The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

It is humanity that decides morality. They may use science to form a moral viewpoint, but the view point does not belong to science.

I agree. If we take science = fact, then science is blameless. It is up to us to draw the right conclusions about our conduct based on the facts.

Fact tells me that cyanide kills. If I put cyanide into my neighbour's drink, I am responsible for his murder, not the fact that cyanide kills.

When we come to consider what value I put on my neighbour, what I believe to be the facts about him will be significant. If I believe him to be sub-human I may well agree to his being shipped of to some reservation or otherwise prevented from interbreeding with true man.

If I believe we are both true man, but that we are just the latest stage of evolution, I may well think it OK to use/abuse him in so far as it profits me. Alternatively, I may invent some moral system for myself or adopt a current one, that restricts my freedom to use/abuse him. That will be my choice, not a reflection on any real worth he possesses.

If I choose the former abusive response, I cannot be accused of being other than honest in my dealing with the facts. I cannot condemn the man who chooses the latter, compassionate response, for he is totally free to respond as he likes. But I can point out his response is entirely artificial.

So when some evolutionists decide an adult pig is of more value than a new-born child, other evolutionists cannot raise a logical objection. When some decide to exterminate all they consider a hinderance to the health of their nation, no evolutionist can raise a logical objection.

What we believe are the facts about our nature informs our actions. Sophisticated nature, or the image of God, each view will significantly influence how we treat our neighbour.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

If I were to use them repeatedly, on the other hand, there is no limit to the amount of information I can eventually represent.

Thanks for the explanation. Just leaves me with this question: Has there been enough time since the Big Bang for these combinations to arrive at the required probability; in other words, How long is eventually?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Does probability necessary for (chances against) the formation of the simplest living cell exceed that of the total electrons in the known universe?

We have no way of measuring the probability of the simplest living cell randomly forming, so that is impossible tell. But its rather beside the point since the first cells didn't randomly form.

The probability that a protien would just randomly form is in excess of the total eletctron in the known universe, but again such a fact is largely meaningless since protiens didn't just randomly form.

This has been explained to JC a number of times, yet he ignore this.

wolfsbane wrote:

I see the argument has been presented that bacteria can produce sufficient numbers to allow for the probability, but the objection is offered that that is only in theoretical numbers, as such numbers cannot exist in the real universe as they exceed both the available space and time.

That isn't true.

The number of possible cell divisions outcomes for each of the 40 trillion or so cells on Earth, over a space of a billion years, is far far far in excess of the JCs number of the electrons in the universe.

wolfsbane wrote:

Regardless of how you believe the universe developed, what is the mathematical score, given our present knowledge?

The "score" is that JC neither properly understand probability, nor the theory of evolution properly. As such he is applying is mistaken knowledge of probabily to his mistaken knowledge of evolution and coming up with an almightly mess of a theory.

J C

Wicknight
because the chemical reaction that creates fire has no regard for the safety of humans (I can't believe I actually wrote that sentence .. but anyway), does that mean that a fire fighter who fully accepts the chemistry of science also doesn't give a sh!t out the safety of humans

The point, that you are missing is that the Fire fighter IS behaving in accordance with his/her (well founded) belief that fire will destroy Humans, by rescuing people as quickly as possible from the flames of a fire.

The Evolutionist is NOT behaving in accordance with his/her (unfounded) belief that mutations/replication errors provided the basis for the evolution of life – because Evolutionists DON’T use the supposedly 'amazing re-generative powers’ of mutagenesis to cure sick people or to ‘improve’ healthy people!!!

As I have already said, Evolutionist Doctors ACTUALLY follow the Creationist Model IN PRACTICE - and they try to restore the patient to their originally created ‘perfect state’ in so far as this is possible – rather that trying to increase their mutation / 'replication error' rate!!!


Originally Posted by J C
I don’t understand how an Evolutionist Doctor treats patients by using his/her 'understanding' of how Macro-Evolution supposedly evolved Humans from 'Slime Balls'
Wicknight
Well that is because you don't know the first thing about evolution

Will YOU, as an Evolution Expert, then please tell me HOW Evolutionist Doctors use knowledge gained from Slime Balls to treat patients?


Wicknight
I see your understanding of statistics is as bad as your understanding of biology.

It is not 4E+24 x 3.15E+16, it is 4E+24 to the power of 3.15E+16

Now that I am in ‘learning mode’, please show me HOW you derived THIS figure ?


Wicknight
Think of it this way. If I had a dice and I roll it twice the possible combinations are 6^2 = 32, not 6*2 = 12 (the ^ symbol is to power of)

Firstly, of 6^2 is actually 36 (and NOT 32).

Yes the POTENTIAL combinations are indeed 36 – but the specific combination EXPRESSED in only two rolls of a dice is only TWO numbers.

Similarly, the POTENTIAL number of bacterial mutations produced in 30 generations starting off with 15 million mutations from 100 billion bacteria in a kilo of soil is 1.9 E+215 - if we assume no resource limitations.

However, because of resource constraints there will be STABLE a population of 100 billion bacteria in EACH generation and therefore the actual number of mutations EXPRESSED for NS to directionally select would be only 450 million (15 million in each generation x 30 generations). This number is only 4.5E+8 – which is a long way SHORT of the 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein.

I too intuitively believed that even though the chances of any aspect of life occurring spontaneously were exceedingly small, the enormous size of the Universe would still ensure that life would emerge via the Law of Big numbers.

However, when I actually measured how infinitesimally SMALL the chances of even a simple protein emerging were (1 in 1E+180) and I discovered that the ‘Enormous Universe’ actually only contains 10E+82 electrons, I knew that my intuition was WRONG!!!

