"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

dead one

dead one wrote: »

I ain't talking about you... I am talking in general.... Evolutionist support their theories with theories.... and some of these theories violate physical laws... Like laws of thermodynamic or law of conservation of energy....

I'd like to get an answer to this question, dead one.

You said earlier that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution, because the entropy of a closed system always increases (i.e. the entire universe.)

So, tell me: if you put some water into your freezer, leave it an hour and then take it out, what have you? You have ice. How? Shouldn't that be impossible?

J C

koth wrote: »

your opinion is not evidence. Please show some evidence to back up your claims.

...I have laborously and repeatedly provided the evidence and the calculations for my claim that non-intelligently directed systems are mathematically incapable of producing even simple proteins.

..but here it is AGAIN if you still need to see it.


The ‘big need’ of Evolution is for naturalistic mechanisms to provide INCREASED genetic information – and no plausible mechanism has ever been identified that meets this need.

Natural Selection can only begin to select when you have a population of reproducing viable living organisms with significant extant genetic diversity in their genome and the ability to express it. The Laws of Mathematical Probability and Big Numbers rule out ever getting to this stage in the first place, using undirected processes.
For example:-
There are 10 to the power of 21 stars in the Known Universe.
There are 10 to the power of 61 ELECTRONS in our Sun (which is an average sized star).
There are therefore ONLY 10 to the power of 82 Electrons in ALL of the STARS in the Known Universe.
The odds of RANDOMLY producing a specific useful amino acid sequence choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on a 100 amino acid chain is a binomial expansion of 1/20 X 1/20 X 1/20 …… 100 times. This happens to be odds of one over 10 to the power of 130.
There are 10 to the power of 26 nanoseconds (one thousand of one millionth of a second) in 5,000 million years.
If every ELECTRON in the KNOWN UNIVERSE, produced a random 100 amino acid sequence one thousand million times every second for 5,000 million years only 10 to the power of 108 permutations would be produced.
You would need 10 to the power of 23 Universes to guarantee the production of the specific sequence for a particular useful protein with a chain length of only 100 amino acids – and that is only the chance of getting the SEQUENCE right – never mind the problem of actually producing the protein. – and a protein is ‘nothing’ compared to even a so-called “simple cell”.
We also have only ONE Universe – and not 10 to the power of 23 of them!!! Also an electron isn’t capable of producing a protein sequence and ALL stars are obviously too hot for life. Even using evolutionary timescales, there is simply not enough MATTER or TIME in the Universe to randomly produce the SEQUENCE for a SIMPLE protein.

What the maths is MEASURING is something that we know intuitively – that complex, tightly specified machines are the result of Intelligent Design – and the more complex and tightly specified, the more intelligence is required to design them.
What the gigantic figures for even small 100 amino acid proteins are indicating, is that living systems are approaching infinite specificity, infinite density of information and infinite probability of design by an infinitely Intelligent Designer.

To go to the other extreme, if you came across something as basic as a steel nail you would immediately identify it as an artefact of the appliance of Intelligence. The nail exhibits tight specificity by having a formed head and a sharpened point as well as a cylindrical smooth wire linking both ends. In addition it is made of steel, which has never been observed to be spontaneously generated, nor indeed could a mechanism for an undirected wire forming and nail manufacturing process be even theoretically postulated.

What IS amazing however, is that many scientists, who would stoutly defend the Intelligent Design of a simple steel nail, refuse to countenance the Intelligent Design of the infinitely more complex and tightly specified, Intelligent Designer of the nail!!!

There are two levels of applied intelligence observable in living systems:-

The first level of applied intelligence shows an ability to SPECIFY specific sequences to order. A 10 year old can specify any particular 100 amino acid sequence choosing from 20 amino acids at each point on the chain in 20 minutes – yet all of the electrons in the known Universe would fail to produce enough permutations to do this by undirected processes in an effective infinity of time.

The second level of applied intelligence shows an ability to CHOOSE and GENERATE specific sequences and to coherently assemble these sequences to perform precisely co-ordinated functions. This would require an intelligent and creative power approaching infinity and therefore it is proof of Direct Divine Creation.

The relatively simple task is SPECIFYING the order of the amino acids.
The really intelligent ability is to know WHAT sequences to specify and how to coherently assemble them. A particular sequence might specify for a really useful Peptide that would be critical to producing a vital structural protein, for example, or it could be totally useless. However, merely examining the sequence superficially wouldn’t give any idea as to whether it was useful or not.

