The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

PDN

robindch wrote:

Well, it's a quiet friday afternoon around here -- I hope that everybody's looking forward to the weekend!

Anyhow, here's something from the good folks at FSTDT: a medical paper published by the Institute for Demonology Research on the effectiveness of (atheistic) antibiotics:

http://www.fstdt.com/winace/antibiotic_effectiveness/index.htm

Enjoy!

Robin, given that some atheist posters have difficulty in recognising parodies, do you think it might be worth adding a disclaimer to these kinds of posts?

After all, we don't want people believing any old story, do we?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Robin, given that some atheist posters have difficulty in recognising parodies, do you think it might be worth adding a disclaimer to these kinds of posts?

After all, we don't want people believing any old story, do we?

Well, we certainly don't want them falling for a parody, but I'll pass up the opportunity offered to everyone by the phrase "believing any old story".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

ALL of the above sentences were produced by the appliance of intelligence by you!!!!:eek:

No, the new sentence was produced by swapping the words around, hardly an act of intelligence. If you did it randomly you would eventually produce that order.

Not that it matters.

Your assertion was that copying errors always degrade the information copied. This simple demonstration shows that that is not true. The sentence was copied with a copying error (the copy did not look like the original) and the information in the sentence remained the exact same. Whether or not the copying is done intelligently or not doesn't matter, though in this case the same result could be produced randomly by simply re-arranging the words.

J C wrote:

The problem for spontaneous Evolution is that your sentence “I don’t like ice cream” was constructed via an input of intelligence to the equally intelligently designed sentence “I like ice cream”..........

Non-intelligently controlled processes would have garbled the sentence into something like “U srht vjts n£@#”;:eek:

That doesn't matter, because your original assertion was not that a mutation can only produce new information if it is done intelligently, your assertion was that it can never produce new information. Ever. Which is clearly untrue.

So both times your original assertions have been shown to not hold.

Even if you randomly inserted 4 letter words into the sentence you would eventually come across a word that does make sense and changes the meaning of the sentence. Of course evolution is not random so this would happen in the "wild" even quicker due to natural selection.

Its funny how you rant and rave about things being impossible and never happening, but it is quite easy to demonstrate that they can happen.

One wonders if you actually have any clue about the assertions you are making in the first place.

5uspect

Wicknight wrote:

Its funny how you rant and rave about things being impossible and never happening, but it is quite easy to demonstrate that they can happen.

One wonders if you actually have any clue about the assertions you are making in the first place.

I'm still waiting for the great "Destroyer of Evolution" here to review even one scientific paper on the matter and show us where it went wrong...:rolleyes:

J C

jonny72 wrote:

Daithi said:

"I want you to answer this question without making reference to evolution, just for this one post, only in reference to the English language. Thanks."

To which JC replied:

"Similarly, some Evolutionists beleve that the supposed transition from Pondslime to Man is macro-evolution or the cumulative result of a number of micro-evolutionary changes.

Creation Scientists don't accept that macro-evolution occurred, because the minor or micro changes observed in living organisms are the result of the pre-existing genetic diversity of the organisms concerned ......and not some kind of additional new information that builds upon itself to 'morph' pondslime into man!!!

As I have said before, the Evolutionist's confusion between micro and macro Evolution is a similar fallacy to someone observing a particularly sophisticated Robot 'adapting' to environmental stimulii.....and then concluding that such 'adaptation' was the mechanism which produced the Robot, in the first place!!!"

The truth of the matter, is that I DID answer Daithi's question, as follows :-

"In purely grammatical terms, you are correct that Economists refer to macro-economics as being the result of a number of micro-economic factors."

......I then went on to (reasonably) explain how this related to Evolution, because it would be misleading to leave my answer 'swinging in (grammatical) mid air' so to speak:-

"Similarly, some Evolutionists believe that the supposed transition from Pondslime to Man is macro-evolution or the cumulative result of a number of micro-evolutionary changes.

Creation Scientists don't accept that macro-evolution occurred, because the minor or micro changes observed in living organisms are the result of the pre-existing genetic diversity of the organisms concerned ......and not some kind of additional new information that builds upon itself to eventually 'morph' pondslime into man!!!

As I have said before, the Evolutionist's confusion between micro and macro Evolution is a similar fallacy to someone observing a particularly sophisticated Robot 'adapting' to environmental stimulii.....and then concluding that such 'adaptation' was the mechanism which produced the Robot, in the first place!!!"

...and I finished with a warm Christian greeting:-

"With Loving Christian Thoughts"

...and in a follow-up post I said the following:-

"Please feel free to ask any supplementary questions that you may have about my answer."

......so I DID clearly answer Daithi's original question on economics.............
.........I explained important practical difficulties in using similar grammar in relation to evolution......
.......and I offered to answer any supplementary questions that he might have in regard to my answer......

......and I also now offer YOU the same facility.:D


Best wishes

J C

J C

Scofflaw
Your definition of 'random' is interesting. It appears to mean something along the lines of 'produced by blind physical mechanisms'?

After all, the movements of sand, and the shape of ice crystals are not random, but are dictated in the one case by wind and saltation effects, the roughness of grains and the sand supply, and in the other by the crystalline structure of ice.

The key point is that sand dunes and ice crystals are un-specified whereas living systems and man-made machines ARE tightly specified……which is the ‘hallmark’ of applied intelligence!!!:eek:


PDN
Robin, given that some atheist posters have difficulty in recognising parodies, do you think it might be worth adding a disclaimer to these kinds of posts? (linking to an evolutionist website parodying a creationist site)

Given the particular 'weakness' for parodies amongst all types of evolutionists, a disclaimer would indeed seem to be a very good idea!!!!!:D


PDN
After all, we don't want people believing any old story, do we?

Quite!!!!:D


Originally Posted by PDN
Robin, given that some atheist posters have difficulty in recognising parodies......

Scofflaw
Well, we certainly don't want them falling for a parody

We certainly don't .........

