"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

koth wrote: »

JC, we will not engage with you any further on this thread until you rebut, in a properly scientific manner, the paper debunking csfi, which you have been refusing to do for the past several months. For your convenience you will find a link to the paper here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74184167&postcount=5370

Its time that ye 'put up ... or shut up' about this paper ...
... BTW ye will have my full sympathy, if ye are unable to 'put up'.:)

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Its time that ye 'put up ... or shut up' about this paper ...
... BTW ye will have my full sympathy, if ye are unable to 'put up'.:)

JC, we will not engage with you any further on this thread until you rebut, in a properly scientific manner, the paper debunking csfi, which you have been refusing to do for the past several months. For your convenience you will find a link to the paper here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...postcount=5370

MrP

pH

J C wrote: »

As mutations are random, I accept that they have no intent ... but (as a result) they always degrade genetic CFSI.
Similary, random changes to a page of meaningful text also don't have any intent ... and they therefore degrade the CFSI in the text.

Many many months (years?) ago I provided you with a rigorous proof that this wasn't correct. I did so despite the fact that you couldn't specify how the "CFSI" of a text or a genome was to be measured.

If you remember, it was based on the fact that all genetic mutations there exists another mutation that reverses it. Deletions reverse insertions, insertions reverse deletions and alterations reverse alterations.

If you accept that a for a given genome G1, there exists a Mutation M that changes the genome to G2, such that CFSI(G1) > CFSI(G2).
(Which you do accept, in that you accept that after a mutation the CFSI of a genome is "degraded")

Then you must also accept:
- There exists a mutation M' which reverses M
- If you apply M' to G2 you get G1
- CFSI(G1) > CFSI(G2)

Therefore a mutation can increase CFSI (no matter how you measure it).

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

JC, we will not engage with you any further on this thread until you rebut, in a properly scientific manner, the paper debunking csfi, which you have been refusing to do for the past several months. For your convenience you will find a link to the paper here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...postcount=5370

MrP

... I fully understand, if ye don't wish to make any defense of Evolution ... I remember when I gave up believing in Evolution ... I simply gave up defending the indefensible!!!:)

J C

pH wrote: »

Many many months (years?) ago I provided you with a rigorous proof that this wasn't correct. I did so despite the fact that you couldn't specify how the "CFSI" of a text or a genome was to be measured.

If you remember, it was based on the fact that all genetic mutations there exists another mutation that reverses it. Deletions reverse insertions, insertions reverse deletions and alterations reverse alterations.

Random (damaging) Mutations aren't reversed by further (damaging) random mutations ... that is why somebody suffering from a mutation-induced disease isn't cured by exposure to further mutagenesis!!!

Any time a mutation is reversed, it is because it is masked by a dominant allele in the next generation ... or it is 'corrected' by the 'auto-correction' mechanisms within the cell ... and these are both indicators of an originally perfect creation.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-ie%3AIE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7GPEA_en&hl=en&q=cache:sTbCpmFnMNoJ:http://vegyeszkar2005.ch.bme.hu/Biomernoki/Mikrobialisgenetika/Modern_mirobial_genetics/3_DNA%20Repair%20Mechanisms%20and%20Mutagenesis.pdf+auto+correction+mechanisms+in+the+living+cell&ct=clnk

pH wrote: »

If you accept that a for a given genome G1, there exists a Mutation M that changes the genome to G2, such that CFSI(G1) > CFSI(G2).
(Which you do accept, in that you accept that after a mutation the CFSI of a genome is "degraded")
I agree

Then you must also accept:
- There exists a mutation M' which reverses M
- If you apply M' to G2 you get G1
- CFSI(G1) > CFSI(G2)
I disagree.

Therefore a mutation can increase CFSI (no matter how you measure it).
Incorrect conclusion, based on an invalid initial premise.

Your initial premise is invalid ... therefore the ultimate conclusion that you have drawn from it is also invalid.