There are very limited combinations of Critical Amino Acid Sequences that produce useful proteins – and even one “wrong” Amino Acid along a Critical Sequence will utterly change the three dimensional shape of the protein – making it functionally USELESS.

Natural selection can’t solve the problem – I am talking here about the chances of PRODUCING SEQUENCES for a simple protein – i.e. long before Natural Selection would have any role in “selecting out” anything.

Natural Selection doesn’t provide a mechanism to GENERATE genetic information – it merely SELECTS alternatives amongst PRE-EXISTING genetic information. Mutations are equally not observed to generate genetic information – they merely degrade it.

There is no disagreement from Creationists about the evidence for Natural Selection, or indeed it’s scientific validity.
The ‘Emperor without the clothes’ is NOT Darwin’s ingenious concept of Natural Selection (which he described as analogous to Artificial Selection i.e. using pre-existing genetic diversity WITHIN Kinds). The ‘Naked One’ is its impostor first cousin, the theory of Evolution - which states that ‘primordial chemicals evolved into man’ – but fails to provide any observable mechanisms for the process.

The only observationally i.e. scientifically valid conclusion at present, is that DNA had an external intelligent Creator. Science cannot observe this Creator – but it can validly conclude that such an intelligence existed at the time when life originated.
The evidence for Creation is overwhelming and repeatably observable – and so there is no issue in relation to it’s scientific validity.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Just as a counterpoint to J C's bullshit mathematics.

dlofnep

J C wrote: »

The Atheists believe the Big Bang was a purely materialistic process ... while the Creation Scientists believe the Big Whisper created the Universe instantly and ex nihilo.

Which would be fine, if only for the obvious conundrum - If the universe is so complex that it requires a creator, then that creator would need to be equally as complex, and would require in itself - a creator. The loop is infinite.

So why create extra obstacles in the first place? Are do you only apply your logic when it comes to the universe's creation, but are happy to waive it when it comes to the creator of a 'creator'.

J C wrote: »

The vast quantities of Complex Functional Specified Information found in all life is definitive proof of Intelligent Design.

No, they are not. They are the direct result of 100's of millions of years of evolution. If a God was to intelligently design humans, he did a truly abysmal job, considering the mass rates at which cancer, aids and other incurable diseases have taken over the human population.

J C wrote: »

... Intelligent Design, of Divine proportions, is mathematically certain to have occurred ...

No it isn't. Christ, where you find this nonsense?

J C wrote: »

I don't have a religion either ... but if you insist that my faith in the existence of God is a 'religion' ... then , your faith in the non-existence of God is also logically a 'religion' as well !!!

No, it isn't. And for the millionth time - lack of belief, does not equal belief. It is not a religion.

J C wrote: »

... and if the Atheists insist on bringing in their religously held 'origins stories' into science class you can expect oppsition from Thesists, especially when the obvious deficiencies of these religiously held ideas are not taught as well.

Once again, evolution is backed by science through fossils and DNA. Religion is backed by 2000 year old fables. Creationism will never be taught in science class, because it has no scientific merit.

On that note, I have no desire to go around in circles with you. If you believe that the universe, in all of it's glory, including exploding stars, massive black holes that swallow thousands of planets, widespread disease, war, famine, hurricanes and tsunamis are the product of an 'intelligent designer' - then I put it to you sir that this intelligent designer was clearly smoking crack cocaine when he created this Universe.

J C

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Just as a counterpoint to J C's bullshit mathematics.

Less of the foul language ... please !!:(
... this is always a sign of weakness in the argument being proposed by the foul-mouthed one!!!:(
... and your case is no exception!!

If you had read my posting ... and your link ... you would know that the talkorigins link didn't address my argument ... that the spontaneous production of the AA sequence for just one specific functional protein is a mathematical impossibilty ... and there are billions of functional specific proteins in living organisms!!!

...your link answers a lot of 'strawman' questions ... but it doesn't address the issue of how non-intelligently directed processes could produce the billions of specific biomolecular sequences in a particular time and place that are required to produce and supposedly evolve life ... when the production of only one specific functional sequence is mathematically impossible.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Less of the foul language ... please !!:(
... this is always a sign of weakness in the argument being proposed by the foul-mouthed one!!!:(
... and your case is no exception!!

If you had read my posting ... and your link ... you would know that the talkorigins link didn't address my argument ... that the spontaneous production of the AA sequence for just one specific functional protein is a mathematical impossibilty ... and there are billions of functional specific proteins in living organisms!!!

