks to PopePalpatine for link.
    Just goes to show that I can admire a person's scientific achievements ... even if that person is mistaken about my Faith.

    I don't live in a 'black and white' world where everybody is either good or bad, right or wrong ... most people are mixtures of both.

    obplayer wrote: »
    Now show us where Crick said he was an ID proponent.
    Prof. Francis Crick (1916–2004) Co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, Nobel laureate 1962, Professor at the Salk Institute

    "To produce this miracle of molecular construction all the cell need do is to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order. This is a complicated biochemical process, a molecular assembly line, using instructions in the form of a nucleic acid tape (the so-called messenger RNA) which will be described in outline in Chapter 5. Here we need only ask, how many possible proteins are there? If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare of an event would that be?

    This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20^200 and is approximately equal to 10^260, that is a one followed by 260 zeros!

    This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension. For comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles (atoms, speaking loosely) in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 10^11 stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This number, which is estimated to be 10^80, is quite paltry by comparison to 10^260. Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of a rather modest length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been even more immense."     Life Itself (1981) p. 51-52.


  • #1631
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    J C, if Crick were alive today, and you told him that he's a creationist, he'd either laugh in your face or sue you for libel.
    I never said he was a Creationist ... I said he was an amazing man of insight and brilliance ... who defined the mathematics ... that eventually led to the modern ID movement within science.


  • Advertisement
  • #1632
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,142 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Where are those mathematical papers on "CFSI"? The first two pages on Google for "cfsi mathematics" are about finances in Cleveland and on a "child-friendly school initiative", and nothing from the usual dribbling creationist sites.


  • #1633
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    Just goes to show that I can admire a person's scientific achievements ... even if that person is mistaken about my Faith.



    Prof. Francis Crick (1916–2004) Co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, Nobel laureate 1962, Professor at the Salk Institute

    "To produce this miracle of molecular construction all the cell need do is to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order. This is a complicated biochemical process, a molecular assembly line, using instructions in the form of a nucleic acid tape (the so-called messenger RNA) which will be described in outline in Chapter 5. Here we need only ask, how many possible proteins are there? If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare of an event would that be?

    This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20^200 and is approximately equal to 10^260, that is a one followed by 260 zeros!

    This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension. For comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles (atoms, speaking loosely) in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 10^11 stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This number, which is estimated to be 10^80, is quite paltry by comparison to 10^260. Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of a rather modest length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been even more immense."     Life Itself (1981) p. 51-52.

    He does not say he is an ID proponent he simply makes clear he is puzzled by how life originated. All scientists are unsure about how life originated, this does not make them ID proponents. Show me where in that quote he says he believes in ID and I do not want to be told that there is no other explanation, that is not what Prof. Crick was saying; he was saying we do not yet understand what happened. That is part of what is called science; puzzlement and investigation leading to new discoveries rather than depending on a 50/50 mix of fairy tale and barbarian history.


  • #1634
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Where are those mathematical papers on "CFSI"? The first two pages on Google for "cfsi mathematics" are about finances in Cleveland and on a "child-friendly school initiative", and nothing from the usual dribbling creationist sites.
    Your enthusiasm for information on CFSI is only exceeded by your contempt for the concept.

    Why do you think that the most important information is on the public internet? ... do you not know that such information is never published.


  • #1635
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    obplayer wrote: »
    He does not say he is an ID proponent he simply makes clear he is puzzled by how life originated. All scientists are unsure about how life originated, this does not make them ID proponents. Show me where in that quote he says he believes in ID and I do not want to be told that there is no other explanation, that is not what Prof. Crick was saying; he was saying we do not yet understand what happened. That is part of what is called science; puzzlement and investigation leading to new discoveries rather than depending on a 50/50 mix of fairy tale and barbarian history.
    However you 'cut it' the maths are damning for Spontaneous Evolution ... and well beyond the Universal Probability Bound.


  • #1636
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    Your enthusiasm for information on CFSI is only exceeded by your contempt for the concept.

    Why do you think that the most important information is on the public internet? ... do you not know that such information is never published.

    Then where do you get it, do the aliens beam it into your head when you are not wearing your tinfoil hat?


  • #1637
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    However you 'cut it' the maths are damning for Spontaneous Evolution ... and well beyond the Universal Probability Bound.

    So you have admitted another lie, this time about a very respected scientist's beliefs. Do you have any grasp of the difference between truth and lies? Any at all?


  • #1638
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,246 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    However you 'cut it' the maths are damning for Spontaneous Evolution ... and well beyond the Universal Probability Bound.