However, some atheists (and others) have unfortunately, ALREADY fallen for the parody of Evolution!!!:eek:


Wicknight
the new sentence was produced by swapping the words around, hardly an act of intelligence. If you did it randomly you would eventually produce that order.

Intelligently swapping around words IS an act of intelligence!!!!


Wicknight
Your assertion was that copying errors always degrade the information copied. This simple demonstration shows that that is not true. The sentence was copied with a copying error (the copy did not look like the original) and the information in the sentence remained the exact same. Whether or not the copying is done intelligently or not doesn't matter, though in this case the same result could be produced randomly by simply re-arranging the words.

Copying errors are NOT the same thing as intelligently swapping around words……..

……just like random genetic copying errors (or mutations) are not the same thing as frame shifts / sexual recombination (or the programmed ability to ‘leverage’ the pre-existing information base)!!!:cool:


Wicknight
your original assertion was not that a mutation can only produce new information if it is done intelligently, your assertion was that it can never produce new information. Ever. Which is clearly untrue

My original statement was that “copying errors always degrade information……otherwise there would be no need for a spell-checker on your computer!!!”

.....please note that I made NO assertion in relation to intelligence!!!!

....and as copying errors are, by definition, NOT caused by the appliance of intelligence …..my original point, that copying errors always degrade information, still stands!!!!:D


Wicknight
Even if you randomly inserted 4 letter words into the sentence you would eventually come across a word that does make sense and changes the meaning of the sentence.

…….but living organisms aren't just 'words' or 'sentences'........they are a veritable ‘encyclopaedia’ of TIGHTLY specified and EXACTLY sequenced bio-systems…….and the task of 'writing' such a library of information using a ‘random sentence generator’ would be impossible.
It would be impossible to randomly construct, even one sensible sentence…..and as for getting them organised into a coherent library…..forget about it!!!!!

DNA is basically a ‘chemical language’ that instructs the cellular machinery on how to construct the living organism and keep it alive. Like all languages it logically must have an intelligent source – because all languages (including DNA) are observed to have tightly specified unambiguously unique sequences in the midst of an effectively infinite amount of surrounding ‘useless combinatorial space’.

To illustrate, the 59 letters in the statement that “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD” occupy a total potential ‘combinatorial space’ of 3.04E+83 i.e. (1/26 x 1/26 x 1/26 ………….59 times)
This happens to be also greater than the number of electrons in the Universe.

In practice, it would therefore be impossible for an undirected computer programme to EVER combine the 26 letters of the alphabet into this statement using undirected processes.
However, by applying very basic Human Intelligence to specifying the exact sequence of the letters, we easily overcome the effectively infinite ‘useless combinatorial’ space surrounding this unique, tightly specified and functionally understandable sequence of letters.

An example of the ‘useless combinatorial space’ within these 59 letters would be “SGFVXY BHESKGDFW BJJGDSDUPWDSBN NHGDFJKK JJHNSMDOOERYNNDK GYUWOQ”
- and a further approximately 10E+83 of similarly ‘functionally useless’ 59 letter ‘sets of gobbledygook’.!!!!

If a short meaningful sentence in the English language cannot be generated by random processes – then a meaningful DNA stretch for a functional protein also cannot be generated .by random processes – and Materialistic Macro-Mutation is an essentially random process.


Wicknight
evolution is not random so this would happen in the "wild" even quicker due to natural selection.

Mutation IS an essentially random process …….and, according to Evolutionists, NS is supposed to provide the non-random dimension necessary for evolution to ‘work'.

However, evolution is like a spare parts company, randomly filling an enormous warehouse with 1E+180 spare parts for different cars (by mutation)……..and then (naturally) selecting the required part for your car, whenever it is found.
The PROBLEM with such a system is that you would end up with a pile of (randomly) supplied spare parts the size of the Universe - and still no statistical chance of ever being able to 'find' and (naturally) select the correct spark plug that you needed for your specific car......or indeed a specific part for anybody else's car, for that matter, either!!! :eek:


Wicknight
Its funny how you rant and rave about things being impossible and never happening, but it is quite easy to demonstrate that they can happen.

IF it was that easy to demonstrate that macro-evolution can happen……..you would have done so by now!!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
One wonders if you actually have any clue about the assertions you are making in the first place.

Touché!!!


5uspect
I'm still waiting for the great "Destroyer of Evolution" here to review even one scientific paper on the matter and show us where it went wrong...

As I have said already, I have scanned some of these papers ...... and they all seem to be describing Natural / Sexual Selection or Speciation within Kinds......
......which Creation Scientists accept.......
........it's the unfounded claims that Pondscum 'morphed' into Man, that Creation Scientists don't accept!!!

……..anyway, surely it is the Evolutionists on this thread who should be the ones digging up peer reviewed scientific papers, to support THEIR claims about evolution……..IF these papers exist!!!!:eek:

With Loving thoughts

J C

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Your definition of 'random' is interesting. It appears to mean something along the lines of 'produced by blind physical mechanisms'?

After all, the movements of sand, and the shape of ice crystals are not random, but are dictated in the one case by wind and saltation effects, the roughness of grains and the sand supply, and in the other by the crystalline structure of ice.

The key point is that sand dunes and ice crystals are un-specified whereas living systems and man-made machines ARE tightly specified……which is the ‘hallmark’ of applied intelligence!!!:eek:

First off, I'd like you to answer the question. You claim to have regularly trounced evolution in this forum, but you can't even answer my questions.

An undefined hallmark is completely pointless. You say that being 'tightly specified' is the hallmark of applied intelligence, but cannot define what that means.

Similarly, you claim that sand dunes and ice crystals are unspecified, when certainly the latter are a good deal more 'tightly specified' than living systems - they must obey the dictates of their crystal unit cell, and only deviate from it by virtue of flaws. With enough flaws, they are no longer a crystal, but a mess. How is this not 'tightly specified'?

cordially,
Scofflaw

5uspect

J C wrote:

As I have said already, I have scanned some of these papers ...... and they all seem to be describing Natural / Sexual Selection or Speciation within Kinds......
......which Creation Scientists accept.......
........it's the unfounded claims that Pondscum 'morphed' into Man that Creation Scientists don't accept!!!

