The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Have you visted a lab?

...of course I have ... indeed, in a 'previous life' I used to audit lab personnel and their procedures!!!

doctoremma wrote: »

So, when I can sequence the DNA of Mum and Dad (with no paternity issues) and find that Baby has an extra piece of DNA that neither Mum or Dad have, you are defining this how? Although I would never use the term, how does this not comprise a "gain of information" by your definition?

...Emma, honey ... this would be a gain in 'expressed' CSI.:):D

liamw

J C wrote: »

...doesn't have to be ... but usually does aid survival.

Of course, there is considerable quantities of 'silent' genotype CSI in each individual that isn't phenotypically expressed in that particular individual ...
... and there is also genotype CSI that is uniquely expressed in each individual through their particular quantum of recombinant DNA.:D

I'm not sure I understand why you think that this sequence couldn't have evolved. If we take a species with a current function Fn, evolution by natural selection explains how a random mutation which produces function F1 (where F1 is beneficial to survival) will become more numerous in the genepool. A further eventual random mutation results in function F2 which slightly improves the chances of reproduction. And so on until F1->F2... -> Fn.

On each successive function, the mutation changes the sequence of nucleotides. We could express this as F1=Seq1, F2=Seq2... Fn=SeqN.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you're looking directly at SeqN which results in Fn, and saying that SeqN couldn't have just randomly formed. Nobody is saying it randomly formed. It evolved.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...Emma, honey ... this would be a gain in 'expressed' CSI.:):D

So you're saying that the extra piece of DNA was actually in one of the parents but just undetectable on the DNA test or something?

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand why you think that this sequence couldn't have evolved. If we take a species with a current function Fn, evolution by natural selection explains how a random mutation which produces function F1 (where F1 is beneficial to survival) will become more numerous in the genepool. A further eventual random mutation results in function F2 which slightly improves the chances of reproduction. And so on until F1->F2... -> Fn.

On each successive function, the mutation changes the sequence of nucleotides. We could express this as F1=Seq1, F2=Seq2... Fn=SeqN.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you're looking directly at SeqN which results in Fn, and saying that SeqN couldn't have just randomly formed. Nobody is saying it randomly formed. It evolved.

And there you have the fundamental deliberate misunderstanding that forms the basis of creationism. They declare that what you describe can't happen with some pseudo mathematical nonsense and ignore everyone who shows them a multitude of examples of it happening

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Firstly the idea of CSI is not used in any of those areas because it's creationist nonsense that is used nowhere but creationist websites and secondly, none of those things undergo evolution by natural selection, which can produce complexity without the requirement of a designer.

...SETI don't call it CSI ... they call it an 'electronic signature' ... which is itself Complex Specified Information!!!:D:)

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So you're saying that the extra piece of DNA was actually in one of the parents but just undetectable on the DNA test or something?

...no ... it could be due to a 'frame shift' ...

... equally, it could be due to recombination during sexual reproduction of outbred organisms, which allows new traits to emerge from the combined pre-existing genetic diversity in both parents

... hybrid vigour is one of the effects of the emergence of new traits in outbred organisms – and it occurs in direct correlation to the degree of genetic diversity between both parents!!:D:)

chozometroid

:pac:

J C wrote: »

...no ... it could be due to a 'frame shift' ...

... equally, it could be due to recombination during sexual reproduction of outbred organisms, which allows new traits to emerge from the pre-existing genetic diversity in both parents

... hybrid vigour is one of the effects of the emergence of new traits in outbred organisms – and it occurs in direct correlation to the degree of genetic diversity between both parents!!:D:)

... just an observation:
... instead of typing 3 dots "...," you could hold shift and type the first letter.

It looks like this.

God bless. :eek::pac:

J C

chozometroid wrote: »

:pac:
... just an observation:
... instead of typing 3 dots "...," you could hold shift and type the first letter.

It looks like this.

God bless. :eek::pac:

...ah ... but it doesn't quite have the flow!!!!:D

chozometroid

J C wrote: »

...but it doesn't have the flow!!!!

...true

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...SETI don't call it CSI ... they call it an 'electronic signature' ... which is itself Complex Specified Information!!!:D:)

They don't call it CSI because it's not CSI because CSI is a nonsense concept. And the fact remains that electronic signals do not undergo evolution by natural selection so in terms of evidence of design they cannot be compared to living organisms which do undergo a process that can generate complexity without a designer

J C wrote: »

...no ... it could be due to a 'frame shift' ...

... equally, it could be due to recombination during sexual reproduction of outbred organisms, which allows new traits to emerge from the combined pre-existing genetic diversity in both parents

... hybrid vigour is one of the effects of the emergence of new traits in outbred organisms – and it occurs in direct correlation to the degree of genetic diversity between both parents!!:D:)

While I can confidently say this is nonsense because if it wasn't it would be the first and only thing you've ever said about science that wasn't and although usually it takes only the most basic of knowledge and logic to refute anything you say, I don't know enough about genetic mutation to refute that so I'm not going to try. I could pick a few random sciencey sounding terms and try to bamboozle with bullsh!t but I don't debate dishonestly. There's a lesson in there somewhere I think...