    I'd love to see some of this mathematics. Can you show us some or link us to it?


  • #1639
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,246 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Oh, I googled the "Universal Probability Bound" and it seems that William A Dembski invented it.

    What a surprise!


  • #1640
    mickrock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    The current orthodox view of how evolution happens is on its last legs. It assumes that it can all be explained in purely materialistic and deterministic terms, where the evolutionary process can be essentially reduced to physics.

    This mechanistic view of reality hasn't been able to explain evolution because it never can.

    It must take a lot of faith to keep believing in something which is clearly a delusion. In the coming decades neo-Darwinism will increasingly be regarded in the same way as alchemy and astrology are today.


  • #1641
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Is anyone actually trying to argue that a 200 amino acid long chain was mutated into existence in one go?

    JC seems to be arguing against something that I don't think anyone believes.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #1642
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Is anyone actually trying to argue that a 200 amino acid long chain was mutated into existence in one go?

    JC seems to be arguing against something that I don't think anyone believes.

    MrP

    Has been pointed out to him ad nauseum. But he prefers to play with scarecrows it seems :P

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #1643
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    What kids are taught in a schools in the UK controlled by religious fundamentalists:

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2014/sep/25/pseudoscience-creationist-schools-uk-accelerated-christian-education-ace


  • #1644
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    J C wrote: »
    Clutching at straws ... to try an defend the indefensible ... the idea that blind chance and a selecting process could produce anything ...

    Whoah, whoah, whoah.

    A few pages back I described a computer algorithm for sorting a list that operated on precisely that basis - random mutation and selection of the "fittest" results - and you did one of your several-week disappearing acts. In case you've conveniently edited it from your memory, here it is again:

    Start with a list of numbers in random order. Swap two of them at random. If the swap results in a list that's closer to an ordered list, keep the new list; otherwise revert to the old list. Repeat for as long as necessary to arrive at a fully-sorted list.

    Now, as I've already pointed out, it's far from a sophisticated algorithm - it's about as inefficient as it could usefully be. But it demonstrates that it's possible to create incremental improvements through random mutations, which you've claimed is impossible.

    In other words, one of your hypotheses has been demonstrated to be false.

    Now, you've claimed - repeatedly - that you're a scientist. If that's true (and I share others' doubts on the subject), you'll accept that when a premise on which you've built a scientific hypothesis has been shown to be false, you must discard the hypothesis.

    But you won't, because your "science" is nothing of the kind; it's religion in a labcoat.


  • #1645
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Now, as I've already pointed out, it's far from a sophisticated algorithm - it's about as inefficient as it could usefully be.
    Haven't calculated the sort's order -- is it even classified? -- but I'll bet it's more efficient than a bubble-sort, especially for large datasets.


  • #1646
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Whoah, whoah, whoah.

    A few pages back I described a computer algorithm for sorting a list that operated on precisely that basis - random mutation and selection of the "fittest" results - and you did one of your several-week disappearing acts. In case you've conveniently edited it from your memory, here it is again:

    Start with a list of numbers in random order. Swap two of them at random. If the swap results in a list that's closer to an ordered list, keep the new list; otherwise revert to the old list. Repeat for as long as necessary to arrive at a fully-sorted list.
    Such a system can only be produced by the appliance of intelligence (at the point where you select for the list that is closer to an ordered list). Please remember that what we observe in living organisms is the equivalent of completely ordered lists all over the place ... and even one or two 'disorders' in a critical list will completely destroy it's functionality ... thereby destroying the ability of NS to make selections that work towards functionality.
    In a 100 aa critical sequence if 98 aa are in the 'correct' sequence for a particular functionality, this biomolecule will be just as non-functional as a situation where none of the aa's are in the correct sequence for functionality.

    Its akin to the fact that a car engine will be just as non-functional whether a tiny wire is cut or the entire engine has been dis-assembled ... and if a non-intelligent agency were to try and restore functionality by making random changes, it would find it just as impossible to get either vehicle started.


  • #1647
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    Such a system can only be produced by the appliance of intelligence (at the point where you select for the list that is closer to an ordered list). Please remember that what we observe in living organisms is the equivalent of completely ordered lists all over the place ... and even one or two 'disorders' in a critical list will completely destroy it's functionality ... thereby destroying the ability of NS to make selections that work towards functionality.
    In a 100 aa critical sequence if 98 aa are in the 'correct' sequence for a particular functionality, this biomolecule will be just as non-functional as a situation where none of the aa's are in the correct sequence for functionality.