……..anyway, surely it is the Evolutionists on this thread that should be the ones digging up peer reviewed scientific papers, to support THEIR claims about evolution……..IF these papers exist!!!!:eek:

J C

Care to cite the papers you have "scanned"? Heck, why not post them up for us to read? Do any of these papers define "Kinds" as you do, or are you being selective again? Do any of these papers support your claims that genetic information is pre-existing?

J C

Scofflaw
You claim to have regularly trounced evolution in this forum,

....mmm 'trounced'........would be a bit too voilent for me....

.....I would prefer to say that I logically defeated Evolution......but always with (tough) love and compassion towards Evolutionists!!!!:D


Scofflaw
An undefined hallmark is completely pointless. You say that being 'tightly specified' is the hallmark of applied intelligence, but cannot define what that means.

Functional Specified Complexity IS the ‘hallmark’ of applied intelligence.:cool:
.....and it applies to everything from language to machines to living organisms!!:D


Scofflaw
you claim that sand dunes and ice crystals are unspecified, when certainly the latter are a good deal more 'tightly specified' than living systems

All rational people intuitively know that there is no comparison between the un-specified production of a sand dune and the tightly specified systems found in living organisms…….they are operating on two totally different levels of Functional Specified Complexity!!!:D

Specificity refers to how ‘flexible’ a particular sequence is, while still retaining functionality.

As sand dunes don’t have functionality (in any meaningful sense of the word) in the first place, and are randomly produced by drifting sand in the second place, they certainly CANNOT be described as 'specified'!!!:eek:

Amino acid sequences, particularly along ‘critical’ lengths of their sequences, are observed to be tightly specified ......i.e. even one change in a nucleic acid position (and thus in an amino acid position) can radically change the three-dimensional shape of the resultant protein and/or it’s biological efficacy.
For example, according to the head of the National Genome Research Institute (USA) a SINGLE misplaced ‘letter’ on the gene known as Lamin A or LMNA will cause Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS). The substitution of ONE Thiamine with ONE Cytosine in ONE gene out of 3 BILLION base pairs causes this terrible premature ageing syndrome – where unfortunate sufferers only live to an average age of 13 years old.

….and THOUSANDS of biochemical cascades exhibit similar specificity in relation to BOTH their biochemical sequences and the order in which they are triggered!!!!:D


Scofflaw
(Ice crystals) must obey the dictates of their crystal unit cell, and only deviate from it by virtue of flaws. With enough flaws, they are no longer a crystal, but a mess. How is this not 'tightly specified'?

The point is that an ice crystal isn’t ‘specifically functional’ like a specific protein is ‘specifically functional’ within a specific biochemical process or a specific bolt is ‘specifically functional’ within a specific machine.

Therefore, ice crystals may form with an infinity of shapes and sizes, without any functionality implications...……whereas only ONE specific bolt will fit in a specific slot in a particular machine and only ONE specific protein will ‘work’ in a specific position on a particular cascade.:D

Random undirected processes CAN therefore construct sand dunes and ice crystals which don’t have functionality constraints…….but THEY CAN’T produce the specified complexity found in living organisms and man-made machines.
If we tried to produce a specific bolt for a machine using random processes (akin to mutation) and using quality control selection (akin to NS) we would end up with a veritable mountain of bolts with wrong shapes, diameters, threads and lengths……and the system would be so wasteful of resources that the company would go bankrupt .......before the desired SPECIFIC bolt would ever be produced.:D

On the other hand, if we apply intelligence to the problem……the correct bolt would be produced correctly first time ……every time!!!!:cool:

Ditto with living systems!!!:eek:


5uspect
Care to cite the (Evolutionist) papers you have "scanned"? Heck, why not post them up for us to read? Do any of these papers define "Kinds" as you do, or are you being selective again? Do any of these papers support your claims that genetic information is pre-existing?

There is no point in citing then ......because I do not accept the INTERPRETATIONS employed in some of these papers…..and that is why I am no longer an evolutionist!!!!

I have never claimed that 'Kinds' are an Evolutionist term.....nor indeed have I claimed that Evolutionists accept that genetic information is pre-existing......even though it objectively is pre-existing in every genome studied thus far!!!!:D

……..anyway, as I have previously said, surely it is the Evolutionists on this thread who should be the ones digging up peer reviewed scientific papers, to support THEIR claims about evolution……..IF these papers exist!!!! :eek:

With Loving thoughts

J C:)

5uspect

J C wrote:

There is no point in citing then ......because I do not accept the INTERPRETATIONS employed in some of these papers…..and that is why I am no longer an evolutionist!!!!
J C:)

Which papers? What interpretations? Only some? Are there ones you actually agree with. What are those? Please cite them.

J C wrote:

……..anyway, as I have previously said, surely it is the Evolutionists on this thread who should be the ones digging up peer reviewed scientific papers, to support THEIR claims about evolution……..IF these papers exist!!!! :eek:
J C:)

Which claims? I'll go get the papers...

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
An undefined hallmark is completely pointless. You say that being 'tightly specified' is the hallmark of applied intelligence, but cannot define what that means.

Functional Specified Complexity IS the ‘hallmark’ of applied intelligence.:cool:
.....and it applies to everything from language to machines to living organisms!!:D

Adding the word "functional" doesn't change the lack of definition, although it does allow you to shift the goalposts.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
you claim that sand dunes and ice crystals are unspecified, when certainly the latter are a good deal more 'tightly specified' than living systems

All rational people intuitively know that there is no comparison between the un-specified production of a sand dune and the tightly specified systems found in living organisms…….they are operating on two totally different levels of Functional Specified Complexity!!!:D

And the claim that "rational people" will "intuitively know" something without definition is frankly just hand-waving.