Basically, the problem is that although living systems have the POTENTIAL to more than match the permutations required to ensure the emergence of specific bio chemicals – they lack the resources to EXPRESS these permutations (even if they were able to harness all of the matter in the Universe).


Originally Posted by J C
What’s this all about?
Is this a ‘convert’ to ID I see before me?

Wicknight
Would you care? You have already rejected Intelligent Design because it is illogical to include God in that theory.

I would indeed like to know.

You see, I suspect from your recent postings that you now realise from your calculations that the design of life is indeed too complex to have occurred by undirected natural processes and therefore ID is scientifically valid.

How / whether God fits into ID is a separate question that we can debate later on – but I want to now establish whether you accept that ID is a REALITY based upon the mathematical exercises that we have been engaged in over the past four pages of this thread?

pH

BrianCalgary wrote:

I think I just might have to read it as well. Hitler apparently espouses the superiority of the master race and th einferiority of blacks and Jews. Definitely the result of evolutionary teaching of th etime which had whites being at the top of the evolutionary scale and blacks being lower.

Brian will you now concede that Hitler's views are not the result of evolutionary teaching at the time?

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

Thanks for the explanation. Just leaves me with this question: Has there been enough time since the Big Bang for these combinations to arrive at the required probability; in other words, How long is eventually?

Well, I am, you'll note, just using 1 kilo of soil for a month - so I would think the answer here would be yes by quite a wide margin...

Actually, considering all the cell divisions, mutations, recombinations and shuffles occurring in genetic material around the world, I would imagine it would be almost impossible to conceive of the number of possible permutations of genetic material that occur in a year on this our planet.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Fact tells me that cyanide kills. If I put cyanide into my neighbour's drink, I am responsible for his murder, not the fact that cyanide kills.

Exactly

wolfsbane wrote:

If I believe him to be sub-human I may well agree to his being shipped of to some reservation or otherwise prevented from interbreeding with true man.

Ok, but you need to realise that there is a difference between him being "sub-human" and the idea that he will be shipped off to some reservation ala "Brave New World"

And I would point out that you won't actually get any biological evidence from science to back up the claim that he is "sub-human" (I'm not even sure what one means by that)

wolfsbane wrote:

That will be my choice, not a reflection on any real worth he possesses.

Everything is your choice. "Value" does not exists beyond the scope of humanity. Nothing has intrinsic value except the value humanity places upon it. Even Christians place value upon human life based on their religious beliefs, but a lava flow, or a posion snake holds no concept of the value or worth a human life

wolfsbane wrote:

So when some evolutionists decide an adult pig is of more value than a new-born child, other evolutionists cannot raise a logical objection.

Yes they can, and most likely would.

The theory of evolution doesn't decide the value of something to humans.

The argument for or against the idea that a pig is of more value than a human is largely independentent of the theory of evolution (or any other scientific theory for that matter)

wolfsbane wrote:

When some decide to exterminate all they consider a hinderance to the health of their nation, no evolutionist can raise a logical objection.

Again, they can and most likely would.

For a start what is the argument that being a hinderance to the health of their nation is a bad thing?

Science doesn't decide that, a human would. And if charged with debating this argument I would start with the logic that this human came up with to support this argument.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Wicknight
because the chemical reaction that creates fire has no regard for the safety of humans (I can't believe I actually wrote that sentence .. but anyway), does that mean that a fire fighter who fully accepts the chemistry of science also doesn't give a sh!t out the safety of humans

The point, that you are missing is that the Fire fighter IS behaving in accordance with his/her belief that fire will destroy Humans, by rescuing people as quickly as possible from the flames of a fire.

The Evolutionist is NOT behaving in accordance with his/her belief that mutations provided the basis for the evolution of life – because Evolutionists DON’T use the supposedly 'amazing re-generative powers’ of mutagenesis to cure sick people or to ‘improve’ healthy people!!!

Possibly because no-one has ever suggested, outside an asylum, that random mutations have "amazing re-generative powers". You may be thinking of the X-Men, or some other comic.

However, we are beginning to use genetic therapy, which may be a case of silencing a particular gene, or activating another - all of which involves changes to their genes, and removes the person from their "originally created ‘perfect state’", as you put it.

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
I don’t understand how an Evolutionist Doctor treats patients by using his/her 'understanding' of how Macro-Evolution supposedly evolved Humans from 'Slime Balls'
Wicknight
Well that is because you don't know the first thing about evolution

Will YOU, as an Evolution Expert, then please tell me HOW Evolutionist Doctors use knowledge gained from Slime Balls to treat patients?

Why would anyone answer such a stupid question? Unless you mean the sort of research done on slime moulds (eg "Testing new manic depression drugs in slime mould: an alternative to the current serendipitous approach"), it is almost impossible to frame a sensible answer to such a piece of nonsense.

J C wrote:

You see, I suspect from your recent postings that you now realise from your calculations that the design of life is indeed too complex to have occurred by undirected natural processes and therefore ID is scientifically valid.

How / whether God fits into ID is a separate question that we can debate later on – but I want to now establish whether you accept that ID is a REALITY based upon the mathematical exercises that we have been engaged in over the past four pages of this thread?

Not really, JC, since all we have really been doing with the numbers here is producing big numbers to show how easy it is. Proteins are not generated randomly in the way that we have been calculating - and it is this that is the flaw in your argument, not any particular set of calculations.

regards,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw
What is at issue here is the number of possibilities, not the number of actual bacteria. JC compares probability (the odds against something) to individuals (the number of bacteria) - an approach that ignores the time axis.
But I DID include a time axis.

I factored in a generation time of 8 hours or three generations per day FOR A BILLION YEARS with the resources of the entire Universe of 10+82 electrons (and generously assuming each electron was a bacterium) and still only managed to GENERATE 1.10E+98 (10E+82 x 1.10E+12) individual bacteria - which is STILL is a long way SHORT of the 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein.