...your link answers a lot of 'strawman' questions ... but it doesn't address the issue of how non-intelligently directed processes could produce the billions of specific biomolecular sequences in a particular time and place that are required to produce and supposedly evolve life ... when the production of only one specific functional sequence is mathematically impossible.

you clearly didn't read the article I posted prior to Jammys link (which actually does address your questionable maths).

Pac413

ATHEISTS used LOGIC AND FACTS

It's not very effective...

Turtwig

Pac413 wrote: »

ATHEISTS used LOGIC AND FACTS

It's not very effective...

Creationist used Evidence Immunity

It's Super effective!

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

when the production of only one specific functional sequence is mathematically impossible.

I have explained to you time & again why you are lying when you say this.
Furthermore I have gone through with you, in detail, how sequences are created.
Further-furthermore I explained to you, again in detail, how your CFSI
trash rhetoric is just describing nature - when separated from your ideology.
Remember, we broke up every word into colour-coded sections?
Further-further-furthermore I showed you how you were using incorrect
figures that were over 10 years old & totally incorrect.
Further-further-further-furthermore we went through how your "math" is
describing some permutation chain of balls in outer space with absolutely
nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Further-further-further-further-furthermore a big number in mathematics
is not impossible so your whole argument was a sham even before you
put in the final full stop :pac:

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Which would be fine, if only for the obvious conundrum - If the universe is so complex that it requires a creator, then that creator would need to be equally as complex, and would require in itself - a creator. The loop is infinite.

You are now entering the realm of philosophy ... and theology ... so perhaps it is understandable that you are 'out of your depth' somewhat on this issue ... but the answer to your conundrum is that any Creator of the Universe and everything therein must be transcendent (i.e. existing before it was created and outside of it). They must also be omnipotent and omniscient due to the immensity of the creative task and it's complexity and order. An omniscient and transcendent Creator doesn't require a Creator Himself ... He simply always was ... and always will be ... the great I AM of the Universe and beyond!!!!

Your obvious lack of knowledge of this important theological principle is another reason for a better education of every child, and some of the adults, in the beliefs of the main religions in our society.

dlofnep wrote: »

So why create extra obstacles in the first place? Are do you only apply your logic when it comes to the universe's creation, but are happy to waive it when it comes to the creator of a 'creator'.

... see above.

dlofnep wrote: »

No, they are not. They are the direct result of 100's of millions of years of evolution. If a God was to intelligently design humans, he did a truly abysmal job, considering the mass rates at which cancer, aids and other incurable diseases have taken over the human population.

All these evils are a result of the exercise of free will by Satan, Adam, Eve and their descendants. The Creation itself was perfect.

dlofnep wrote: »

No it isn't. Christ, where you find this nonsense?

... see my post #4324.

dlofnep wrote: »

No, it isn't. And for the millionth time - lack of belief, does not equal belief. It is not a religion.

Of course, any belief system is a 'religion' ... and the reason you are denying this fact, in the case of your own Atheistic belief system ... is because Materialists have carefully constructed a system of brainwashing every child in every school with their Materialistic beliefs under the guise of 'science' ... when it is just a religious 'origins story' like any other religious 'origins story' ... and with less logic and physical evidence for it's veracity that it primary competitor, Direct Divine Creation!!!

dlofnep wrote: »

Once again, evolution is backed by science through fossils and DNA. Religion is backed by 2000 year old fables. Creationism will never be taught in science class, because it has no scientific merit.

I'm sorry that you feel that way ... but if you want your particular 'origins fables' taught to Christian children ... in all fairness, you, in turn, will have to allow the Christian 'origins story' to also be taught to your children ... it's called a quid pro quo.
In any event, a truly liberal education involves the child acquiring a knowledge of the beliefs of their own religion as well as those of other people in their community ... and not a one-sided, narrow-minded, brainwashing initiation into the 'origins story' of Atheism!!!
Why are ye so afraid of Creation Science and ID being taught to your childen ... could it be that you know, deep down, that Atheism and its 'origins story' would be rejected by even a five year old ... if they knew about the truth that they were created?
Like I have said, I want my children to be taught about Evolution, warts and all ... as well as Creation Science and ID ...
... why do you not want a similar liberal education for your children???

J C

Pac413 wrote: »

ATHEISTS used LOGIC AND FACTS

It's not very effective...

