The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...wiki is correct that in order to get the CSI of a pattern, you must find out its probability and then get -log2 of it.
...could I gently remind you that a probability of 1:27 = 1/27 = 1:2.70x10^1 = 3.70x10^-2 = Log2 of -4.75 and the CSI = -Log2 of 4.75

The CSI is 2.70x10^1 or 4.75 bits.

Eh no J C. The CSI is 4.75 bits, it's not 2.70x10^1. You haven't got the CSI until you take the log2 of the probability.

J C wrote: »

If you wish to add two probabilities of 1:27 + 1:27, for example, the answer is 1:13.5 and the CSI is the -Log2 of 1/13.5 = 5.75 ... or 5.75 bits.

Again no. You are not adding probabilities, you are adding the inverse of the probabilities. If you add the probabilities 1/27 + 1/27 you get 2/27.
And even if you were adding them correctly that's not the same as adding the CSI's. You have to get log2 of the probability to get the CSI and then add those. In other words you have to follow Dembski's formula for complexity:


You can't just leave out the log2 part and claim to have calculated the complexity. Before you get log2 you have the probability against the word forming spontaneously, not the complex specified information of the word.

J C wrote: »

Please note that it is not 4.75 + 4.75 = 9.5 bits, which is the product of 1/27 x 1/27 = 1/729 converted to -Log2

Adding the complexities is indeed the same as multiplying the probabilities, which is why you end up with the same answer, as you should

J C wrote: »

...please consult a mathematician before continuing to embarass yourself ...

Likewise.

I must point out J C you are doing the evolutionists case a great service here. You are not showing that the complexity of the sentence is greater than the sum of the complexities of the component parts because you're doing the maths wrong but what you are showing is that spontaneously producing the sentence "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" is exponentially less likely than spontaneously producing each of the words and spaces separately. The complexity of both is the same but the probability against producing the entire sentence spontaneously is far less than the probability of producing each of the components.

What that means is that a mechanism not guided by intelligence can produce a series of components by overcoming a probability of 1/2.82817x10^11, then 'mesh' all of those components and use them to perform a new function. Some alteration to the components may be necessary to 'mesh' them, in this sentence the alteration is the addition of spaces but the probability of producing them is only (1/27)x5. If it were to "try" to produce this new function spontaneously it would have to overcome a probability of 1/1.197x10^40 but by forming them separately and then 'meshing' them, it only has to overcome the probability 1/2.82817x10^11.

And that's how evolution produces very complex components that seem very unlikely. Whether I produce the sentence in one go or by forming each of the words and spaces separately and then 'meshing' them I end up with the same sentence and therefore the same complexity but the latter is much more likely to happen without intelligent guidance than the former.

The only argument against this is irreducible complexity but we've shown it to be nonsense over and over again on this thread.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...wiki is correct that in order to get the CSI of a pattern, you must find out its probability and then get -log2 of it.
...could I gently remind you that a probability of 1:27 = 1/27 = 1:2.70x10^1 = 3.70x10^-2 = Log2 of -4.75 and the CSI = -Log2 of 4.75

The CSI is 2.70x10^1 or 4.75 bits.

Sam Vimes
Eh no J C. The CSI is 4.75 bits, it's not 2.70x10^1. You haven't got the CSI until you take the log2 of the probability.

....4.75 bits = 27 and 27 = 4.75 bits!!!
The CSI expresed in normal numbers of a probability of 1:27 is BOTH 27 and 4.75 bits ... these are the same number expressed in two different ways!!!!

wrote:

Sam Vimes
Again no. You are not adding probabilities, you are adding the inverse of the probabilities. If you add the probabilities 1/27 + 1/27 you get 2/27.
And even if you were adding them correctly that's not the same as adding the CSI's. You have to get log2 of the probability to get the CSI and then add those

You are correct that you add the inverse of the probabilities i.e. 27 + 27 which = 54 ... and you then convert it back to it's probability of 1/54 whose -Log2 is 5.75 ...and therefore the CSI is 5.75 bits.
The CSI bits can equally be calculated by calculating the Log2 of the Specified Complexity (54) and this also is 5.75.

wrote:

Sam Vimes
Yes it is. Adding the complexities is the same as multiplying the probabilities, which is why you end up with the same answer.

...the specified complexity is the inverse of its probability and therefore adding either the specified complexities or their probabilities is obviously NOT the same as their multiplication.

wrote:

Sam Vimes
Likewise.

I must point out J C you are doing the evolutionists case a great service here. You are not showing that the complexity of the sentence is greater than the sum of the complexities of the component parts because you're doing the maths wrong but you are showing how one of the main mechanisms of evolution works. What you are showing is that spontaneously producing the sentence "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" is exponentially less likely than spontaneously producing each of the words and spaces separately.