J C wrote:

Specificity refers to how ‘flexible’ a particular sequence is, while still retaining functionality.

Well, it's a stab at a definition, although it is completely opposed to any other use of the word "specific" or "specificity", and I see now where you're trying to move the goalposts to.

J C wrote:

As sand dunes don’t have functionality (in any meaningful sense of the word) in the first place, and are randomly produced by drifting sand in the second place, they can be certainly described and NOT specified!!!:eek:

So in fact anything that has "no purpose" or "no functionality" cannot be "tightly specified". Who judges functionality or purpose here? What is the "functionality" of a human being? To continue being a human being - but a sand dune has the same "functionality".

The processes of a sand-dune are necessary to produce a sand-dune. If they are interfered with, you don't have a sand-dune.

By defining "functionality", and thereby "functional specified complexity" as only applicable in the case of either living systems or designed systems all you are really saying here is that the "hallmark" of life is that it is alive, and the hallmark of design is that it is designed - and that you believe that living systems are designed. Unfortunately for your argument, that is simply an outcome of only allowing "functional" to apply to living and designed systems - assuming what you are claiming to prove.

J C wrote:

Amino acid sequences, particularly along ‘critical’ lengths of their sequences, are observed to be tightly specified ......i.e. even one change in a nucleic acid position (and thus in an amino acid position) can radically change the three-dimensional shape of the resultant protein and/or it’s biological efficacy.

Yes, it can. However, changes in such sequences still may not always affect the operation of the protein - and when they do, the effect is not always negative. Compared to the original protein, the new version can be more efficient, or have some other useful property without reduction of efficiency - as for example in this experiment:

The bglB gene from Paenibacillus polymyxa was subjected to random mutagenesis mediated by error prone polymerase chain reaction amplification and DNA shuffling. After this treatment, mutant variants of the encoded beta -glucosidase with enhanced thermal resistance were selected. We identified five amino acid substitutions at four different positions of the sequence that increased the resistance of the enzyme to heat denaturation. Four of the mutations, H62R, M319V, M319I, and M361I, did not change the kinetic parameters of the enzyme. However, mutant N223Y, which caused only a marginal increase in thermoresistance, showed an 8-fold decrease in Km. Copies of the bglB gene carrying each one of the individual mutations were recombined in vitro by DNA shuffling. As a result, we obtained an enzyme that simultaneously exhibited a 20-fold increase in heat resistance and an 8-fold increase in the catalytic efficiency. The structural basis of the properties conferred by the mutations was analyzed using homology-based structural models. The four mutations causing a more pronounced effect on thermoresistance were located in loops, on the periphery of the (alpha /beta )8 barrel that conforms the structure of the protein. Mutation N223Y, which modifies the catalytic properties of the enzyme, was on one of the barrel beta -strands that shape the active center.

...a result which directly contradicts what you are saying.

In fact, the only way we can describe every possible mutation as deleterious, as you do, is by assuming that the initial unmutated protein is perfect - something which, in turn, you assume because you think of these proteins as "created perfect" by God. Unfortunately, you are provably talking rubbish.

J C wrote:

For example, according to the head of the National Genome Research Institute (USA) a SINGLE misplaced ‘letter’ on the gene known as Lamin A or LMNA will cause Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS). The substitution of ONE Thiamine with ONE Cytosine in ONE gene out of 3 BILLION base pairs causes this terrible premature ageing syndrome – where unfortunate sufferers only live to an average age of 13 years old.

Yes, mutations can be deleterious. We know that. Unfortunately for your argument, they can also be an improvement, as the experiment above shows quite plainly and incontrovertibly.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
(Ice crystals) must obey the dictates of their crystal unit cell, and only deviate from it by virtue of flaws. With enough flaws, they are no longer a crystal, but a mess. How is this not 'tightly specified'?

The point is that an ice crystal isn’t ‘specifically functional’ like a specific protein is ‘specifically functional’ within a specific biochemical process or a specific bolt is ‘specifically functional’ within a specific machine.

Ice crystals are specifically functional in the formation of snow.

J C wrote:

Therefore, ice crystals may form with an infinity of shapes and sizes ……while only ONE specific bolt will fit in a particular machine and only ONE specific protein will ‘work’ in a specific position on a particular cascade.:D

Not the case. Many variants of "cascades" (you probably mean chains, rather than cascades, which is a term only appropriate when we're dealing with metabolic chains that pass redox states 'downhill' in order to extract energy from them) are differentiated solely by the occurrence of a different protein at some particular point in the chain.

J C wrote:

Random undirected processes CAN therefore construct sand dunes and ice crystals which don’t have functionality constraints…….but THEY CAN’T produce the specified complexity found in living organisms and man-made machines.
If we tried to produce a specific bolt for a machine using random processes (akin to mutation) and using quality control selection (akin to NS) we would end up with a veritable mountain of bolts with wrong diameters, threads and lengths……and the system would be so wasteful of resources that the company would go bankrupt .......before the desired SPECIFIC bolt would be produced.:D

Not at all - see the experiment above, in which the experimenters produced a protein with 8 times the efficiency and 20 times the heat resistance simply by random mutation and recombination, both processes which operate in nature.

J C wrote:

If we apply intelligence to the problem……the correct bolt would be produced correctly first time ……and every time!!!!:cool:

Not if we applied yours, on current evidence.

J C wrote:

5uspect
Care to cite the (Evolutionist) papers you have "scanned"? Heck, why not post them up for us to read? Do any of these papers define "Kinds" as you do, or are you being selective again? Do any of these papers support your claims that genetic information is pre-existing?

I do not accept the INTERPRETATIONS employed in some of these papers…..and that is why I am no longer an evolutionist!!!!

Frankly, I think a better explanation is that you don't understand the interpretations, and prefer to substitute your own misinterpretations. I await with a certain amount of interest your personal interpretation of the experimental evidence above.