Wicknight
The probability that a protien would just randomly form is in excess of the total eletctron in the known universe, but again such a fact is largely meaningless since protiens didn't just randomly form.

Does the FACT that the probability for the sequence of a specific useful small protein being generated by undirected processes, vastly exceeds ALL of the electrons in the known Universe not say something very profound about the chances of this protein EVER being formed by non-intelligent processes?

Materialistic Evolution does assume that proteins, and indeed all of life was formed by undirected processes.
Although Natural Selection IS capable of direction in sympathy with environmental conditions - the problem lies with the mutation mechanism that supposedly produces the material for NS to select.
The mutation mechanism IS by definition, an undirected / random process.
For example, if a specific 100 chain Amino Acid sequence is required for a specific useful protein that NS would select if it were present – the 10 E+130 possible combinations of 100 amino acids means that such a specific useful protein has odds of 10E+130 AGAINST it ever being formed – and it therefore cannot be reasonable expected to be generated by undirected mutations/DNA shuffling.

The problem just get worse with larger proteins and at higher levels within living systems/organisms


Wicknight
The number of possible cell divisions outcomes for each of the 40 trillion or so cells on Earth, over a space of a billion years, is far far far in excess of the JCs number of the electrons in the universe.

Not so!!

If we generously assume that each cell replicates itself once every second – how many individual cell division outcomes will actually be generated over a billion years??

40 trillion cells or 40E+18 cells
3.16E+16 seconds in a billion years.

The number of possible cell division outcomes for each of the 40 trillion or so cells on Earth, over a space of a billion years is 40E+18 x 3.16E+16 = 1.26+36 - which is a long way SHORT of the 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein or indeed even the 10E+82 electrons in the known Universe.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

The Evolutionist is NOT behaving in accordance with his/her belief that mutations provided the basis for the evolution of life – because Evolutionists DON’T use the supposedly 'amazing re-generative powers’ of mutagenesis to cure sick people or to ‘improve’ healthy people!!!

What?

There are no supposedly "amazing re-generative powers" of mutation. There is not a single section of the theory of neo-darwin evolution that states that mutation has re-generation properties. You are talking nonsense.

Look JC, you clearly have absolutely no idea what the theory of evolution actually is. You just keep coming up with more ridiculous statements of what you think evolution is or does.

Before this thread goes much further I really suggest you take a day or so to read up on what evolution is. Because at the moment it is clear you don't have a fecking clue what the theory of evolution does or does not state.

J C wrote:

Now that I am in ‘learning mode’, please show me HOW you derived THIS figure ?

I already did. I suggest you read my first post on the matter.

J C wrote:

Similarly, the POTENTIAL number of bacterial mutations produced in 30 generations starting off with 15 million mutations from 100 billion bacteria in a kilo of soil is 1.9 E+215 - if we assume no resource limitations.

And?

The number of actual out comes is irrelivent. They could get it "right" the very first time. The thing that matters is the odds that they will.

J C wrote:

However, because of resource constraints there will be STABLE a population of 100 billion bacteria in EACH generation and therefore the actual number of mutations EXPRESSED for NS to directionally select would be only 450 million (15 million in each generation x 30 generations). This number is only 4.5E+8 – which is a long way SHORT of the 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein.

Groan. Look JC you don't know what you are talking about, and you are getting very confused.

On the one hand you are talking about the odds something will happen, and on the other you are talking about the actual out come

Are their 1E+180 nucleotides required to make a protein? No there isn't. The number is the different possible combinations, not the actual out comes.

Putting aside the fact that proteins didn't just randomly form, even if they did the specific out come could have formed the very first time (in your theorectical argument). That doesn't effect that odds that it will or won't happen.

You clearly don't understand probability JC. Take a minute to read up on it (while you are reading up on evolution) and get back to us.

J C wrote:

How / whether God fits into ID is a separate question that we can debate later on

Its alright, we already did debate it. And I seem to remember it being proven by your own argument that the imprefect nature of life ruled out a perfect designer.

And btw I don't subscribe to the idea of intelligent design, since the calculations that myself and Scofflaw have already provides show that life developing complex systems is not only possible but even likely.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

I factored in a generation time of 8 hours or three generations per day FOR A BILLION YEARS with the resources of the entire Universe of 10+82 electrons (and generously assuming each electron was a bacterium) and still only managed to GENERATE 1.10E+98 (10E+82 x 1.10E+12) individual bacteria - which is STILL is a long way SHORT of the 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein.

You are talking about permutations on one hand, and actual bateria on the other.

Do you actually require 1E+180 individual nucleotides to produce a single protein sequence? Do you actuall need that many? I find that a little hard to believe since you claim that their are only 10e+82 elections in the universe at any one time, and yet my body is producing protiens all the time.

Look JC the theory is clearly a mess in your own head, you are flipping between probable outcomes and actual outcomes willy nilly. How you exact anyone to follow this nonsense is beyond me.

J C wrote:

Does the FACT that the probability for the sequence of a specific useful small protein being generated by undirected processes, vastly exceeds ALL of the electrons in the known Universe not say something very profound about the chances of this protein EVER being formed by non-intelligent processes?

No.

Firstly the probability that a 40 tillion cells, given a billion years, would just randomly produce a protien is actually pretty likely, as has been demonstrated.

Secondly they don't just randomly produce a protein, so all this talk about the number of elections in the universe is largely pointless

J C wrote:

Materialistic Evolution does assume that proteins, and indeed all of life was formed by undirected processes.

Again, read up on evolution. Natural selection is not an undirected process.