The reason that logic and facts aren't very effective in promoting the cause of Atheism is because the logic and the facts support Divine Creation ... because that is what actually happened!!!

J C

koth wrote: »

you clearly didn't read the article I posted prior to Jammys link (which actually does address your questionable maths).

Please show me where it does this.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Please show me where it does this.

If you read Jammys link, you'd see it shows how your maths doesn't work.

My own post was highlighting how simple organisms/cells can mutate over time into more complex organisms.

your 'evidence' so far has been bad maths and opinion, in other words it's evidence in the loosest sense of the word.

J C

koth wrote: »

If you read Jammys link, you'd see it shows how your maths doesn't work.

I read Jammy's link ... and it doesn't refer to my maths ... so can you tell me why my maths does not work? ... please be specific.

koth wrote: »

My own post was highlighting how simple organisms/cells can mutate over time into more complex organisms.

your 'evidence' so far has been bad maths and opinion, in other words it's evidence in the loosest sense of the word.

What is observed when organisms mutate, is that their genetic information degrades ... which is going in the wrong direction to what is needed to evolve Mankind from Pondkind ... and the reason that creatures don't completely degenerate over time is that the cells have auto-repair mechanisms that restores the DNA ... and these repair mechanisms are a further indication that an Intelligent Designer, with full overview created life.

... all this is getting away from the question as to why you wouldn't want all children to get a full liberal education in the belief systems of both Atheism and Theism ... as well as the scientific support for these beliefs?
... surely this is particulary important in our increasingly culturally diverse society???

J C

Dave! wrote: »

Thanks whore!

Great news though

Who is the 'whore' you are referring to?

NOTE:- If anybody is wondering where this post came from ... the quote was posted by Dave over on the 'Educate together' thread on this forum'. My question was bumped over to this thread because I was deemed to be 'soap boxing' ... by asking a civil question about a less-than-civil posting!!!

The Atheists are celebrating the announcement that Educate Together can open new secondary schools, which is something I also welcome.

I went to a state school myself and my children go to state schools ... and all religions co-exist happily together in mutual respect in these school communities. Clergy from all denominations are involved at every level within these schools and Biblical Christianity is freely discussed and respected.

I understand that Educate Together is a multi-denominational school system ... so I'm sure they respect and value the beliefs of all of the parents and children attending their schools ... including minority religions, which the people who are 'confining' me on this thread, should also think about doing!!!

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

I read Jammy's link ... and it doesn't refer to my maths ... so can you tell me why my maths does not work? ... please be specific.

1) You calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) You assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) You calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) You misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) You seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

What is observed when organisms mutate, is that their genetic information degrades

That is not true, therefore the rest of that paragraph is not worth addressing.

... all this is getting away from the question as to why you wouldn't want all children to get a full liberal education in the belief systems of both Atheism and Theism ... as well as the scientific support for these beliefs?
... surely this is particulary important in our increasingly culturally diverse society???

Aheism is not a belief system, and neither is theism.

Dave!

The OP

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I read Jammy's link ... and it doesn't refer to my maths ... so can you tell me why my maths does not work? ... please be specific.

it actually does. this goes some way to explaining why you reject most things on the thread. you clearly don't understand the material.

What is observed when organisms mutate, is that their genetic information degrades ... which is going in the wrong direction to what is needed to evolve Mankind from Pondkind ... and the reason that creatures don't completely degenerate over time is that the cells have auto-repair mechanisms that restores the DNA ... and these repair mechanisms are a further indication that an Intelligent Designer, with full overview created life.

so you're saying because genetic information doesn't degrade, that is proof of a creator. not very convincing.

... all this is getting away from the question as to why you wouldn't want all children to get a full liberal education in the belief systems of both Atheism and Theism ... as well as the scientific support for these beliefs?
... surely this is particulary important in our increasingly culturally diverse society???

and we end up on this silliness again because you can't back up your creation myth.
you still can grasp my point on that topic.

I await your next attempt to prove the creation myth.

J C

Dave! wrote: »

The OP

On what basis did you reach that conclusion?

Rev Hellfire

J C wrote: »

On what basis did you reach that conclusion?

Its written in the bible.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

On what basis did you reach that conclusion?

because he's a clever chappy

and as the OP, I can say he's not entirely wrong.

and I took the comment Dave! made in the good jest that I assume he intended with the post.