J C wrote:

……..anyway, as I have previously said, surely it is the Evolutionists on this thread who should be the ones digging up peer reviewed scientific papers, to support THEIR claims about evolution……..IF these papers exist!!!! :eek:

See above.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Intelligently swapping around words IS an act of intelligence!!!!

I didn't "intelligently" swap the words around, I randomly swapped the words around.

Do you actually understand what "intelligence" means? Are the Lotto balls intelligently picked because a human designed and build the machine they fall out of.

J C wrote:

Copying errors are NOT the same thing as intelligently swapping around words……..

They can be.

A copying error is a copy of the original material that is different due to an error in the copying process.

If I take a sentence "Billy likes playing football after school" and copy that sentence to "After school Billy likes playing football" that is a copying error, yet the information is exactly the same. The fact that I am in intelligent agent is completely irrelevant. A non-intelligent machine could have just as easily produced that new sentence randomly. But it doesn't matter, either way it is a copying error in that the copy of the sentence is not the same as the original.

But back to the point, intelligence is irrelevant to your original assertion. Your assertion was not that copying errors will always degrade information unless carried out intelligently (which isn't true either).

Your assert was that copying errors will always degrade information, no matter what.

Which is a false statement (we will give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't originally understand that it was).

J C wrote:

....and as copying errors are, by definition, NOT caused by the appliance of intelligence

That is nonsense, though I can see why you are now trying to back track :rolleyes:

There is no definition of a copying error that says a copying error is not caused by an application of intelligence.

A copying error is a copying of an original piece of information that is different from that original piece of information. The reason why it is different is largely irrelevant.

J C wrote:

…..my original point, that copying errors always degrade information, still stands!!!!:D[

Only if someone is an idiot and doesn't understand what the words "copying", "error", "degrade" or "information" means ... which I assume you are not

J C wrote:

…….but living organisms aren't just 'words' or 'sentences'

Very observant of you :rolleyes:

The problem is that again, you didn't mention "living organisms" in your assertions. You said that a mutation (copying error) can not produce new information, only mess. That is clearly demonstrated as not being true. It holds in living organisms but it also holds in any other field that evolution can be applied to, such as grammar.

So once again your original assertion has been show to be false and you are attempting to back track

J C wrote:

and the task of 'writing' such a library of information using a ‘random sentence generator’ would be impossible.

Which is why evolution is not random. Mutation is constant and random, and then natural selection chooses these mutations based on fitness.

But again all this is irrelevant to your original assertion. You are simply back tracking. Your assertion was that a frame shift mutation cannot produce new information, not that a frame shift mutation can only very rarely produce new information, nor was it that a frame shift mutation can only produce new information when not done in a living creature.

Your assertion is false, as our little demonstration shows. And now you are back tracking. Rather incoherently.

I expect your next post will be a short silly jokey comment followed by a number of smilie faces as your try (in vain) to change the subject and hide your embarrassment.

J C wrote:

It would be impossible to randomly construct, even one sensible sentence

That isn't true, I have a computer program that randomly constructs sentences all the time. It just takes a long time.

But this doesn't include natural selection. If you alter the computer program to naturally select words that are proper English, a process that mimics how the environment selects mutations that have a high fitness level to the actually environment, you can construct proper English much quicker.

Which is why we keep explaining to you that evolution is not random. The environment plays a very important roll in selection.

And before you start ranting about how a computer program is a product of intelligence, just remember my comment above Is the Lotto draw intelligently selected because the Lotto machine was intelligently designed and constructed by humans? :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

However, evolution is like a spare parts company, randomly filling an enormous warehouse with 1E+180 spare parts for different cars (by mutation)

What are you talking about. Evolution is nothing like that. "Spare parts"? "Biological warehouses" The mind boggles....

Are you honestly suggesting that the Theory of Neo-Darwinian evolution says that natural selection selects a mutation from some kind of massive biological warehouse (where is this warehouse JC?) and then inserts that mutation into a living organism, like a mechanic picking a spare part up from a warehouse shelf.

What the HECK are you talking about JC?

I have no idea where to even start explaining what is wrong with that.

wolfsbane

Back online at last! Let me know if I need to respond to anything since 8th September.

I've taken the opportunity to change my signature.

mossieh

JC,
in all the time that this thread has run, have you conceded a single point?

Have you at any stage been, to your knowledge, wrong, in even the tiniest detail?

Do you think it's possible to argue your point for so long without making even a little error?

I've seen the other side concede points (to each other, mainly) but not once have I seen you concede anything.

5uspect

wolfsbane wrote:

I've taken the opportunity to change my signature.

Welcome back, your new sig might be a big bit tho.

Cloud wrote:

For text signatures: 4 lines normal size OR 8 lines small size, and up to 90 chars per line. Font sizes above 2 are not allowed. Do not use the [.quote] [./quote] tags.

Asiaprod

5uspect wrote:

Welcome back, your new sig might be a big bit tho.

Thank you, I spent 20 mins trying to find that to no avail
Welcome back Wolfsbane, please follow the protocol as per 5suspect`s indication, which is correct.

wolfsbane

I'm sorry.:o I hope this is OK. Thanks for the heads-up.

Asiaprod

wolfsbane wrote:

I'm sorry.:o I hope this is OK. Thanks for the heads-up.

Much better, thanks.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
Functional Specified Complexity IS the ‘hallmark’ of applied intelligence.
.....and it applies to everything from language to machines to living organisms

Scofflaw
Adding the word "functional" doesn't change the lack of definition,

Which one of the words ‘Functional Specified Complexity’ do you have a problem understanding???

…….BTW the words ‘Functional Specified Complexity’ are THEMSELVES Functional Specified Complexity….i.e. these words are a complex combination of specific letters that produce the functional information concept of ‘Functional Specified Complexity’ in the minds of (most) recipients!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
All rational people intuitively know that there is no comparison between the un-specified production of a sand dune and the tightly specified systems found in living organisms…….they are operating on two totally different levels of Functional Specified Complexity!!

Scofflaw
And the claim that "rational people" will "intuitively know" something without definition is frankly just hand-waving.