What that means is that a mechanism not guided by intelligence can produce a series of components by overcoming a probability of 1/2.82817x10^11, then 'mesh' all of those components and use them to perform a new function. Some alteration to the components may be necessary to 'mesh' them, in this sentence the alteration is the addition of spaces but the probability of producing them is only (1/27)x5. If it were to "try" to produce this new function spontaneously it would have to overcome a probability of 1/1.197x10^40 but by forming them separately and then 'meshing' them, it only has to overcome the probability 1/2.82817x10^11.

And that's how evolution produces very complex components that seem very unlikely

The only argument against this is irreducible complexity but we've shown it to be nonsense over and over again on this thread.

...BOTH your proposed 'meshing' and the irreducible complexity of these systems, statistically prevents them ever forming spontaneously. Any 'meshing' would exponentially increase the odds of them EVER producing a functional product and therefore it also would exponentially increase the CSI of any functional product ... and the irreducible complexity of current systems ALSO rules out their production in a step by step way.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63355267&postcount=19201

The odds against the spontaneous 'meshing' of four items, each with a CSI of 10^11 to produce a specific functional system is 1:10^44 ... and its CSI is therefore 10^44 or 146 bits.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

....4.75 bits = 27 and 27 = 4.75 bits!!!
The CSI expresed in normal numbers of a probability of 1:27 is BOTH 27 and 4.75 bits ... these are the same number expressed in two different ways!!!!

Eh no, 4.75 =/= 27.

4.75 = -log2(1/27)

They are not the same number represented two different ways. The formula for complexity is:

but you are leaving out the -log2 part and claiming they are the same thing. They are not. If they were the same thing then adding up the numbers both before and after getting the log2 would yield the same answer but they don't and your whole argument relies on the fact that they don't.

J C wrote: »

You are correct that you add the inverse of the probabilities i.e. 27 + 27 which = 54 ... and you then convert it back to it's probability of 1/54 whose -Log2 is 5.75 ...and therefore the CSI is 5.75 bits.
The CSI bits can equally be calculated by calculating the Log2 of the Specified Complexity (54) and this also is 5.75.

That's not how you add probabilities and log2 of 54 is 5.75 and log2 of 1/54 is -5.75.

J C wrote: »

...the specified complexity is the inverse of its probability

No it's not, it's -log2 of the probability. At no point does Demsbki invert a probability

J C wrote: »

...BOTH your proposed 'meshing' and the irreducible complexity of these systems, statistically prevents them ever forming spontaneously.

Except that they're not irreducibly complex as has been shown over and over and over again

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Eh no, 4.75 =/= 27.

4.75 = -log2(1/27)

... 4.75 is also the Log2 of 27

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They are not the same number represented two different ways. The formula for complexity is:

but you are leaving out the -log2 part and claiming they are the same thing. They are not. If they were the same thing then adding up the numbers both before and after getting the log2 would yield the same answer but they don't and your whole argument relies on the fact that they don't.

1:27 or 1/27 is the probability ... and the CSI is 27 or 4.75 bits.
The -Log2 part is used to convert a probability into CSI and express it directly as bits.
So a probability of 1/27 has CSI of -Log2 (1/27) = 4.75 bits.
Equally, a probability of 1/27 has CSI of 27 and a CSI of 27 can be converted into bits using Log2 (27) = 4.75 bits.

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
You are correct that you add the inverse of the probabilities i.e. 27 + 27 which = 54 ... and you then convert it back to it's probability of 1/54 whose -Log2 is 5.75 ...and therefore the CSI is 5.75 bits.
The CSI bits can equally be calculated by calculating the Log2 of the Specified Complexity (54) and this also is 5.75.

Sam Vimes
That's not how you add probabilities and log2 of 54 is 5.75 and log2 of 1/54 is -5.75.

... the -Log 2 of 1/54 is 5.75.
The CSI is 54 and its Log2 equivalent is 5.75.

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...the specified complexity is the inverse of its probability...

Sam Vimes
No it's not, it's -log2 of the probability. At no point does Demsbki invert a probability.

...Specified Complexity or CSI is the inverse of its probability ...
....and the 'minus' in Dembski's Log2 formula for CSI ... and the 'minus' in the Log2 formula below for Complexity both invert the probability within the formulae:-
CSI = -Log2 (P^n) and

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
...BOTH your proposed 'meshing' and the irreducible complexity of these systems, statistically prevents them ever forming spontaneously


Sam Vimes
Except that they're not irreducibly complex as has been shown over and over and over again

...WHEN was that shown ... you didn't even attempt to answer my repeated posting which proves the existence of Irreducible Complexity from first principles ... it was last posted here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63355267&postcount=19201

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... 4.75 is also the Log2 of 27

Tis indeed.

J C wrote: »

1:27 or 1/27 is the probability ... and the CSI is 27 or 4.75 bits.
The -Log2 part is used to convert a probability into CSI and express it directly as bits.
So a probability of 1/27 has CSI of -Log2 (1/27) = 4.75 bits.
Equally, a probability of 1/27 has CSI of 27 and a CSI of 27 can be converted into bits using Log2 (27) = 4.75 bits.