I guess its 'back to the drawing board' for you, on that one.:)

BTW, we welcome all conventionally qualified scientists as Creation Scientists, if you, or any of the other Evolutionists this thread who seem to be 'throwing in the towel' on Evolution, would like to join us.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... I fully understand, if ye don't wish to make any defense of Evolution ... I remember when I gave up believing in Evolution ... I simply gave up defending the indefesible!!!:)

JC, we will not engage with you any further on this thread until you rebut, in a properly scientific manner, the paper debunking csfi, which you have been refusing to do for the past several months. For your convenience you will find a link to the paper here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74184167&postcount=5370

Mr. Boo

J C wrote: »

Random (damaging) Mutations aren't reversed by further (damaging) random mutations ... that is why somebody suffering from a mutation-induced disease isn't cured by exposure to further mutagenesis!!!

Any time a mutation is reversed, it is because it is masked by a dominant allele in the next generation ... or it is 'corrected' by the 'auto-correction' mechanisms within the cell ... and these are both indicators of an originally perfect creation.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-ie%3AIE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7GPEA_en&hl=en&q=cache:sTbCpmFnMNoJ:http://vegyeszkar2005.ch.bme.hu/Biomernoki/Mikrobialisgenetika/Modern_mirobial_genetics/3_DNA%20Repair%20Mechanisms%20and%20Mutagenesis.pdf+auto+correction+mechanisms+in+the+living+cell&ct=clnk


Your initial premise is invalid ... therefore the ultimate conclusion that you have drawn from it is also invalid.

I guess its 'back to the drawing board' for you, on that one.:)

BTW, we welcome all conventionally qualified scientists as Creation Scientists, if you'd like to join us.

JC, we will not engage with you any further on this thread until you rebut, in a properly scientific manner, the paper debunking csfi, which you have been refusing to do for the past several months. For your convenience you will find a link to the paper here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...postcount=5370

J C

Mr. Boo wrote:

JC, we will not engage with you any further on this thread until you rebut, in a properly scientific manner, the paper debunking csfi, which you have been refusing to do for the past several months. For your convenience you will find a link to the paper here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74184167&postcount=5370

Like I have said ...
... I fully understand, if ye don't wish to make any defense of Evolution ... I remember when I gave up believing in Evolution ... I simply gave up defending the indefensible!!!:)

Its time that ye 'put up ... or shut up' about this paper ... and I promise to respond to any arguments that you may like to make, based on it.:D

... I can't be any fairer than that!!!

Delirium

JC, we will not engage with you any further on this thread until you rebut, in a properly scientific manner, the paper debunking csfi, which you have been refusing to do for the past several months. For your convenience you will find a link to the paper here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74184167&postcount=5370

pH

Then you must also accept:
- There exists a mutation M' which reverses M
- If you apply M' to G2 you get G1
- CFSI(G1) > CFSI(G2)
I disagree.

Which part do you disagree with?

- There exists a mutation M' which reverses M

Not sure how you could disagree with this, for every mutation M there exists a mutation M' that reverses it, ie returns the genome (or text) to the state it was before M occurred. By the nature of mutations; insertions, deletions and alterations are all reversible - however if you claim otherwise you need only show a segment of a gene, and show a mutation occurring on it for which no reversing mutation could conceivably exist.

- If you apply M' to G2 you get G1

Well M' (if it exists) is defined to be the mutation that changes G2 back to G1 so this cannot be a problem.

- CFSI(G1) > CFSI(G2)

You already agreed this is true.

So the only point you could possibly have a problem with is the existence of M' (a mutation which reverses M and returns a genome to exactly as it was before M occurred). So rather than "disagree", how about an example of a mutation that isn't reversible - let's see an example genome, a mutation on it and the resulting genome.

J C

koth wrote: »

JC, we will not engage with you any further on this thread until you rebut, in a properly scientific manner, the paper debunking csfi, which you have been refusing to do for the past several months. For your convenience you will find a link to the paper here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74184167&postcount=5370

Brings back memories of when I finally gave up believing in Evolution ... your secret is safe with me.:)

pH

Guys, if you don't want to engage with J C on the points he wants to engage with then why not just unsub this thread? He's under no obligation to any of you to answer any particular question and spamming the thread with the same post over and over is plain rude and disruptive.