Why this fixation with the definition of PLAIN English words????

…….OK, so please define all of the following words in your sentence above :-
……..something…..without…..definition……is……frankly…..just……..hand…….waving:D

Could I also point out that it is TRUE that we intuitively know that there IS no comparison between the un-specified production of a sand dune and the tightly specified systems found in living organisms…….precisely because they are operating on two totally different levels of Functional Specified Complexity!!

…just like we also intuitively know that planting a feather in a sand dune won’t grow a hen…..and Pondscum will never do so either……..not even in a million, million, million years!!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
Specificity refers to how ‘flexible’ a particular sequence is, while still retaining functionality…..the more inflexible, the more specific!!!

Scofflaw
Well, it's a stab at a definition, although it is completely opposed to any other use of the word "specific" or "specificity".

……well there you go then……..glad to have clarified this important point for you!!!

BTW the dictionary definition of ‘specificity’ is also similar to mine…….”clearly defined, precise, unique”!!!!


Originally Posted by J C
As sand dunes don’t have functionality (in any meaningful sense of the word) in the first place, and are randomly produced by drifting sand in the second place, they can be certainly described as NOT specified!!

Scofflaw
So in fact anything that has "no purpose" or "no functionality" cannot be "tightly specified". Who judges functionality or purpose here? What is the "functionality" of a human being? To continue being a human being - but a sand dune has the same "functionality".


Do you REALLY believe that a sand dune has the same ‘functionality’ as a Human Being???!!!

……that is obviously where a belief in Evolution has taken you……

......the mind boggles……at the thought of people starting to believe that they are comparable in any way to sand dunes......but I suppose that is the ultimate 'logic' of Materialism!!!!:)

‘Functionality’ is the ability to DO something SPECIFIC…….and as sand dunes don’t DO anything specific and they are formed by randomly blown sand, they have no functionality!!!:eek:


Scofflaw
By defining "functionality", and thereby "functional specified complexity" as only applicable in the case of either living systems or designed systems all you are really saying here is that the "hallmark" of life is that it is alive, and the hallmark of design is that it is designed - and that you believe that living systems are designed. Unfortunately for your argument, that is simply an outcome of only allowing "functional" to apply to living and designed systems - assuming what you are claiming to prove.

Functional Specified Complexity is ONLY observed in created entities like living organisms, languages and machines!!!!

The ‘hallmark’ of the appliance of Intelligence is ‘Functional Specified Complexity’…….that is what SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) is searching for in outer space…….but ironically, it is what Evolutionists are rejecting in the ‘inner space’ of the living cell!!!!:eek:


Originally Posted by J C
Amino acid sequences, particularly along ‘critical’ lengths of their sequences, are observed to be tightly specified ......i.e. even one change in a nucleic acid position (and thus in an amino acid position) can radically change the three-dimensional shape of the resultant protein and/or it’s biological efficacy.

Scofflaw
Yes, it can. However, changes in such sequences still may not always affect the operation of the protein - and when they do, the effect is not always negative. Compared to the original protein, the new version can be more efficient, or have some other useful property without reduction of efficiency - as for example in this experiment:

…yet another example of leveraging pre-existing genetic diversity!!!!

Could I again point out that such phenomena ARE TO BE EXPECTED in complex living organisms that have been Intelligently Designed to exploit environmental changes and opportunities........but they don’t explain how these organisms supposedly developed their vast information bases along the supposed continuum between Pondscum and Man…….

......and could I point out that the bacterium in your example, remained a bacterium after the experiment.

As I have previously said, the Evolutionist fallacy is like someone observing a particularly sophisticated Robot 'adapting' to environmental stimulii.....and then concluding that such 'adaptation' was the mechanism which produced the Robot, in the first place!!!

Ditto with the Paenibacillus polymyxa!!!!!


Scofflaw
the only way we can describe every possible mutation as deleterious, as you do, is by assuming that the initial unmutated protein is perfect - something which, in turn, you assume because you think of these proteins as "created perfect" by God.

Every mutation isn’t deleterious……..but they all degrade genetic information ....

…………..and the genomes were all originally created BOTH perfectly AND with great diversity potential by God!!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
For example, according to the head of the National Genome Research Institute (USA) a SINGLE misplaced ‘letter’ on the gene known as Lamin A or LMNA will cause Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome (HGPS). The substitution of ONE Thiamine with ONE Cytosine in ONE gene out of 3 BILLION base pairs causes this terrible premature ageing syndrome – where unfortunate sufferers only live to an average age of 13 years old.

Scofflaw
Yes, mutations can be deleterious. We know that. Unfortunately for your argument, they can also be an improvement, as the experiment above shows quite plainly and incontrovertibly.

Mutations can add variety by leveraging the genetic information base…….but always by degrading genetic information.

……something like a random process can introduce VARIETY into the sentence “the Cat had kittens” by producing the DEGRADED sentence “the Cat had mittens” !!!!
….and could I also point out that such a ‘mutation’ is only leveraging the pre-existing perfect sentence, “the Cat had kittens”.:D


Originally Posted Scofflaw
(Ice crystals) must obey the dictates of their crystal unit cell, and only deviate from it by virtue of flaws. With enough flaws, they are no longer a crystal, but a mess. How is this not 'tightly specified'?

Originally Posted by J C
The point is that an ice crystal isn’t ‘specifically functional’ like a specific protein is ‘specifically functional’ within a specific biochemical process or a specific bolt is ‘specifically functional’ within a specific machine.

Scofflaw
Ice crystals are specifically functional in the formation of snow.

Ice crystals are randomly blown together, in no particular sequence to form snow……..living systems have SPECIFIC critical sequences throughout their genomes and their biochemical cascades!!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
Therefore, ice crystals may form with an infinity of shapes and sizes ……while only ONE specific bolt will fit in a particular machine and only ONE specific protein will ‘work’ in a specific position on a particular cascade

Scofflaw
Not the case. Many variants of "cascades" (you probably mean chains, rather than cascades, which is a term only appropriate when we're dealing with metabolic chains that pass redox states 'downhill' in order to extract energy from them) are differentiated solely by the occurrence of a different protein at some particular point in the chain.