The CSI is either 27 or 4.75 bits, it can't be both. If the two figures were just different ways of representing the same thing, such as metres versus kilometres then operations performed on them such as addition would have the same effect. The fact that the addition before the log produces a vastly different result to the one after the log shows that they are not equivalent

J C wrote: »

...Specified Complexity or CSI is the inverse of its probability ...
....and the 'minus' in Dembski's Log2 formula for CSI ... and the 'minus' in the Log2 formula below for Complexity both invert the probability within the formulae:-
CSI = -Log2 (P^n) and

Dembski gets -log2 of the probability, which is equivalent to getting log2 of the inverse probability. You're just inverting the probability and ignoring the log part. You're not doing the same calculation as him

J C wrote: »

...WHEN was that shown ... you didn't even attempt to answer my repeated posting which proves the existence of Irreducible Complexity from first principles ... it was last posted here:-
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63355267&postcount=19201

You need to learn the difference between "prove from first principles" and "make a load of totally unsupported assertions". As the review of the book said:

The field of artificial life evidently poses a significant challenge to
Dembski's claims about the failure of evolutionary algorithms to
generate complexity. Indeed, artificial life researchers regularly
find their simulations of evolution producing the sorts of novelties
and increased complexity that Dembski claims are impossible.

He can declare these things to be irreducibly complex and impossible to form without intelligence all he wants but he is regularly proven wrong

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The CSI is either 27 or 4.75 bits, it can't be both.

...of course CSI can be expressed as an ordinary number or as bits of information and it IS expressed as both...
Log2 (27) is 4.75 bits...so a CSI can be expressed as a Specified Complexity of 27 or it can also be expressed as 4.75 bits.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If the two figures were just different ways of representing the same thing, such as metres versus kilometres then operations performed on them such as addition would have the same effect. The fact that the addition before the log produces a vastly different result to the one after the log shows that they are not equivalent

...the 'problem' you describe applies to all Logs ... when you wish to add or subtract the ordinary numbers from which any Log derives...you MUST convert the Log back to an ordinary number, perform the addition/subtraction operation and convert the answer back to a Log.
The benefit of Logs comes when you want to multiply/divide the ordinary numbers from which the Logs derive ... all you have to do then, is simply add/subtract their Logs.
Like I have said, these mathematical rules apply to ALL Logs and not just to CSI bits (which are calculated using Log2).

Sam Vimes wrote:

Dembski gets -log2 of the probability, which is equivalent to getting log2 of the inverse probability. You're just inverting the probability and ignoring the log part. You're not doing the same calculation as him

...I'm not 'ignoring the log part'...see my previous answers above in this post.

Sam Vimes wrote:

You need to learn the difference between "prove from first principles" and "make a load of totally unsupported assertions". As the review of the book said:
Quote:
The field of artificial life evidently poses a significant challenge to
Dembski's claims about the failure of evolutionary algorithms to
generate complexity. Indeed, artificial life researchers regularly
find their simulations of evolution producing the sorts of novelties
and increased complexity that Dembski claims are impossible.

He can declare these things to be irreducibly complex and impossible to form without intelligence all he wants but he is regularly proven wrong

1. Could you please use your own words rather than mindlessly quoting quotes that are themselves WRONG.
2. In relation to the evolutionary algorithms, so beloved of Evolutionists, I would make two observations which nullify them as demonstrating Spontaneous Evolution by material means:-
(i) These algorithms are the product of the appliance of intelligence ... and they run on high-CSI machines called computers, that are themselves the product of applied intelligence ... hardly a 'water-tight' way to demonstrate the emergence of CSI by non-intelligent means!!!!
(ii) The algorithms may produce 'complexity' and 'novelty' ... but they don't produce Specified Complexity .... which is what is required to demonstrate how life supposedly evolved !!!
3. You haven't even attempted to answer my repeated posting which DOES prove the existence of Irreducible Complexity from first principles.

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...the 'problem' you describe applies to all Logs ... when you wish to add or subtract the ordinary numbers from which any Log derives...you MUST convert the Log back to an ordinary number, perform the addition/subtraction operation and convert the answer back to a Log.
The benefit of Logs comes when you want to multiply/divide the ordinary numbers from which the Logs derive ... all you have to do then, is simply add/subtract their Logs.

Why is are you making this so needlessly complicated.
Instead of converting the logs, why not multiply them?
Either stick to logs,
Or stick to "bits".
And follow the appropriate rules throughout.
Why change between them through through a sum?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Why is are you making this so needlessly complicated.
Instead of converting the logs, why not multiply them?
Either stick to logs,
Or stick to "bits".
And follow the appropriate rules throughout.
Why change between them through through a sum?

...If you want to add the CSI (rather than multiplying it) you MUST convert the individual bits back to ordinary numbers, perform the addition/subtraction operation and then convert the answer back to a Log2 to express the total bits of CSI in the aggregate.
Like I have repeatedly said, these mathematical rules apply to ALL Logs and not just to CSI bits (which are calculated using Log2).

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...If you want to add the CSI (rather than multiply it) you MUST convert the individual bits back to ordinary numbers.
Like I have repeatedly said, these mathematical rules apply to ALL Logs and not just to CSI bits (which are calculated using Log2).