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

1) You calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) You assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) You calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) You misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) You seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

We are told by Materialists that life evolved through a series of mistakes ... with NS 'directing' the process. If this is true then each specific protein in each specific new structure / process that was produced to 'evolve' Pondkind to Mankind had to be produced by random processes ... and, if successfully produced, it might just be Naturally Selected ... provided there was nothing else 'wrong' with the organism.
There is only one problem with this idea ... and that is, there are so many non-functional permuations of AA sequence ... and so few functional ones (for a specific function) that random processes would produce so many non-functional biomolecules that no progress could ever be made on the supposed continuum between Pondkind and Mankind!!!
... and if by some miracle a specific functional biomolecule was produced by overcoming the astronomical odds against it being formed ... it would likely be in the wrong place or linked to the wrong other biomolecules, for functionality to be expressed.
... and OK it wouldn't be selected ... but then none of the completely non-functional sequences would be selected either i.e. there would be no functionality to select in such a non-intelligently directed system!!!
The fact that there is functionality, in bucket loads, in every living cell ... and non-intelligently directed proceses clearly cannot produce it, means that the only candidate left for its production is Intelligent Design!!!

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Aheism is not a belief system, and neither is theism.

... of course they are both belief systems ... unless the English language that you use has lost all meaning.

J C

koth wrote: »

it actually does. this goes some way to explaining why you reject most things on the thread. you clearly don't understand the material.

... it is you that hasn't provided any reasoned argument that my figures and conclusions are wrong ... and links to sites discussing other issues don't count!!

koth wrote: »

so you're saying because genetic information doesn't degrade, that is proof of a creator. not very convincing.

I'm saying that because all of this perfectly sequenced and co-ordinated information is there in living cells, in the first place ... and because, when it is degraded, a correction system restores it ... this is all indicative of Intelligent Design ... and overview.

koth wrote: »

and we end up on this silliness again because you can't back up your creation myth.
you still can grasp my point on that topic.

... we have ended up with you not able to give any reason why all children shouldn't be given a full liberal education in the belief systems of both Atheism and Theism ... as well as the scientific support, if any, for these beliefs?
... when this is particulary important in our increasingly culturally diverse society!!!

Zillah

J C wrote: »

Who is the 'whore' you are referring to?

"Thanks-whore"
not
"Thanks, whore".

IrishKnight

J C wrote: »

What is observed when organisms mutate, is that their genetic information degrades ... which is going in the wrong direction to what is needed to evolve Mankind from Pondkind ...

Well yes and no.

There are some genetic elements which do "degrade" and become non-functional (non-functional genes become pseudogenes), while others can change from one function to another (seen in yeasts ability to ferment) and indeed some can go from having no function to functional (as seen in the case of "nylonase").

I could be wrong in my interpretation of your post, but it would appear to me that you think that the more complex the organism is, the bigger the genome of said organism must be, but this is not the case. Indeed, this is called the C-value enigma.

For example lets assume that humans are the most complex being. Well, in a human genome we have 20,000 - 30,000 genes, with a total of 3.3 x 10^9 base pairs. Mice on the other hand have about the same number of base pairs with about the same number of genes, yet we don't think of them as been complex. Indeed, rice has a total of 3.9 x 10^8 base pairs with 28,236 genes...

EDIT: I see you posted before I replied, so here is some info about what you said in the above post.

J C wrote: »

I'm saying that because all of this perfectly sequenced and co-ordinated information is there in living cells, in the first place ... and because, when it is degraded, a correction system restores it ...

Again, yes and no. It is true to say that when mutations or DNA damage occurs that there is a repair system, a bit like a proofreader. But no matter how good the proofreader mistakes will be missed. The Irish Times website is a good example! While they have editors and what not, typos do pop up. Anyway, it is these missed mistakes that can give rise to new functions or might result in the gene becoming non-functional or indeed, some mutations have no effect what so ever...

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... it is you that hasn't provided any reasoned argument that my figures and conclusions are wrong ... and links to sites discussing other issues don't count!!

so you can post calculations from creationist websites, but we can't link to something that disproves it?

you want something in my own words? alright then, first problem with your calculation is that the number of known stars is greater than what you used.
it's 30 to the power of 22, not 10 to the power of 21.

mutations aren't random is another problem with what you stated.

I'm saying that because all of this perfectly sequenced and co-ordinated information is there in living cells, in the first place ... and because, when it is degraded, a correction system restores it ... this is all indicative of Intelligent Design ... and overview.

thats not proof of anything. thats misunderstanding and opinion is all.