All biochemical cascades utilise energy, and therefore they all employ mechanisms that pass redox states ‘downhill’.

The key point about them is that they are:-

1. Functional…i.e. they produce an objectively verifiable and critically important result.
2. Specific …i.e. they have a unique and precise sequence of chemical reactions.
3. Complex….i.e. they have a number of steps involving very sophisticated chemical compounds that are catalysed by other equally sophisticated enzymes, together with feed-back loops and several other 'automatic control devices' all ‘running’ within a highly structured physical micro-environment.


Originally Posted by J C
Random undirected processes CAN therefore construct sand dunes and ice crystals which don’t have functionality constraints…….but THEY CAN’T produce the specified complexity found in living organisms and man-made machines.
If we tried to produce a specific bolt for a machine using random processes (akin to mutation) and using quality control selection (akin to NS) we would end up with a veritable mountain of bolts with wrong diameters, threads and lengths……and the system would be so wasteful of resources that the company would go bankrupt .......before the desired SPECIFIC bolt would be produced

Scofflaw
Not at all - see the experiment above, in which the experimenters produced a protein with 8 times the efficiency and 20 times the heat resistance simply by random mutation and recombination, both processes which operate in nature.

The experiment cited merely ‘leveraged’ pre-existing information……..amd it is the equivalent of using a lathe to produce a hex-headed bolt rather than a squared headed one!!!!

……the lathe would have to have the pre-programmed potential to do so…….and ditto with the bacterium!!!1

The Paper describes how protein engineering works as follows:-
“The first approach (rational design) makes use of the available information about a given protein to predict specific amino acid changes that would result in a specific functional modification.
The second approach is based on the generation of random sequence changes and selection of those that cause a desired modification.”

Could I point out that BOTH approaches ‘harvest’ the inbuilt genetic diversity potential of the organism.

Such approaches are not new,,,,,,,,and they have been successfully deployed in animal and plant breeding for hundreds of years:-

The first approach is to (rationally) ‘mate the best with the best’…. using all of the pedigree information available for the trait being selected for.

The second approach is to actively monitor random matings to identify exceptional offspring for the desired trait.

The second approach usually yields the greatest VARIETY and therefore it provides the best chance of identifying exceptional ‘virtuosos’ for the desired trait ……..and these individuals then, in turn, may enter the ‘first approach’ breeding programme to become ‘the best mating with the best’.


Originally Posted by J C
Intelligently swapping around words IS an act of intelligence!!!!

Wicknight
I didn't "intelligently" swap the words around, I randomly swapped the words around.

Do you actually understand what "intelligence" means? Are the Lotto balls intelligently picked because a human designed and build the machine they fall out of.

Firstly, you STARTED off with a ‘functionally perfect’ intelligently designed sentence.

Then you intelligently swapped some of the words in the sentence…..and the ‘functionality’ of the resultant sentences was directly related to the degree of intelligent effort deployed by you in swapping around the words!!!

…….and if you were allowed to rummage about in the Lotto drum and pick out the balls that you fancied…….the draw WOULDN’T be random either !!!!!

The Lotto machine was Intelligently Designed to be a RANDOM number generating machine…….living creatures were Intelligently Designed to produce NON-RANDOM specific sequences of genetic information.....and that is one of the DIFFERENCES between people and Lotto Machines!!!:eek:


Originally Posted by J C
It would be impossible to randomly construct, even one sensible sentence (using undirected processes)

Wicknight
That isn't true, I have a computer program that randomly constructs sentences all the time. It just takes a long time.

Is that how you write all of your postings to this forum, then???


Wicknight
If you alter the computer program to naturally select words that are proper English, a process that mimics how the environment selects mutations that have a high fitness level to the actually environment, you can construct proper English much quicker

…….and this is how the problem of language and information arises for Evolutionists……
......because language and information are virtual phenomena that can be produced AT WILL by intelligent beings…….but they CANNOT be produced AT ALL by natural processes.

To illustrate........
....... even if the environment would select something with three eyes…….
........the environment will remain totally impotent to select such a creature, unless and until the DNA language for something with three eyes ‘emerges’ into the environment……..and this is impossible without the appliance of intelligence!!!

As I have previously said, it’s like trying to produce a specific bolt for a machine using random processes (akin to mutation) and using quality control selection (akin to NS)…….. we would end up with a veritable mountain of bolts with wrong shapes, diameters, threads and lengths……and the system would be so wasteful that the company would go bankrupt before the desired SPECIFIC bolt would be produced.

If we apply intelligence to the problem……the correct bolt would be produced correct first time ……and every time!!!!

The technical reason why engineering firms do not use random processes to produce their components is because the ‘useless combinatorial space’ is effectively infinite and all functional components are uniquely specific………in other words there are a billion trillion wrong ways to produce a specific engineering component and usually only ONE correct way to do so!!!

Ditto with critical functional biological sequences!!!!:D


mossieh
JC,
in all the time that this thread has run, have you conceded a single point?

Have you at any stage been, to your knowledge, wrong, in even the tiniest detail?

Do you think it's possible to argue your point for so long without making even a little error?

I've seen the other side concede points (to each other, mainly) but not once have I seen you concede anything.

I am only a fallible Human Being, indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

You are correct that I have not had to concede even a single point on this mega-thread……..and I give all of the credit to God and the truth of Creation for this achievement!!!:D

“My words are true” says the Lord “and the truth will set you free”……..


With Loving thoughts

J C

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Firstly, you STARTED off with a ‘functionally perfect’ intelligently designed sentence.

Well I started off with a functional sentence. Shakespeare might disagree as to if it was "prefect" (though you genuinely don't seem to understand what the word perfect actually means, so I suppose you can be forgiven for thinking that)

J C wrote:

Then you intelligently swapped some of the words in the sentence…..and the ‘functionality’ of the resultant sentences was directly related to the degree of intelligent effort deployed by you in swapping around the words!!!