J C wrote:

For example, if a specific 100 chain Amino Acid sequence is required for a specific useful protein that NS would select if it were present – the 10 E+130 possible combinations of 100 amino acids means that such a specific useful protein has odds of 10E+130 AGAINST it ever being formed

Only if it was formed randomly. Which it isn't. Why are we still having this discussion? What part do you not get?

J C wrote:

Not so!!

Yes so. :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

If we generously assume that each cell replicates itself once every second – how many individual cell division outcomes will actually be generated over a billion years??

It doesn't matter, we are not concerned with the actual outcomes, just the odds, since the 1E+180 isn't the actual nucletides required, but the possible way that they can be combined.

Scofflaw

Occasionally, I find this kind of thing rather dispiriting - it's like being faced with someone who thinks that TV sets are full of tiny people, and refuses to accept any explanation that does not involve these tiny people.

We can tie ourselves in knots for days trying to think of analogies that gently steer the person in the direction of understanding that TV sets use electricity and moving light, not tiny people, but to be honest we are only likely to end up persuading this individual that the tiny people are made of electricity and moving light.

Scofflaw

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Wicknight, you and I seem to agree on more than what we would ever let on.

So then what is your issue with evolution?

Neither being an atheist, or believing in science and the theory of evolution, mean someone is going to act in an immoral or selfish manner.

The idea being pushed by AnwersInGenesis and other Christian sites that atheism or a scientific outlook is to blame for acts of violence such as the Ammish school shooting is just silly.

It is perfectly possible to have highly developed morality and not believe in God. Morality existed before anyone was even worshiping your god.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

So then what is your issue with evolution?

Neither being an atheist, or believing in science and the theory of evolution, mean someone is going to act in an immoral or selfish manner.

The idea being pushed by AnwersInGenesis and other Christian sites that atheism or a scientific outlook is to blame for acts of violence such as the Ammish school shooting is just silly.

Isn't that the guy who blamed God for the loss of his child?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Hot off the Press

Fossil embryos from China reveal the oldest animals on Earth
The discovery of a group of half-billion-year-old fossilised embryos in China has given a glimpse of the very first animals to evolve on Earth, overturning the accepted picture of how life evolved.?Dr James Hagadorn of Amherst College, Massachusetts, who led a team of 15 scientists from five countries, reports in Fossil embryos from China reveal the oldest animals on Earth
The discovery of a group of half-billion-year-old fossilised embryos in China has given a glimpse of the very first animals to evolve on Earth, overturning the accepted picture of how life evolved.?Dr James Hagadorn of Amherst College, Massachusetts, who led a team of 15 scientists from five countries, reports in the journal Science that the 160 fossilised embryos, each of which consists of up to 1,000 cells and dates back as far as 580 million years, form the root stock of all of today's animals and were a critical part of the so-called Cambrian Explosion, in which animals became bigger, more diverse and ecologically dominant.
The fossils are thought to be of relatively simple creatures, the most primitive animals that were the ancestors of sponges. The findings are controversial as a competing Chinese-American group of scientists has used embryos from the same deposit, from the Doushantuo Formation of south central China, to argue for the existence at that time of living groups of sea urchins and cnidarians (jellyfish and their kin) and that animals emerged much earlier.
But using a method called high-energy X-ray tomography to study the embryos with unprecedented precision, Dr Hagadorn's group managed to carry out a "virtual dissection" of the embryos, which are around half a millimetre across, to challenge this conclusion, revealing how the embryos show some features of animals but are distinct from anything alive today.
"We've completely characterised the embryos, and we see no features of any living animal group," said Dr Philip Donoghue of the University of Bristol, one of the team. "In fact, we argue that these are embryos of a grade of animal evolution preceding all living groups. There is going to be a huge scrap over this."
"The really big deal is that we see no evidence of more complex animals, indicating that at 580 million years ago, they had not yet evolved."
The team, which also includes Neil Gostling and Maria Pawlowska of the University of Bristol, also reports the first direct evidence that the primitive animals were capable of asynchronous cell division during development, where an embryo would have an odd number of cells, which does not fit with the expected pattern of cell division and allows the formation of unique shapes.
The scientists found evidence of cell differentiation - where embryonic cells are developing a new identity -and cells about to divide. They also believe they have identified specialised structures inside the cells, called organelles, that the cells might have used to transport, or store molecules.
Slight aberrations during the fossilisation of dead embryonic cells even reveal what appear to be dividing nuclei, the compartments at the heart of cells that contain the genetic instructions.
"We're learning something about how the very earliest multi-cellular animals formed embryos," said Indiana University biologist Rudolf Raff. "This gives us an enormous and entirely surprising look at half-a-billion-year-old embryos in the act of cleaving. We've had no prior idea what they might have done."
Prof Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University, an expert on the Cambrian Explosion, said: "We have incredible structures within the cells. Claims for a much older date seem now to have been abandoned."
Fossilised embryos are very rare. The Doushantuo Formation has proved a boon to palaeontologists and evolutionary developmental biologists interested in the evolution of animal species.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/13/wfossil13.xml

J C

Scofflaw
Actually, considering all the cell divisions, mutations, recombinations and shuffles occurring in genetic material around the world, I would imagine it would be almost impossible to conceive of the number of possible permutations of genetic material that occur in a year on this our planet.

This is the classic logical fallacy of 'an appeal to ignorance' – i.e.“we don’t know, therefore I imagine that it must have happened”.

Could I point out that IF we don’t know - then we don’t know if it happened or not, and any belief either way is a matter of FAITH.

However, unfortunately for Evolution, we DO know the rough number of possible permutations of genetic material that OCCUR in a year on our planet.