I personally choose not to engage with J C for long periods of time, however I didn't have the arrogance to spam the thread with a boiler-plate post when you guys were at some stage engaging with him.

J C

pH wrote: »

Which part do you disagree with?

- There exists a mutation M' which reverses M

Not sure how you could disagree with this, for every mutation M there exists a mutation M' that reverses it, ie returns the genome (or text) to the state it was before M occurred. By the nature of mutations; insertions, deletions and alterations are all reversible - however if you claim otherwise you need only show a segment of a gene, and show a mutation occurring on it for which no reversing mutation could conceivably exist.

- If you apply M' to G2 you get G1

Well M' (if it exists) is defined to be the mutation that changes G2 back to G1 so this cannot be a problem.

- CFSI(G1) > CFSI(G2)

You already agreed this is true.

So the only point you could possibly have a problem with is the existence of M' (a mutation which reverses M and returns a genome to exactly as it was before M occurred). So rather than "disagree", how about an example of a mutation that isn't reversible - let's see an example genome, a mutation on it and the resulting genome.

Like I have said, I primarily disagree with your premise that for each (random) mutation, there is a 'reverse' (random) mutation.
Mutations can occur by insertion, deletion or alteration ... but they aren't reversible by further random mutagenesis.
Like I have said, they are observed to be reversed by being masked by a dominant allele in the next generation ... or by being 'corrected' by the 'auto-correction' mechanisms within the cell ... and these are both indicators of an originally perfect (and intelligently designed) creation.

pH wrote: »

... for every mutation M there exists a mutation M' that reverses it, ie returns the genome (or text) to the state it was before M occurred.

A number of random changes to text, has no statistical chance of being reversed by further random changes to the text.
The stats indicate that random changes to English text 'runs away' irreversibly, from the original, as the chances of randomly 'reversing' each 'incorrect' letter is 1:26, while the chances of not doing so are 25:26.
This would also happen with living cells, if the auto-correction mechanisms hadn't been created to prevent the mutation 'load' from making the cell so disfunctional that it would kill the organism.

Damaging mutations (and random text changes) can be easily (and reliably) reversed by an intelligently designed proof reader ... and ditto for living cells.

J C

pH wrote: »

Guys, if you don't want to engage with J C on the points he wants to engage with then why not just unsub this thread? He's under no obligation to any of you to answer any particular question and spamming the thread with the same post over and over is plain rude and disruptive.

I personally choose not to engage with J C for long periods of time, however I didn't have the arrogance to spam the thread with a boiler-plate post when you guys were at some stage engaging with him.

I have already committed to answering any question or evidence they may present to me from the paper.

MrPudding

pH wrote: »

Guys, if you don't want to engage with J C on the points he wants to engage with then why not just unsub this thread? He's under no obligation to any of you to answer any particular question and spamming the thread with the same post over and over is plain rude and disruptive.

I personally choose not to engage with J C for long periods of time, however I didn't have the arrogance to spam the thread with a boiler-plate post when you guys were at some stage engaging with him.

... Actually, no, I won't even bother.

MrP

pH

J C wrote: »

a numner of random changes to text, has no statistical chance of being reversed by further random changes to the text.

It can be easily (and reliably) reversed by an intelligently designed proof reader ... and ditto for living cells.

Again J C we're not at the moment talking about chance, or likelihood, we're talking about your central claim that a random mutation can never increase the CFSI of a genome or text.

You're muddying the water by trying to talk about auto-correction - this has nothing do to with the point I'm making.

Also multiple random changes is a red herring also, if the last "change" decreased the CFSI of the genome then this is all we need to consider.

So if you claim that a single mutation can reduce the CFSI of a genome, then show me one that reduces it but for which there does not exist another mutation that would return the genome to its original state.

How likely that mutation is to occur is not even slightly relevant, all that matters is you admit that there exists a genome G2 on which if mutation M' occurred (giving us G1) CFSI would have increased.