Why?


Can you not just multiply the inverse numbers and then take the log?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Why?


Can you not just multiply the inverse numbers and then take the log?

...you can do that if you want to multiply the individual CSI in each item ... or you can simply add the indiividual CSI logs (i.e. bits).

HOWEVER, if you want to add the individual CSI in each item ... you MUST add the ordinary number expression of each CSI (or the inverse of its probability).
You can then convert the (ordinary number) answer to bits by expressing the answer as Log2.

STOP avoiding the issue of Irreducible Complexity and answer my posting #19201.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63355267&postcount=19201

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...you can do that if you want to multiply the individual CSI in each item ... or you can simply add the indiividual CSI logs (i.e. bits).

HOWEVER, if you want to add the individual CSI in each item ... you MUST add the ordinary number expression of each CSI (or the inverse of its probability).
You can then convert the (ordinary number) answer to bits by expressing the answer as Log2.

????
Seriously JC you're going to have to write this methodology out longhand so we can see what exactly you mean.

STOP avoiding the issue of Irreducible Complexity and answer my posting #19201.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63355267&postcount=19201

Em. I'd imagine numerous people have already answered this natural selection doesn't have to select a "useful" function and the term "useful" is entirely subjective anyway.

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Seriously JC you're going to write this methodology out longhand so we can see what exactly you mean.

... I'm not going to bother ...
... I have spent enough time trying to educate yourself and your fellow evolutionists on basic mathematics ... and probably boring the 'lurkers' on this thread in the process!!!
If you still don't know about Logs ... I would suggest you get a 'grind' from a friendly Mathematician!!!

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
STOP avoiding the issue of Irreducible Complexity and answer my posting #19201.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63355267&postcount=19201

Malty_T
Em. I'd imagine numerous people have already answered this natural selection doesn't have to select a "useful" function and the term "useful" is entirely subjective anyway.

...Please address my posting!!!

What does NS select, if it doesn't select 'useful' functions???

NS cannot 'select' a useless function ... because such a function doesn't add to reproductive success.

... and the term 'useful' can be objectively defined as a survival benefit which increases the reproductive success of an organism!!!

... like I have previously said, Materialistic Evolutionists are 20 years behind the 'cutting edge' of ID research!!!
... and the big problem for Materialistic Evolutionists is explaining how 'useful' / 'functional' systems can spontaneously arise, in the first place!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

... I'm not going to bother ...
... I have spent enough time trying to educate yourself and your fellow evolutionists on basic mathematics ... and probably boring the 'lurkers' on this thread in the process!!!
If you still don't know about Logs ... I would suggest you get a 'grind' from a friendly Mathematician!!!

JC,

No-one here seems to understand what you are on about except yourself, can you please just clarify it by doing the longhad approach, that way we'd know exactly what you mean. Surely you realise by now that us evolutionists are a myopic generation and need things pointed out to us as clear as day?

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

JC,

No-one here seems to understand what you are on about except yourself, can you please just clarify it by doing the longhad approach, that way we'd know exactly what you mean.

...Please consult a mathmatician if you want further clarification.

Malty_T wrote: »

Surely you realise by now that us evolutionists are a myopic generation and need things pointed out to us as clear as day?

...I know that ... but life is too short to go into exhaustive detail on EVERY subject with Evolutionists.:D

...another good reason why Creation Science needs to be more widely accessible to the public (including Evolutionists) through the mass media and even perhaps schools!!!:eek::):D

offdechain

im an non beliver

J C

offdechain wrote: »

im an non beliver

...in WHAT???

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... like I have previously said, Materialistic Evolutionists are 20 years behind the 'cutting edge' of ID research!!!

I actually laughed out loud at that. ID research, what a load of bollocks :rolleyes:

When your answer to life is "god did it", there's nothing to research. Anyway, I've already responded to everything in your last post to me several times. You're doing the thing that has made this thread last four years: repeating yourself over and over until people get bored pointing out that you're taking nonsense. I am now officially bored, for the moment at least. Toodles

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

.

STOP avoiding the issue of Irreducible Complexity and answer my posting #19201.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63355267&postcount=19201

Are the real 'irreducibly complex' biochemical pathways a secret or something?

In that post you meerly seem to be reciting the alphabet.

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Are the real 'irreducibly complex' biochemical pathways a secret or something?

In that post you meerly seem to be reciting the alphabet.

..since you seem to be having great difficulty understanding basic maths (in relation to using Log tables) and Malty_T has confirmed that "evolutionists are a myopic generation and need things pointed out to us as clear as day"....
...I decided not to 'blow' your 'brain cell' by talking about a real irreducibly complex cascade ... and I used the letters A, B, C and D to avoid taxing your brains too much and also to prevent you 'weasling' your way off this particular problem by your usual strategy of obfuscation and confusion.
It is also language that all 'lurkers' on the thread can easily understand ... and so it will be clear when you are failing to answer the question ... which you have continued to do for the past three pages!!!!