Wicknight has suggested that there are 40 trillion cells on Earth. If his figure is true, then the number of possible cell divisions outcomes for each of the 40 trillion or so cells on Earth assuming every cell replicates once every second for a year is 1.26 E+27 - which is a long way SHORT of the 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein.

Even when we ‘stress test’ Wicknight’s figure of 40 trillion cells by a factor of a trillion and use a figure of 40 trillion trillion cells instead, then the number of possible cell divisions outcomes assuming every cell replicates once every second for a year is 1.26 E+45 - which is still a long way SHORT of the 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein.

If we further ‘stress test’ Wicknight’s figure by assuming that each of the 40 trillion trillion cells undergoes 1,000 mutations in the second that it is alive, then the number of possible mutation outcomes from 40 trillion trillion cells assuming every cell replicates once every second for a year is 1.26 E+48 - which is a long way SHORT of the 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides required to produce the sequence for ONE specific 100 chain protein.:D


Scofflaw
no-one has ever suggested, outside an asylum, that random mutations have "amazing re-generative powers".

But Wicknight HAS suggested that replication errors are the main ‘generative power’ in the macro-evolution of Slime Balls to Man and I quote:-
[I]“like all processes, errors occur during the replication. These errors can result in a wide range of effects. If the effect benefits the molecule it willl lead to the molecule replicating better than others, and as such lead to this design of molecule eventual doing better in the largle but ultimately confined set of raw material.”[/I]
Wicknight is not unique in his views on this matter, and so there are therefore many Materialistic Evolutionists outside of asylums, who DO indeed believe that random mutations have sufficient ‘generative powers’ to account for the evolution of Man – and I would certainly classify such 'generative powers' (if they existed) as objectively ‘amazing’.


Scofflaw
we are beginning to use genetic therapy, which may be a case of silencing a particular gene, or activating another - all of which involves changes to their genes, and removes the person from their "originally created ‘perfect state’", as you put it.

Gene therapy is being used to cure specific diseases by RESTORING function to specific living processes i.e. restoring the patient to their originally created “perfect state”, in so far as this is possible.

By silencing a particular gene or activating another, Doctors use processes analogous to the ‘de-bugging’ an Intelligently Designed computer programme in their corrections of DNA mutations via gene therapy.


THE 'EVOLUTION' OF AN IDEA ON THIS THREAD

Wicknight originally said :-
But it is impossible to treat medicine without an understanding of how our bodies have evolved,

.......after many intermediate posts and answers I finally asked Wicknight:-
Will YOU, as an Evolution Expert, then please take me out of my suspense, and tell me HOW Evolutionist Doctors use knowledge gained from (the evolution of) Slime Balls (into Humans) to treat patients?

Scofflaw then answered my question :-
Why would anyone answer such a stupid question? Unless you mean the sort of research done on slime moulds (eg "Testing new manic depression drugs in slime mould: an alternative to the current serendipitous approach"), it is almost impossible to frame a sensible answer to such a piece of nonsense.
.......and thus Scofflaw confirmed that Wicknight’s original claim in his posting that “it is impossible to treat medicine without an understanding of how our bodies have evolved” – is actually “a piece of NONSENSE” !!!

I thought so myself – but it is nice to see Scofflaw confirming the fact for me.:D :eek:

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Actually, considering all the cell divisions, mutations, recombinations and shuffles occurring in genetic material around the world, I would imagine it would be almost impossible to conceive of the number of possible permutations of genetic material that occur in a year on this our planet.

This is the classic logical fallacy of 'an appeal to ignorance' – i.e.“we don’t know, therefore I imagine that it must have happened”.

Could I point out that IF we don’t know - then we don’t know if it happened or not, and any belief either way is a matter of FAITH.

However, unfortunately for Evolution, we DO know the rough number of possible permutations of genetic material that OCCUR in a year on our planet.

Wicknight has suggested that there are 40 trillion cells on Earth. If his figure is true, then the number of possible cell divisions outcomes for each of the 40 trillion or so cells on Earth assuming every cell replicates once every second for a year is 1.26 E+27 - which is a long way SHORT of the 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein.

Even when we ‘stress test’ Wicknight’s figure of 40 trillion cells by a factor of a trillion and use a figure of 40 trillion trillion cells instead, then the number of possible cell divisions outcomes assuming every cell replicates once every second for a year is 1.26 E+45 - which is still a long way SHORT of the 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides required to produce the sequence for a specific 100 chain protein.

If we further ‘stress test’ Wicknight’s figure by assuming that each of the 40 trillion trillion cells undergoes 1,000 mutations in the second that it is alive, then the number of possible mutation outcomes from 40 trillion trillion cells assuming every cell replicates once every second for a year is 1.26 E+48 - which is a long way SHORT of the 1E+180 permutations of nucleotides required to produce the sequence for ONE specific 100 chain protein.:D


Scofflaw
no-one has ever suggested, outside an asylum, that random mutations have "amazing re-generative powers".

But Wicknight HAS suggested that replication errors are the main ‘generative power’ in the macro-evolution of Slime Balls to Man and I quote:-
[I]“like all processes, errors occur during the replication. These errors can result in a wide range of effects. If the effect benefits the molecule it willl lead to the molecule replicating better than others, and as such lead to this design of molecule eventual doing better in the largle but ultimately confined set of raw material.”[/I]
Wicknight is not unique in his views on this matter, and so there are therefore many Materialistic Evolutionists outside of asylums, who DO indeed believe that random mutations have sufficient ‘generative powers’ to account for the evolution of Man – and I would certainly classify such 'generative powers' (if they existed) as objectively ‘amazing’.


Scofflaw
we are beginning to use genetic therapy, which may be a case of silencing a particular gene, or activating another - all of which involves changes to their genes, and removes the person from their "originally created ‘perfect state’", as you put it.