No I didn't. I randomly swapped some of the word. About 15 times. I only showed you an end result that produced a sentence with exactly the same information as the original sentence. You can do it yourself if you like.

Not that that matters. The purpose of this little excercise was simply to demonstrate to your that your original assertion that copying errors will always degrade information is not true. Which I did Since you never stated that intelligence was a variable the intelligence or lack of intelligence of how the information is copied is largely irrelevant.

Your assertion that copying information will always degrade the information is false. Pure and simple.

Let the back tracking and silly jokes begin. :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

Is that how you write all of your postings to this forum, then???

Wicknight - Post 7273 wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54115814&postcount=7273
Your assertion is false, as our little demonstration shows. And now you are back tracking. Rather incoherently.

I expect your next post will be a short silly jokey comment followed by a number of smilie faces as your try (in vain) to change the subject and hide your embarrassment.

Wow. I can predict the future pretty well ... or maybe you are just very predictable JC :rolleyes:

J C

Wicknight wrote:

Wow. I can predict the future pretty well ...

Wow, an Atheist claiming the gift of prophecy!!!:D


God has great plans for you Wicknight...........plans to prosper you .......and to save you!!!:cool:

J C

Wicknight wrote:

Well I started off with a functional sentence. Shakespeare might disagree as to if it was "prefect" (though you genuinely don't seem to understand what the word perfect actually means, so I suppose you can be forgiven for thinking that).......


No I didn't. I randomly swapped some of the word. About 15 times. I only showed you an end result that produced a sentence with exactly the same information as the original sentence. You can do it yourself if you like...........

Not that that matters. The purpose of this little excercise was simply to demonstrate to your that your original assertion that copying errors will always degrade information is not true. Which I did Since you never stated that intelligence was a variable the intelligence or lack of intelligence of how the information is copied is largely irrelevant.

Wicknight, your thought processes have become confused and 'wet'!!:D

.......take a rest.......and be still and know that Jesus Christ is Lord......

...and read the following soothing verses of Scripture :-
Mt 11:28-30 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

With loving thoughts

J C:)

wolfsbane

Can any of you help me with this?

How significant is the Moon for our existence on Earth? If it did not exist, would that make a big difference to our physical world? If it were twice as near/far from us, would that have a critical effect?

I can think of the romantic effect - and its possible physical consequences - but I'm after the cold science here.

Thanks.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote:

Can any of you help me with this?

How significant is the Moon for our existence on Earth? If it did not exist, would that make a big difference to our physical world? If it were twice as near/far from us, would that have a critical effect?

I can think of the romantic effect - and its possible physical consequences - but I'm after the cold science here.

Thanks.

It has the most effect on tides I suppose, being very near to us iirc would cause a lot of difference in ocean currents (if not tsunamis? I'm not sure) which in turn would have a lot of other effects. Think it also would have an effect on Earth's orbit.

We're not going for the "it's at just the perfect place for us to exist" argument, are we? Either life would have adapted differently or we wouldn't be here questioning it, etc

5uspect

bluewolf wrote:

It has the most effect on tides I suppose, being very near to us iirc would cause a lot of difference in ocean currents (if not tsunamis? I'm not sure) which in turn would have a lot of other effects. Think it also would have an effect on Earth's orbit.

We're not going for the "it's at just the perfect place for us to exist" argument, are we? Either life would have adapted differently or we wouldn't be here questioning it, etc

Certainly the massive influence of the moon on the earth will affect the evolution of life, especially aquatic life, but life would have simply evolved differently had it not been there as selection pressures would be different. This reminds me of the puddle argument someone mentioned earlier, I think Douglas Adams may have proposed it first?

Douglas Adams wrote:

. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'"

5uspect

5uspect wrote:

Certainly the massive influence of the moon on the earth will affect the evolution of life, especially aquatic life, but life would have simply evolved differently had it not been there as selection pressures would be different.

That's what I was saying

MooseJam

the moon also acted as a shield, see all those big holes in the moon, a lot of those asteroid strikes would have hit us if wasn't there, it's probable there would have been more than just the one massive extinction hit that killed off the dinosaurs, we might not be here if there was no moon

wolfsbane

5uspect wrote:

Certainly the massive influence of the moon on the earth will affect the evolution of life, especially aquatic life, but life would have simply evolved differently had it not been there as selection pressures would be different. This reminds me of the puddle argument someone mentioned earlier, I think Douglas Adams may have proposed it first?

Yes, I'm sure the Moon's absence/proximity would have had some effect on our physical world - but what I'm trying to find out is would it have massive effect. I'm inclined to think not; that sea-levels, rotation of the core, etc. would just have made a similar set-up with perhaps different areas of the world occupied. But I want to know if there is a scientific case against this.

Maybe that answers bluewolf's query, We're not going for the "it's at just the perfect place for us to exist" argument, are we?

MooseJam

MooseJam wrote:

the moon also acted as a shield, see all those big holes in the moon, a lot of those asteroid strikes would have hit us if wasn't there, it's probable there would have been more than just the one massive extinction hit that killed off the dinosaurs, we might not be here if there was no moon

That depends on the angle, I would think...
I wouldn't go so far as to say we wouldn't be here

J C

5uspect wrote:

Certainly the massive influence of the moon on the earth will affect the evolution of life, especially aquatic life, but life would have simply evolved differently had it not been there as selection pressures would be different. This reminds me of the puddle argument someone mentioned earlier, I think Douglas Adams may have proposed it first?

Douglas Adams wrote:

. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'"

Specified Sand Dunes, Thinking Puddles and Pondslime Men........Alice in Wonderland wouldn't have a look in........in the 'Wonderland of Evolutionism'!!!!!:eek:

.....Chesterton WAS right when he said :-
"When men cease to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing ANYTHING!"

With (tough) Love!!!

J C:D