...anyway, since you ask, here is the irreducibly complex sight cascade:-

......so please tell us, how the 'modern synthesis' explains the way that the sight biochemical cascade below 'evolved' from 'nothing' to what it currently is in a seeing mammalian eye.......without any external intelligent input????


.....and here is what the said cascade 'looks like':-

“When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (BTW a picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single Human hair.)
The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters it’s behaviour. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from GDP).
GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to “cut” a molecule called cGMP (cGMP is closely related to, but critically different from GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers it’s concentation by acting as an ‘absorber’.
Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of Sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows Sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein ‘pumps’ them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and the ‘pump’ keeps the level of Sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of the cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentrations of positively charged Sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane that causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.

If the reactions mentioned above were the only ones that operated in the cell, the supply of 11-cis-retinal, cGMP and Sodium ions would be depleted quickly. Several mechanisms turn off the proteins that were turned on, in order to restore the cell to it’s original state. Firstly, the ion channel also lets Calcium ion in as well as Sodium ions. The Calcium is ‘pumped’ back by a different protein so that a constant Calcium concentration is maintained. When cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel, Calcium concentrations also decrease too. The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP slows down at lower Calcium ion concentrations. Second, a protein called guanlate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when Calcium levels start to fall. Third, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase. The modified rhodopsin then binds to a protein known as arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from activating more transducin. And this is how the cell limits the amplified signal started by a single photon.
Trans-retinal eventually falls off of the rhodopsin and is reconverted to 11-cis-retinal which is again bound by rhodopsin to get back to the starting point for another visual cycle. To accomplish this, transretinal is first chemically modified by an enzyme to trans-retinol – a form containing two more Hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then converts the molecule to 11-cis-retionol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added Hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal and one cycle is completed (in about one nanosecond).”

…and BTW the above biochemical sequence is but ONE of many THOUSANDS of equally unique and highly specific sequences found in living cells!!!!:D

...please give me the supposed Evolutionary 'steps' involved in the supposed 'gradual evolution' of the above cascade???

...or if you'd rather tackle the A, B, C and D problem that I gave you earlier, please addresss my Post #19201.

monosharp

J C wrote: »

1. You can't fully understand Genesis whilst believing in Evolution!!!

2. Why would you want to believe in a scientifically invalid concept like Evolution, anyway???

Aren't you banned/self-isolated from posting anywhere but in the creationism thread ?

1. You can't take Genesis or most of the Bible or most religious documents literally whilst accepting scientific fact.

Is there a God ? I don't know. Is the Christian god real ? I don't know.

Is Evolution a fact ? Yes. Is the theory or Evolution the best explanation we have for the diversity of life ? Yes.

I am not a Christian (anymore) nor am I religious in anyway (anymore) but that has nothing to do with my acceptance of Evolution, nor does it have anything to do with the vast majority of religious peoples acceptance of Evolution.

Your god either used evolution to create the diversity of life or he had no part to play at all. Genesis, literal or metaphorical is up to religious people but accepting scientific fact means you cannot accept a literal account of genesis.

Its that simple. Either its metaphorical or its completely wrong.

2. Creationism just like astrology has its followers, a decreasing number of followers but then again some people will believe all and any kinds of rubbish.

Anyways for the Christians here, I've been quietly reading this thread but I do have a question.

What do you think of other 'types' of creationism ? What I mean is, Islamic or other religions versions of creationism.

Do you think that the islamic creationists and the christian creationists for example have common ground ?

For christian creationists, is the literal account of creation as depicted in genesis 100% right or is there room for differences ?

e.g > Is there a core set of beliefs that is important such as 'God did it' and the other beliefs '6 days', 'made man before woman' etc less important and up for interpretation ?

Is genesis as a whole 100% literally true or are creationists ok with just believing 'God created us' and leaving the when/how/out of what/talking snakes etc to one side ?

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I am now officially bored, for the moment at least. Toodles

...so when an Evolutionist goes into denial ... s/he gets 'officially bored' ... interesting!!!!
...and 'toodle pip' to you too!!!:):D

J C

...If you don't wish to tackle the sight cascade ... perhaps you could explain how Human Hearing developed in the stepwise gradual fashion so beloved of Evolutionists??

This is how it works (courtesy of Dr. David Menton AiG):-

In a series of complex steps, the three parts of the ear are designed to conduct sound through three radically different media—air, bone, and fluid.
The ears can hear everything, from the faint ticking of a small watch to the roar of a jet engine, a range of volume of nearly one million to one! It is fitting that one of the most marvelous organs in the body should be used to hear the Word of God.

Sound
To understand how our ears hear sound we must first understand something about sound itself.

Most sounds are produced by something vibrating, such as vocal cords or loudspeakers. These vibrations produce compressed pulses of air molecules that bump into other air molecules, which in turn bump into others and continue in this way until they reach our ears. The ear can sense as few as 20 pulses per second (for low-pitched sounds) and as many as 20,000 pulses per second (for high-pitched sounds).