Gene therapy is being used to cure specific diseases by RESTORING function to specific living processes i.e. restoring the patient to their originally created “perfect state”, in so far as this is possible.

By silencing a particular gene or activating another, Doctors use processes analogous to the ‘de-bugging’ an Intelligently Designed computer programme in their corrections of DNA mutations via gene therapy.


THE 'EVOLUTION' OF AN IDEA ON THIS THREAD

Wicknight originally said :-
But it is impossible to treat medicine without an understanding of how our bodies have evolved,

.......after many intermediate posts and answers I finally asked Wicknight:-
Will YOU, as an Evolution Expert, then please take me out of my suspense, and tell me HOW Evolutionist Doctors use knowledge gained from (the evolution of) Slime Balls (into Humans) to treat patients?

Scofflaw then answered my question :-
Why would anyone answer such a stupid question? Unless you mean the sort of research done on slime moulds (eg "Testing new manic depression drugs in slime mould: an alternative to the current serendipitous approach"), it is almost impossible to frame a sensible answer to such a piece of nonsense.
.......and thus Scofflaw confirmed that Wicknight’s original claim in his posting that “it is impossible to treat medicine without an understanding of how our bodies have evolved” – is actually “a piece of NONSENSE” !!!

I thought so myself – but it is nice to see Scofflaw confirming the fact for me.:D :eek:

So....because I thought you asked a really stupid question in response to Wicknight's original question, you are now claiming I said Wicknight's question was stupid?

JC, how old are you? Mentally?

The whole "big numbers" thing is also frankly tedious, because you are unable to accept that your "calculations" are gibberish which bears no relation to reality - in turn, because you do not understand evolution, mutation, probability theory, or, apparently, almost anything at all.

I shall have to consider it for a bit, but frankly, if what you can muster as a defence of Creationism is this sort of playground routine, it really isn't worth reading your posts or responding to them.

There does actually come a point where arguing with an idiot just makes you look stupid.

resignedly,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

So....because I thought you asked a really stupid question in response to Wicknight's original question, you are now claiming I said Wicknight's question was stupid?

JC, how old are you? Mentally?

The whole "big numbers" thing is also frankly tedious, because you are unable to accept that your "calculations" are gibberish which bears no relation to reality - in turn, because you do not understand evolution, mutation, probability theory, or, apparently, almost anything at all.

I shall have to consider it for a bit, but frankly, if what you can muster as a defence of Creationism is this sort of playground routine, it really isn't worth reading your posts or responding to them.

There does actually come a point where arguing with an idiot just makes you look stupid.

resignedly,
Scofflaw

OK Scofflaw, no need for this kind of insult.

What is indeed mazing is that in order for creation to happen without God, EVERY aspect of science has to work.

It is clear from JC's arguments that it is a mathematical impossibility for a protein, let alone an amino acid to form.

All you have put forth is theory, that Son Goku has stated that is what science is, theories. Even gravityis only a theory. Which amazes me, cause it is working quite well at the moment.

In theory you can make the numbers work, but in reality they do not.

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

OK Scofflaw, no need for this kind of insult.

It would be valid, if it was an insult.
This is well past the point where what Scofflaw said was an ad hominem, JC continuously posts things that make no sense at all. It is very clear that he just makes things up on the spot without rhyme or reason.

I won't comment on what he has said about evolution, chemistry or geology, but speaking plainly his comments on physics and mathematics are by orders of magnitude of too low a quality to be worthy of consideration.

(e.g. Galaxies are swirls of dust.)

BrianCalgary wrote:

What is indeed amazing is that in order for creation to happen without God, EVERY aspect of science has to work.

It is clear from JC's arguments that it is a mathematical impossibility for a protein, let alone an amino acid to form.

Again, sorry Brian, but what he has posted is not even applicable. Molecules are complicated and poker style Bayesian probability is insufficient and he should admit that.

All you have put forth is theory, that Son Goku has stated that is what science is, theories. Even gravity is only a theory. Which amazes me, cause it is working quite well at the moment.

Theory doesn't mean the same in science as it does in the vernacular/ It means all statements are tentative because we can't perform an infinite amount of experiments.
For instance in the case of gravity we can't take every single mass in the whole universe and individually verify that it conforms to General Relativity.

Diogenes

Son Goku wrote:

It would be valid, if it was an insult.
This is well past the point where what Scofflaw said was an ad hominem, JC continuously posts things that make no sense at all. It is very clear that he just makes things up on the spot without rhyme or reason.

I won't comment on what he has said about evolution, chemistry or geology, but speaking plainly his comments on physics and mathematics are by orders of magnitude of too low a quality to be worthy of consideration.

(e.g. Galaxies are swirls of dust.)

Or that meat can survive at the bottom of ocean due to salination, or that the receeding oceans after the flood left ice beneath them.

robindch

> It is clear from JC's arguments that it is a mathematical impossibility for
> a protein, let alone an amino acid to form.

I think, Brian, it needs to be said that JC's rhetoric -- for that's all it is -- is bollocks from beginning to end. I trust that you will not censor my profanity, but I think the word is appropriate to the context from which it arose.

JC's rhetoric consists of vague handwaves in the direction of large numbers without a basis in fact or a framework in logic. It is as free from content as it is free from rational form. His rhetoric consists of second-hand opinion dressed up first-hand fact. And it remains undisprovable which immediately discounts itself from any pretensions it ever had to being real science.

JC himself does not understand genetics. He does not understand statistics or combinatorics or probability. He makes basic mistakes that a teenager should pick up. He does not understand physics and has never displayed any knowledge of chemistry. His knowledge of the current state of biology would embarass a well-informed twelve-year old. I don't bother replying to any of his posts any more because I've replied to all of his points before and I might as well have been talking to a lamppost.