Once you accept that these genomes and mutations exist then we can talk about probability and likelihood.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

... Actually, no, I won't even bother.

MrP

Sour Grapes!!!:eek::)

J C

pH wrote: »

Again J C we're not at the moment talking about chance, or likelihood, we're talking about your central claim that a random mutation can never increase the CFSI of a genome or text.

Your argument is that if a random mutation can cause a 'loss' of CFSI, then a random 'reversal' of it could also restore the CFSI, thereby resulting in a 'gain' of CFSI (back to its more perfect original state).
Superficially, this would appear to be true ... but in reality a 'reversal' never occurs spontaneously.
The problem is that mutagenesis acts randomly all over the genome (or written text) ... and the chance of further deleterious changes, vastly outweigh the chance of any reversals to the original state (due to the effective infinity of non-functional / meaningless combinatorial space inherent in even relatively small quantities of CFSI).

Its a bit like taking your car to a random robotic panel beater to get a dent fixed on the door of the car ... the random panel beater can further damage your car in an effective infinity of ways by randomly hitting it ... but the chances of it randomly hitting the car in the specific complex way required to fix the dent on your car door is effectively zero ... while the chance of further damage being done to your car's bodywork is a certainty!!!

pH wrote: »

You're muddying the water by trying to talk about auto-correction - this has nothing do to with the point I'm making.

Also multiple random changes is a red herring also, if the last "change" decreased the CFSI of the genome then this is all we need to consider.

We also have to consider the size of the information base upon which the process is acting. For example, is we have a piece of text 100 letters long, and we make 5 random changes to it and the last one changes a critical word in such a way, that it becomes meaningless (and thus deleterious). The chance of 'reversing' this particular letter may be 1:26 on the next change ... but the chance of the next change being to that particular location is 1:100 ... so the combined chance of the letter and the location being 'reversed' on the next change is 1:2,600. If the next change affects another critical letter of the critical word, then the chance of the next two changes reversing both critical changes is 1:2,600 x 1:2,600 or 1:6.76 million ... and the odds against randomly 'reversing' the process to the original meaningful sentence increases exponentially to reach the number of electrons in the Big Bang Universe (10^82) after only 25 changes.

Like I have said, the stats indicate that random changes to English text 'runs away' irreversibly, from the original, as the chances of randomly 'reversing' each 'incorrect' letter is 1:26, while the chances of not doing so are 25:26. Such a random change process would rapidly produce a meaningless jumble of ever-changing letters ... but it would never produce a meaningful sentence again, to say nothing about ever 'returning' to the original meaningful sentence.
This would also happen with living cells, if the auto-correction mechanisms hadn't been created to prevent the mutation 'load' from rapidly making the cells so disfunctional that they would kill the organism.

Damaging mutations (and random text changes) can be easily (and reliably) reversed by an intelligently designed proof reader ... and ditto for living cells.
http://www.sparknotes.com/biology/molecular/dnareplicationandrepair/section3.rhtml

pH wrote: »

So if you claim that a single mutation can reduce the CFSI of a genome, then show me one that reduces it but for which there does not exist another mutation that would return the genome to its original state.

How likely that mutation is to occur is not even slightly relevant, all that matters is you admit that there exists a genome G2 on which if mutation M' occurred (giving us G1) CFSI would have increased.

Once you accept that these genomes and mutations exist then we can talk about probability and likelihood.

The probability is critically important ... and, if you doubt me, try taking your car to a random panel beater ... and come back and tell me what you observed, in terms of 'improvements' (and 'reversals' of damage) to your car after, say a thousand random bangs!!!