The Three Parts of the Ear
Long before the radio was invented, the ear was designed to convert pulses of air into electrical signals. To accomplish this marvel, God gave the ear three parts—the outer ear, the middle ear, and the inner ear. Each part has a different role in locating and converting signals that our brain can use.

Outer Ear
The outer ear includes the pinna, the ear canal, and the eardrum.

The Pinna
The part of the ear that we see, called the pinna, is commonly known simply as the “ear.” It has a complicated cup-like shape designed to catch the sound waves from the air. Having two ears helps us to detect what direction sounds come from. Not only can they detect sounds from the left or right, but our pinnae can detect sounds in front, behind, above, or below us.

The Ear Canal
The ear canal is about 1 inch (2.5 cm) long and a little over 0.33 inches (0.8 cm) in diameter. It efficiently channels sound waves to the eardrum. Lining the ear canal are special glands that produce earwax (cerumen). This wax lubricates the ear canal, preventing irritation and fighting bacteria.

For most people, the ear canal is self-cleaning. Ear wax traps dust particles, which are then removed from the ear canal (along with the wax) by an amazing conveyor-belt mechanism.

The Eardrum
The eardrum (tympanic membrane) plays the final and starring role in the outer ear. Sound waves entering the ear canal cause the eardrum to vibrate. The minute movements of the eardrum are then passed on to the small bones in the middle ear.

The Middle Ear
The function of the middle ear is to amplify the sound vibrations of the eardrum. The vibrations must be compressed into a much smaller area.

This is accomplished by a sequence of three small bones in the middle ear, known collectively as ossicles. The ossicles are the smallest bones in the body (the smallest bone weighs .0001 ounces (0.3 cg)). They are the only bones that never grow larger from the time of birth.

Vibrations produced in the eardrum are passed to the first bone, called the hammer (malleus), whose “handle” is attached to the eardrum. This bone, in turn, passes its vibrations to a bone called the anvil (incus). Next, the vibration is transmitted to a bone that looks like a stirrup, called the stapes. Finally, the “foot plate,” located on the stirrup, is inserted into a small oval window, which opens into the inner ear.

Amplification results because the surface area of the eardrum is much greater than the foot plate of the stirrup, thus concentrating the energy over a smaller area and resulting in over a 20-fold increase in pressure. The foot plate moves in and out, like a piston, producing waves in the fluid of the inner ear.

The Inner Ear
The bony chamber of the inner ear is shaped like a small snail shell, from which it gets its Latin name cochlea. The function of the cochlea is to take the mechanical vibrations from the ossicles (and ultimately the eardrum) and convert them into electrical signals understandable to the brain.

Inside the cochlea are three canals. The middle canal is a spiral, filled with a special fluid. Running within this spiral canal is yet another fluid-filled channel called the cochlear duct. As the piston movement of the middle ear causes waves to travel through the fluid in the cochlea, the cochlear duct bounces up and down.

The Organ of Corti
Inside the cochlear duct is a strip of tissue known as the organ of Corti, one of the most remarkable organs in the body. It is very complex but worth the effort to try to understand it. Here the ear converts signals at the molecular level.

This organ essentially consists of three rows of outer hair cells and one row of inner hair cells. The tops of the cells have tiny “hairs” (thus the name “hair cells”). These hairs are actually cilia that are much smaller than a hair on our bodies. In fact, they are too small to be seen individually, even with a light microscope.

The tips of some of the hairs are attached to an overlying spiral membrane called the tectorial membrane. When the organ of Corti bounces up and down, the tectorial membrane wiggles the hairs.

The wiggling of the hairs causes small molecular “trapdoors” on the tips of the hairs to open and close, permitting electrically charged particles (ions) to enter the hairs. Incredibly, the molecular trapdoors are controlled by molecular springs that attach to adjustable molecular brackets.

It staggers the mind to think of tiny molecular trapdoors opening and closing at a rate between 20 and 20,000 times per second, admitting charged ions into the tips of the hairs. This movement of ions generates electrical signals that are sent to the brain, where they are processed and interpreted as the sounds we hear.

God Made the Hearing Ear
The Bible declares, “The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both” (Proverbs 20:12, NKJV). It logically follows that God, who made the hearing ear, is Himself able to hear. The Psalmist asks, “He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Psalms 94:9, KJV).

Indeed, the Creator is not limited by physical ears and eyes. He can hear our very thoughts and see into our hearts. This is a frightening thing for the unbelieving sinner, who would not want a perfect God listening in on his every word and thought. But for the believing Christian whose sins have been covered by the blood of Christ, a hearing (and seeing) God is a profound blessing and comfort. God sees our needs and hears our prayers. “The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and His ears are open to their cry” (Psalms 34:15, NKJV).

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...so when an Evolutionist goes into denial ... s/he gets 'officially bored' ... interesting!!!!
...and 'toodle pip' to you too!!!:):D

Indeed. It was the 7th time you said the same things I'd already responded to 6 times that I suddenly became stumped and completely unable to articulate my thoughts on the matter. I'm strange that way, the 7th time I try to remember something it erases itself from my brain

J C

monosharp wrote: »

Aren't you banned/self-isolated from posting anywhere but in the creationism thread ? I'm not banned anywhere!!!