And finally, I feel I should point out to your esteemed and worthy self, that amino acids are the basic components from which proteins are built. And not the other way around as your comment above suggests you believe.

For what it's worth, and in the direction of increasing the pool of honest information available to you to help you make a decision about who's being accurate here and who isn't: it's a well known fact amongst biologists that amino acids were synthesized, abiotically and over fifty years ago, and further experimentation since then has confirmed the original finding time after time after time. Do have a quick read of this page which describes what happened:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

...as it's quite interesting and you may learn something which may help you to discern who's telling the truth here and who's telling lies. I hope you find this useful.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

OK Scofflaw, no need for this kind of insult.

Frankly, it's an observation, and an accurate one.

BrianCalgary wrote:

What is indeed mazing is that in order for creation to happen without God, EVERY aspect of science has to work.

Science, similarly, is a matter of observation. We do not need to "make the world work" with science - you are confusing the normative with the descriptive.

Science is a method, and all its explanations are derived from the application of that method to the observed world. Science need not even exist for the world to work

BrianCalgary wrote:

It is clear from JC's arguments that it is a mathematical impossibility for a protein, let alone an amino acid to form.

It is clear from JC's arguments that he has no idea how they evolve. How they form is of no relevance, if it even has a meaning outside their production within the cell.

BrianCalgary wrote:

All you have put forth is theory, that Son Goku has stated that is what science is, theories. Even gravityis only a theory. Which amazes me, cause it is working quite well at the moment.

No. Gravity is an observed fact. The Theory of Gravity is the theory. Again, if you are so taken by the fact that science is "all theories", it is pretty clear that you do as little listening as JC.

A theory, in the scientific sense, is a hypothesis that has been so well-tested as to be considered reliable. It is not proven, because nothing in science ever is - it is something that has survived everything thrown at it.

BrianCalgary wrote:

In theory you can make the numbers work, but in reality they do not.

Not at all. I can rapidly generate much bigger numbers than JC, and have done. He doesn't accept them, but so what? He doesn't have a clue what he's saying. He likes to compare probabilities with populations, because that gives him the side of the bigger numbers. He won't accept any comparisons of probability with permutations, because that way he has the smaller numbers.

Either way round, JC's numbers don't have any meaning, because there is no known living system which attempts to generate 100-acid proteins by random combination of amino acids.

regards,
Scofflaw

babyvaio

I see some of you started the BW III (Boards'.ie War III).

Although some of the evolutioneries displayed much of intelligence here, I still don't see them explaining this:
Since you're fighting and defending the claims that things did evolve from something, how do you explain how did these things evolved from nothing?

If we take for granted that evolu-guys are saying the truth just for a moment, I'd like to hear the truth on the question above.
Or would they rather suggest that all the things are present from the infinite past? (so not even the time had its beginning, and if so being the case, when can we expect the universe to start shrinking and if so, what's the final point of this? End of space and time? (yet another) If so, where is its end? Oh yeah, maybe it's in the infinite past....buy hey, you just said it did not have the beginning....)

Scofflaw

babyvaio wrote:

I see some of you started the BW III (Boards'.ie War III).

Although some of the evolutioneries displayed much of intelligence here, I still don't see them explaining this:
Since you're fighting and defending the claims that things did evolve from something, how do you explain how did these things evolved from nothing?

If we take for granted that evolu-guys are saying the truth just for a moment, I'd like to hear the truth on the question above.
Or would they rather suggest that all the things are present from the infinite past? (so not even the time had its beginning, and if so being the case, when can we expect the universe to start shrinking and if so, what's the final point of this? End of space and time? (yet another) If so, where is its end? Oh yeah, maybe it's in the infinite past....buy hey, you just said it did not have the beginning....)

I take it you're asking about biogenesis? How did life form in the first place? Wait a bit until things have simmered down...the question is certainly an interesting one, and worth discussing, if we don't have to listen to repeated senseless bellowings about 'Muck To Man'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

babyvaio

Scofflaw wrote:

I take it you're asking about biogenesis? How did life form in the first place? Wait a bit until things have simmered down...the question is certainly an interesting one, and worth discussing, if we don't have to listen to repeated senseless bellowings about 'Muck To Man'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No, not really. I meant the anorganic matter, not the organic one. When we solve that mystery, then maybe we can move to the life creation (or evolution) itself if you like.

If fact, how did the anorganic become anorganic and organic organic? would be a good start...

Scofflaw

babyvaio wrote:

No, not really. I meant the anorganic matter, not the organic one. When we solve that mystery, then maybe we can move to the life creation (or evolution) itself if you like.

If fact, how did the anorganic become anorganic and organic organic? would be a good start...

Do you mean - how did matter get here in the first place? Do I take it that you're familiar with the current main theory of origin for the Universe - the Big Bang?

Are you asking what caused the Big Bang? Or how the Big Bang was possible? Or where the matter in the Big Bang came from?

cordially,
Scofflaw

babyvaio

Scofflaw wrote:

Do you mean - how did matter get here in the first place? Do I take it that you're familiar with the current main theory of origin for the Universe - the Big Bang?

Very much.

Scofflaw wrote:

Are you asking what caused the Big Bang? Or how the Big Bang was possible? Or where the matter in the Big Bang came from?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm asking all of that :cool: except the last one.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Wicknight has suggested that there are 40 trillion cells on Earth. If his figure is true, then the number of possible cell divisions outcomes for each of the 40 trillion or so cells on Earth assuming every cell replicates once every second for a year is 1.26 E+27

No it isn't.

The number of possible cell divisions, assuming a cell divides every 8 hours, is 4e+13 to the power of 1095 (number of divisions in a year).

Which breaks my calculator, but it is a lot larger than 1.26e+27.