    Its akin to the fact that a car engine will be just as non-functional whether a tiny wire is cut or the entire engine has been dis-assembled ... and if a non-intelligent agency were to try and restore functionality by making random changes, it would find it just as impossible to get either vehicle started.

    The application of intelligence can be easily be replaced by the application of which version reproduces better.

    But back to a previous question; you said on CFSI
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92356836&postcount=1685
    "Why do you think that the most important information is on the public internet? ... do you not know that such information is never published. "
    I asked where do you get that information then? Any answers?


  • #1648
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    obplayer wrote: »
    The application of intelligence can be easily be replaced by the application of which version reproduces better.
    It can't actually.
    Please remember that what we observe in living organisms is the equivalent of completely ordered lists all over the place ... and even one or two 'disorders' in a critical list will completely destroy it's functionality (and ability to reproduce at all) ... thereby destroying the ability of NS to make selections that work towards functionality.
    In a 100 aa critical sequence if 98 aa are in the 'correct' sequence for a particular functionality, this biomolecule will be just as non-functional as a situation where none of the aa's are in the correct sequence for functionality ... so nature cannot gradually work up to produce functional novel biomolecules.
    obplayer wrote: »
    But back to a previous question; you said on CFSI
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92356836&postcount=1685
    "Why do you think that the most important information is on the public internet? ... do you not know that such information is never published. "
    I asked where do you get that information then? Any answers?
    That would be an ecumenical question!!!:):D


  • #1649
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    It can't actually.
    Please remember that what we observe in living organisms is the equivalent of completely ordered lists all over the place ... and even one or two 'disorders' in a critical list will completely destroy it's functionality (and ability to reproduce at all) ... thereby destroying the ability of NS to make selections that work towards functionality.
    In a 100 aa critical sequence if 98 aa are in the 'correct' sequence for a particular functionality, this biomolecule will be just as non-functional as a situation where none of the aa's are in the correct sequence for functionality.

    That would be an ecumenical question!!!:):D

    The first is simply nonsense, we have so much redundant code in our DNA it is clear that 'completely ordered lists' as a description of it is crazy. As for your 'answer' to the second question, it simply demonstrates that you are lying yet again. If you have the information then allow us to see it, if not then keep listening to the voices in your head.


  • #1650
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    obplayer wrote: »
    The first is simply nonsense, we have so much redundant code in our DNA it is clear that 'completely ordered lists' as a description of it is crazy. As for your 'answer' to the second question, it simply demonstrates that you are lying yet again. If you have the information then allow us to see it, if not then keep listening to the voices in your head.
    The so-called junk (supposedly redundant) DNA has turned out to be functional after all ... so 'redundant' DNA doesn't exist ... and the 'completely ordered lists' as a description of it is quite apt.
    Quote Time Magazine:-
    "... the Human Genome Project finally determined the entire sequence of our DNA in 2001, researchers found that the 3 billion base pairs that comprised our mere 21,000 genes made up a paltry 2% of the entire genome. The rest, geneticists acknowledged with unconcealed embarrassment, was an apparent biological wasteland.

    But it turns out they were wrong. In an impressive series of more than 30 papers published in several journals, including Nature, Genome Research, Genome Biology, Science and Cell, scientists now report that these vast stretches of seeming “junk” DNA are actually the seat of crucial gene-controlling activity ... "
    http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/


  • Advertisement
  • #1651
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    J C wrote: »
    The so-called junk (supposedly redundant) DNA has turned out to be functional after all ... so 'redundant' DNA doesn't exist ... and the 'completely ordered lists' as a description of it is quite apt.
    Quote Time Magazine:-
    "... the Human Genome Project finally determined the entire sequence of our DNA in 2001, researchers found that the 3 billion base pairs that comprised our mere 21,000 genes made up a paltry 2% of the entire genome. The rest, geneticists acknowledged with unconcealed embarrassment, was an apparent biological wasteland.

    But it turns out they were wrong. In an impressive series of more than 30 papers published in several journals, including Nature, Genome Research, Genome Biology, Science and Cell, scientists now report that these vast stretches of seeming “junk” DNA are actually the seat of crucial gene-controlling activity ... "
    http://healthland.time.com/2012/09/06/junk-dna-not-so-useless-after-all/

    'ENCODE has revealed that some 80% of the human genome is biochemically active.'
    Only 20% redundant? Very intelligently designed. Just like this...


Advertisement