1. You can't take Genesis or most of the Bible or most religious documents literally whilst accepting scientific fact. The Bible is an account of historical fact ... and is completely compatible with scientific fact.

Is there a God ? I don't know. Is the Christian god real ? I don't know. Yes to Both.
Is Evolution a fact ? Yes. Is the theory or Evolution the best explanation we have for the diversity of life ? Yes. No to both.

I am not a Christian (anymore)... You were never a Saved Christian so
...nor am I religious in anyway (anymore)... If you are an Evolutionist, you are a deepy religious person with a profoundly unfounded faith in the supposed magical abilities of material processes to spontaneously produce Men

...but that has nothing to do with my acceptance of Evolution, nor does it have anything to do with the vast majority of religious peoples acceptance of Evolution. oh yea???

Your god either used evolution to create the diversity of life or he had no part to play at all. Genesis, literal or metaphorical is up to religious people but accepting scientific fact means you cannot accept a literal account of genesis. The universe proclaims the Glory of God!!!

Its that simple. Either its metaphorical or its completely wrong. It is a literal account of the Creation

2. Creationism just like astrology has its followers, a decreasing number of followers but then again some people will believe all and any kinds of rubbish. Touché for all Evolutionists

Anyways for the Christians here, I've been quietly reading this thread but I do have a question.

What do you think of other 'types' of creationism ? What I mean is, Islamic or other religions versions of creationism.

Do you think that the islamic creationists and the christian creationists for example have common ground ? Yes ... The Islamic Creationists tend to be Old Earth Creationists. There is also common ground with Jewish Creationists who tend to be Young Earth Creationists and Secular ID Proponents who tend to still be Evolutionists

For christian creationists, is the literal account of creation as depicted in genesis 100% right or is there room for differences ? It is 100% correct ... and there is room for (slightly) different interpretations.

e.g > Is there a core set of beliefs that is important such as 'God did it' and the other beliefs '6 days', 'made man before woman' etc less important and up for interpretation ? None of these are up for interpretation ... but the details of the Fall are somewhat (and I believe deliberately) allegorical.

Is genesis as a whole 100% literally true or are creationists ok with just believing 'God created us' and leaving the when/how/out of what/talking snakes etc to one side? ..again, there is room for (slightly) different interpretations on some points of detail ... it is written in a literal style but it doesn't give an exhaustive account of EVERY detail...but we certainly cannot squeeze in billions of years anywhere and it is clear that God Directly Created each of our current living Kinds ... and quite a few extinct Kinds as well.

.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Indeed. It was the 7th time you said the same things I'd already responded to 6 times that I suddenly became stumped and completely unable to articulate my thoughts on the matter. I'm strange that way, the 7th time I try to remember something it erases itself from my brain

...any chance that you could respond to my postings on the Sight Cascade, the Hearing Ear or my Post #19201 for the FIRST time??:eek::rolleyes:

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Indeed. It was the 7th time you said the same things I'd already responded to 6 times that I suddenly became stumped and completely unable to articulate my thoughts on the matter. I'm strange that way, the 7th time I try to remember something it erases itself from my brain

Try visualising seven oranges in a row as single entities, don't make them into two groups of 3 and 4 or 2 and 5.:)

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Try visualising seven oranges in a row as single entities, don't make them into two groups of 3 and 4 or 2 and 5.:)

...yes, I have also noticed, that anything more complicated than the simple numeric sequence 1...7 seems to be beyond the mathematical abilities of the evolutionists on this thread ... just shows how wise God was, when He limited the week to 7 days!!!:D:rolleyes:

marco_polo

J C wrote: »

..since you seem to be having great difficulty understanding basic maths (in relation to using Log tables) and Malty_T has confirmed that "evolutionists are a myopic generation and need things pointed out to us as clear as day"....
...I decided not to 'blow' your 'brain cell' by talking about a real irreducibly complex cascade ... and I used the letters A, B, C and D to avoid taxing your brains too much and also to prevent you 'weasling' your way off this particular problem by your usual strategy of obfuscation and confusion.
It is also language that all 'lurkers' on the thread can easily understand ... and so it will be clear when you are failing to answer the question ... which you have continued to do for the past three pages!!!!

...anyway, since you ask, here is the irreducibly complex sight cascade:-

......so please tell us, how the 'modern synthesis' explains the way that the sight biochemical cascade below 'evolved' from 'nothing' to what it currently is in a seeing mammalian eye.......without any external intelligent input????


.....and here is what the said cascade 'looks like':-

“When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (BTW a picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single Human hair.)
The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters it’s behaviour. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from GDP).
GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to “cut” a molecule called cGMP (cGMP is closely related to, but critically different from GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers it’s concentation by acting as an ‘absorber’.
Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of Sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows Sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein ‘pumps’ them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and the ‘pump’ keeps the level of Sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of the cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentrations of positively charged Sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane that causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.