The actual number of cells will remain close to 40 trillion through out the year.

Look JC you clearly don't understand probability. You keep focusing on the actual number of cells produced by the replication. That isn't the important bit. The number of cells on Earth will remain close to the 40 trillion mark throughout the entire year, as new cells are produced old cells will die off.

The important bit is the number of different combinations you can have.

The Lotto is only ever won by one single 6 digit number. But the different ways that final set of numbers can be combined are in the millions. That is what makes it really hard to win. The odds of you winning are not 1 out of the number of tickets sold, it is 1 out of the possible combinations of the 6 digit number. You have the same odds of winning if only one ticket is ever sold.

Not sure why I have to explain this to you AGAIN... :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

But Wicknight HAS suggested that replication errors are the main ‘generative power’ in the macro-evolution of Slime Balls to Man and I quote:-

And...?

Do you not understand the difference between the two rather simple English words "generative" and "regenerative"? (the hint is in the "re" bit :rolleyes:)

No one has EVER suggested (not myself or anyone else) that evolution regenerates or repairs dieased or damaged cells.

Such a mistake only shows up once the fact that you clearly have no clue about what the theory of evolution actually is, or how study of such theory would help combat diease (which you believe is a result of sinful behavior, not the reproduction of microscopic bateria anyway).

J C wrote:

is actually “a piece of NONSENSE” !!!

Please stop trolling. As Scofflaw asked, how old are you that you have to resort to this silliness :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

T H Huxley wrote:

All who are competent to express an opinion on the subject are, at present, agreed that the manifold varieties of animal and vegetable form have not either come into existence by chance, nor result from capricious exertions of creative power; but that they have taken place in a definite order, the statement of which order is what men of science term a natural law. Whether such a law [288] is to be regarded as an expression of the mode of operation of natural forces, or whether it is simply a statement of the manner in which a supernatural power has thought fit to act, is a secondary question, so long as the existence of the law and the possibility of its discovery by the human intellect are granted.

T H Huxley wrote:

It was once supposed that this succession had been the result of vast successive catastrophes, destructions, and re-creations en masse; but catastrophes are now almost eliminated from geological, or at least palæontological speculation; and it is admitted, on all hands, that the seeming breaks in the chain of being are not absolute, but only relative to our imperfect knowledge; that species have replaced species, not in assemblages, but one by one; and that, if it were possible to have all the phenomena of the past presented to us, the convenient epochs and formations of the geologist, though having a certain distinctness, would fade into one another with limits as undefinable as those of the distinct and yet separable colours of the solar spectrum.

Such is a brief summary of the main truths which have been established concerning species. Are these truths ultimate and irresolvable facts, or are their complexities and perplexities the mere expressions of a higher law?

[10] A large number of persons practically assume the former position to be correct. They believe that the writer of the Pentateuch was empowered and commissioned to teach us scientific as well as other truth, that the account we find there of the creation of living things is simply and literally correct, and that anything which seems to contradict it is, by the nature of the case, false. All the phenomena which have been detailed are, on this view, the immediate product of a creative fiat and, consequently, are out of the domain of science altogether.

Whether this view prove ultimately to be true or false, it is, at any rate, not at present supported by what is commonly regarded as logical proof, even if it be capable of discussion by reason; and hence we consider ourselves at liberty to pass it by, and to turn to those views which profess to rest on a scientific basis only, and therefore admit of being argued to their consequences. And we do this with the less hesitation as it so happens that those persons who are practically conversant with the facts of the case (plainly a considerable advantage) have always thought fit to range themselves under the latter category.

The majority of these competent persons have up to the present time maintained two positions–the first, that every species is, within certain defined limits, fixed and incapable of modification; the second, that every species was originally pro[11]duced by a distinct creative act. The second position is obviously incapable of proof or disproof, the direct operations of the Creator not being subjects of science; and it must therefore be regarded as a corollary from the first, the truth or falsehood of which is a matter of evidence.

1862. How long, o Lord?

Scofflaw

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

OK Scofflaw, no need for this kind of insult.

I think you will find the insults started with JC.

BrianCalgary wrote:

What is indeed mazing is that in order for creation to happen without God, EVERY aspect of science has to work.

Not quite sure what you mean by that? Science is the modeling of reality. Everything already "works," since simply attempts to study how it works.

BrianCalgary wrote:

It is clear from JC's arguments that it is a mathematical impossibility for a protein, let alone an amino acid to form.

Groan ... a few points

1 - JC hasn't shown that it is mathematically impossible for a protein to form by completely random chemical formations, he has shown that the odds of the specific protien forming are very small. But they are actually well with in the number of possible combinations of say cellular life over a space of a year.

2 - Chemical formations are never random in the first place, they follow the laws of chemistry, so already JCs mathematics are off and not following what actually happens

3 - Despite JCs quite amazing inability to grasp this point, the simple fact of the matter is that neo-darwin evolutionary theory has never suggested that structures such as proteins just randomly formed in the first place, so the whole attack against evolution is pointless. Evolutionary theory never suggested that these biological structured formed the way JC is suggesting.

JC doesn't understand what the theory of evolution is, so how can he prove it is mathematically impossible.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Which amazes me, cause it is working quite well at the moment.

So is evolution.

BrianCalgary wrote:

In theory you can make the numbers work, but in reality they do not.

Again, the fact that you can actually watch evolution happen under a microscope would contradict that. New protiens have been observed to form, but not in a way that is anything like how JC says evolutionary theory states they form.

Its pretty easy for JC to disprove "evolution" when he first make up nonsense and state that that is what "evolution" is. It is not hard to disprove his own invented nonsense.

If he bothered to actually read up on what the theory of neo-darwin biological evolution is he might have a more difficult time.