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Sour Grapes!!!:eek::)

JC, we will not engage with you any further on this thread until you rebut, in a properly scientific manner, the paper debunking csfi, which you have been refusing to do for the past several months. For your convenience you will find a link to the paper here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...postcount=5370

MrP

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

JC, we will not engage with you any further on this thread until you rebut, in a properly scientific manner, the paper debunking csfi, which you have been refusing to do for the past several months. For your convenience you will find a link to the paper here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...postcount=5370

MrP

An interesting reaction to defeat!!!:)

J C

pH wrote: »

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." - Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
But, when it comes to the Theory of Spontaneous Evolution, there is a difference ... and its completely invalid in practice!!!:)

Ye guys are allowing your religious belief (that materialistic processes is all there is) to rule your scientific beliefs (that because there is life, it must therefore have been spontaneously produced).

I separate my religious faith (in the Saving power of Jesus Christ) from my scientific knowledge (that because life contains vast quantities of highly sophisticated CFSI, it had an equally sophisticated, and intelligently designed origin).

Ye guys are allowing your hearts to rule your heads ... I use my head for my science ... and my heart for my God.

Irrational materialists whose hearts are ruling their heads ... not the general image that comes to mind ... yet, when it comes to the 'origins issue' ... it seems to be true!!!:eek::D

Sarky

Please just debunk the paper, J C, all you're doing is showing a staggering ignorance of genomics and probability.

Mr. Boo

Sarky wrote: »

Please just debunk the paper, J C, all you're doing is showing a staggering ignorance of genomics and probability.

It is actually phenomenal. It's similar to the monkeys with typewriters.

In order to learn from this churning mass of garbage, however, you'd need to know all possible knowledge regarding genetics, evolution, statistics, probability, information theory (true or false); from which you could eliminate the extraneous using JC's posts as a sort of key.

Or, you could read the literature and make up your own mind.

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

It is actually phenomenal. It's similar to the monkeys with typewriters.

In order to learn from this churning mass of garbage, however, you'd need to know all possible knowledge regarding genetics, evolution, statistics, probability, information theory (true or false); from which you could eliminate the extraneous using JC's posts as a sort of key.

Or, you could read the literature and make up your own mind.

... or you could take a hammer to your car ... and see if randomly hammering it 'improves' it bodywork ... or 'reverses' any of the damage already done!!

... the alternative of exposing yourself to mutagenesis in order to prove its supposed mutation 'reversing' effects should not be done because of the acute risk of death!!:eek:

Sarky

Just debunk the paper, please. We're all very much aware of how mind-bogglingly ignorant your analogies are. Nobody will engage with you until you either go through the entire paper point by point and show in detail why it's wrong, or you admit you don't know what you're talking about.

So go ahead. Paper. Debunk. You've had months to prepare.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Just debunk the paper, please. We're all very much aware of how mind-bogglingly ignorant your analogies are.

My analogies are pertinent ... and devastating to Spontaneous Evolution.

Sarky

They're utterly retarded. Now debunk the paper, please.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

They're utterly retarded. Now debunk the paper, please.

The guys over on the 'Atheism causes Creationism' thread can't stand the heat of one Saved Christian telling them a few home truths ... and ye guys continue to repeat a meaningless mantra about some paper that doesn't do what it says on the tin!!!!

Is this what the much-praised ideas of Atheism and Evolutionism comes down to ???
... and the claims by Atheists to be 'hard headed' realists?

When 'push comes to shove' ... there is nothing actually there to back any of your ideas up ... and all ye can do is resort to metaphorically 'sticking your fingers in your ears' and ordering me to stop telling you about the truth that God Created all life ... and the good news that you can all be Saved???

dlofnep

Why are you avoiding debunking the paper? Just admit that you cannot debunk it and that you are deluded.

J C

dlofnep wrote: »

Why are you avoiding debunking the paper? Just admit that you cannot debunk it and that you are deluded.

Why are ye banning me back to this thread, when I have been contributing politely and on topic on a thread in which I can claim professional expertise ... the Atheism causes Creationism thread????

I'm not the one 'on the run' here ... and unable to defend my position ... your only response over the last several pages has been to ask me to debunk a paper that ye are citing ... when ye haven't quoted one iota from it in defense of your case.

... and I have cited specific examples of how Spontaneous Evolution, doesn't 'pass muster', in either the logic or evidential stakes!!!