If the reactions mentioned above were the only ones that operated in the cell, the supply of 11-cis-retinal, cGMP and Sodium ions would be depleted quickly. Several mechanisms turn off the proteins that were turned on, in order to restore the cell to it’s original state. Firstly, the ion channel also lets Calcium ion in as well as Sodium ions. The Calcium is ‘pumped’ back by a different protein so that a constant Calcium concentration is maintained. When cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel, Calcium concentrations also decrease too. The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP slows down at lower Calcium ion concentrations. Second, a protein called guanlate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when Calcium levels start to fall. Third, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase. The modified rhodopsin then binds to a protein known as arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from activating more transducin. And this is how the cell limits the amplified signal started by a single photon.
Trans-retinal eventually falls off of the rhodopsin and is reconverted to 11-cis-retinal which is again bound by rhodopsin to get back to the starting point for another visual cycle. To accomplish this, transretinal is first chemically modified by an enzyme to trans-retinol – a form containing two more Hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then converts the molecule to 11-cis-retionol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added Hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal and one cycle is completed (in about one nanosecond).”

…and BTW the above biochemical sequence is but ONE of many THOUSANDS of equally unique and highly specific sequences found in living cells!!!!:D

...please give me the supposed Evolutionary 'steps' involved in the supposed 'gradual evolution' of the above cascade???

...or if you'd rather tackle the A, B, C and D problem that I gave you earlier, please addresss my Post #19201.

Yes it has been quite well studied and even though Behe wasn't aware of the existance of any research when he wrote that passage or when questioned about it.

Biochemically it goes a little something like this:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t125078h5p201442/fulltext.pdf

1) Various G-protein-coupled signaling cascades evolve for sensory systems other than vision like chemoreception.

2) Early opsins (G-protein-coupled receptor proteins) evolve

3) Early rhabdomeric and ciliary photoreceptors evolve

4) Ciliary photoreceptors develop simple light detector capabitities

5) Ciliary photoreceptor gains more complex signal transmission capabilities, can detect shadows and serve a circadian
function

6) Photoreceptors develop cone-like features, image-forming capabilities and canoperate over a relatively broad spectrum of light and range of light intensities

8) Cell types of photoreceptors diverge in form and have distinct opsins

9) Rhodopsin evolves from cone opsin.

I found a ton of other non subscription papers you can read as well so I don't have to do any more homework for you. I eagerly await your critique of them.


http://www.springerlink.com/content/t125078h5p201442/fulltext.pdf

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1531/2925.full.pdf


http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1531/2897.full.pdf

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1531/2911.full.pdf

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1531/2819.full.pdf

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1531/2881.full.pdf

http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/ijdb20034778/ft563.pdf

http://www.biology.duke.edu/cunningham/pdfs/Oakley%20and%20Cunningham.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u82568h8jj566k42/fulltext.pdf

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p52245164l342056/fulltext.pdf

This one is my personal favourite. The supremely complex mammilian eye can have light sensitivity restored to it by using microbial-type opsins (channelopsin-1 and -2 ) from the green algae Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Or pondslime as I believe you prefer to calll them.

http://www.genedetect.com/Merchant2/GeneDetect_AAV_Neuron_2006.pdf

Sam Vimes

marco_polo wrote: »

Yes it has been quite well studied and even though Behe wasn't aware of the existance of any research when he wrote that passage or when questioned about it.

Of course he wasn't. If he actually went and researched these papers it would become much more difficult to claim they don't exist. Difficult but, for a creationist, not impossible. Once they research these papers and know that what they're saying has been refuted there are four things they have to fall back on:

1. Claim no research has been done and hope the people they're talking to don't know about the papers
2. Failing that, act as if the papers don't exist, repeatedly declaring that no one can refute what they're saying and ignoring the people who keep mentioning the papers that refute what they're saying
3. Failing that, make a flippant remark to dismiss the paper and/or try to laugh it off and hope that the people they're talking to fall for it
4. Failing that, quote a bible verse, change the subject and when everyone's forgotten about the papers go back to option 1.

Result: a 19,230 post thread

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

Yes it has been quite well studied and even though Behe wasn't aware of the existance of any research when he wrote that passage or when questioned about it.

Biochemically it goes a little something like this:
1) Various G-protein-coupled signaling cascades evolve for sensory systems other than vision like chemoreception.

2) Early opsins (G-protein-coupled receptor proteins) evolve

3) Early rhabdomeric and ciliary photoreceptors evolve

4) Ciliary photoreceptors develop simple light detector capabitities

5) Ciliary photoreceptor gains more complex signal transmission capabilities, can detect shadows and serve a circadian
function

6) Photoreceptors develop cone-like features, image-forming capabilities and canoperate over a relatively broad spectrum of light and range of light intensities

8) Cell types of photoreceptors diverge in form and have distinct opsins

9) Rhodopsin evolves from cone opsin.

...and not the slightest evidence available for any of these speculations!!!