... we have ended up with you not able to give any reason why all children shouldn't be given a full liberal education in the belief systems of both Atheism and Theism ... as well as the scientific support, if any, for these beliefs?
... when this is particulary important in our increasingly culturally diverse society!!!

again with misunderstanding and wilful ignorance.

J C

IrishKnight wrote: »

Well yes and no.

There are some genetic elements which do "degrade" and become non-functional (non-functional genes become pseudogenes), while others can change from one function to another (seen in yeasts ability to ferment) and indeed some can go from having no function to functional (as seen in the case of "nylonase").

You are confusing the degrading of genetic information by random processes like mutation ... and designed transformation in which genes switch from one function to another in a co-ordinated way ... as in your yeast example or using a whole pre-existing 'library' of functionalty as in your 'nylonaise' example.

IrishKnight wrote: »

I could be wrong in my interpretation of your post, but it would appear to me that you think that the more complex the organism is, the bigger the genome of said organism must be, but this is not the case. Indeed, this is called the C-value enigma.

For example lets assume that humans are the most complex being. Well, in a human genome we have 20,000 - 30,000 genes, with a total of 3.3 x 10^9 base pairs. Mice on the other hand have about the same number of base pairs with about the same number of genes, yet we don't think of them as been complex. Indeed, rice has a total of 3.9 x 10^8 base pairs with 28,236 genes...

You are confusing quantity with quality, here. The smaller the number of genes for the same (or even greater) functionalty ... the greater the quality of the information ... and, as Humans are made in the image and likeness of God ... we would expect the very highest quality of genetic information to be in the Human Genome ... and your figures above show this to be the case!!

IrishKnight

J C wrote: »

You are confusing the degrading of genetic information by random processes like mutation ... and designed transformation in which genes switch from one function to another in a co-ordinated way.

Well, they aren't transformed by design, it is just random chance. So in the example I gave, "nylonase" a non-funcational section of DNA in Flavobacterium sp. become functional due to a frame-shift mutation. That is to say, there was some deletion of base pairs which shifted the reading of DNA. This deletion happened to produce an enzyme which could "eat" a by-product on nylon, allowing Flavobacterium sp. to use this nylon by-product as food.

J C wrote: »

You are confusing quantity with quality, here. The smaller the number of genes for the same (or even greater) functionalty ... the greater the quality of the information ... and, as Humans are made in the image and likeness of God ... we would expect the very highest quality of genetic information to be in the Human Genome ... and your figures above proves this to be the case!!

Just so I am clear, are you saying that humans are complex because they require less genes for life as those genes contain more information? I'm asking as I just want to be clear about what you are saying! Clarity is key as they say...

J C

koth wrote: »

so you can post calculations from creationist websites, but we can't link to something that disproves it?

... of course you can ink to anything you want ... if you can find something on these sites that does disprove what I have presented ... but you clearly haven't done so!!!

koth wrote: »

you want something in my own words? alright then, first problem with your calculation is that the number of known stars is greater than what you used.
it's 30 to the power of 22, not 10 to the power of 21.

What are you basing this figure on?

I based mine on this Wiki answer ... as well as consulting Encylopedia Britannica
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_stars_are_in_the_universe
This says that a 'conservative estimate' puts the number at 10 sextillion or 10^21 ... just like I have said.

The Hubble estimate of 500 billion Galaxies each with about 300 billion stars for each galaxy would indicate 10^23 stars ... which would only bump up the number of electrons in the universe to 10^84 ... (rather than my estimate of 10^82) which is still a long way off the 10^130 number of permutations for a 100 chain protein

koth wrote: »

mutations aren't random is another problem with what you stated.

... of course they are random ... or are you saying that mutagenesis is controlled by some intelligence???

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... of course you can ... if you can find something on these sites that does disprove what I have presented ... but you haven't done so!!!

jammy did. but you're just ignoring it, much like you do with science in general.

What are you basing this figure on?

I based mine on this Wiki answer ... as well as consulting Encylopedia Brittanica
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_stars_are_in_the_universe
This says that a 'conservative estimate' puts the number at 10 sextillion or 10^21 ... just like I have said.

The Hubble estimate of 500 billion Galaxies each with about 300 billion stars for each galaxy would indicate 10^23 ... which would only bump up the number of electrons in the universe to 10^84 ... which is still a long way off the 10^130 number of permutations for a 100 chain protein

a study that was published last year in Nature magazine is where I got the number.

... of course they are random ... or are you saying that mutagenesis is controlled by some intelligence???

no