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

They don't call it CSI because it's not CSI because CSI is a nonsense concept. And the fact remains that electronic signals do not undergo evolution by natural selection so in terms of evidence of design they cannot be compared to living organisms which do undergo a process that can generate complexity without a designer

...the point is that living systems don't just exhibit 'complexity' ... they exhibit 'specified complexity'... and spontaneous mechanisms, like Materialistic Evolution is incapable of generating specified complexity!!!:D

Sam Vimes wrote: »

While I can confidently say this is nonsense because if it wasn't it would be the first and only thing you've ever said about science that wasn't and although usually it takes only the most basic of knowledge and logic to refute anything you say, I don't know enough about genetic mutation to refute that so I'm not going to try. I could pick a few random sciencey sounding terms and try to bamboozle with bullsh!t but I don't debate dishonestly. There's a lesson in there somewhere I think...

...Sam, you're clearly 'out of your depth' on this one!!!:D
...and BTW, all the 'sciency sounding terms' and the 'bamboozlement' are entirely on the part of the Evolutionists!!!!:D

liamw

J.C could you respond to my post?

equivariant

For the casual observer of this thread I would like to point out that "CSI" is an utterly discredited concept. It is not used in SETI, archaeology or any other proper discipline - that was just an outright lie by J C. It is something that creationists attempt to use to cover their dishonesty with pseudo scientific babble. J C will never give any meaningful definition of "CSI" because no such thing exists. You will notice how his supposed 'definitions' are even vaguer and more meaningless than the terms he is purporting to define. This goes against the idea of a definition - which should clarify and simplify a concept. I know that J C will come back with some trite 'witticism', but don't let that obscure the fact that (s)he is lying (maliciously or not, who can tell?). Creationists are, by necessity, fundamentally dishonest.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...the point is that living systems don't just exhibit 'complexity' ... they exhibit 'specified complexity'... and spontaneous mechanisms, like Materialistic Evolution is incapable of generating specified complexity!!!:D



...all the 'sciency sounding terms' and the 'bamboozlement' are entirely on the part of the Evolutionists!!!!:D

Creationism is wrong because the integral of the induction ratio of the genetic sequence is greater than the quadratic polynomial of the surface area of a protein when viewed as a La Place transform on a logarithmic scale.

So there

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Creationism is wrong because the integral of the induction ratio of the genetic sequence is greater than the quadratic polynomial of the surface area of a protein when viewed as a La Place transform on a logarithmic scale.

So there

OMG I think you've just made evolution a FACT rather than a theory!

J C

liamw wrote: »

J.C could you respond to my post?

...the harvest is great ... but the labourers are few ... in this case just ONE!!!!:D:)

J C

liamw wrote: »

OMG I think you've just made evolution a FACT rather than a theory!

...you wish...
...Sam has just made evolution look like an even bigger load of baloney ... than it already is!!!:D

J C

liamw wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand why you think that this sequence couldn't have evolved. If we take a species with a current function Fn, evolution by natural selection explains how a random mutation which produces function F1 (where F1 is beneficial to survival) will become more numerous in the genepool. A further eventual random mutation results in function F2 which slightly improves the chances of reproduction. And so on until F1->F2... -> Fn.

On each successive function, the mutation changes the sequence of nucleotides. We could express this as F1=Seq1, F2=Seq2... Fn=SeqN.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you're looking directly at SeqN which results in Fn, and saying that SeqN couldn't have just randomly formed. Nobody is saying it randomly formed. It evolved.

... SeqN is specific functional complexity in an effectiively infininte specific non-functional combinatorial space!!!
... Evolution is actually a massive serial system ... each organism is at the end of a SERIES of succeeding generations!!!
... so the mathematical probabilities of ANY such SERIES producing ANYTHING functional using non-intelligently produced processes rapidly disappears to 'vanishing point' ... EVEN with massive numbers of parallel trials!!
... and the reason ... for the mathematicains amongst you ... is that serial probablilities are multiplicative ... and parallel probabilities are additive!!!!

... and THAT is WHY we DON'T use non-intelligently controlled processes to produce complex products in factories ...
... and what is true about factories ... is ALSO true about life!!!!!

equivariant

...and parallel probabilities are additive!!!!

LOL

Is your mind so muddled that you cannot see the obvious problem with this ?

J C

equivariant wrote: »

LOL

Is your mind so muddled that you cannot see the obvious problem with this ?

... it is only a problem from an Evolutionist perspective!!!
... although paralell probabilities are additive, the actual probabilities themselves are serial probabilities and are therefore multiplicative to the point of being effectively zero ... so adding a billion billion billion (or whatever) zeros is STILL zero!!!:D

...and ZERO is the effective probability of even one specific functional protein 'evolving' using non-intelligently directed processes!!!!:D

equivariant

[font=CMR12~1d]

I would like to point out that Dembski's so called 'CSI' has been conclusively debunked by genuine Scientists. See for example

[/font]

[font=CMR12~1d]http://www.talkreason.org/articles/eandsdembski.pdf[/font]

[font=CMR12~1d]I would particularly draw attention to the following passage on page 14..[/font]

[font=CMR12~1d]"Although Dembski claims that CSI is increasingly coming to be regarded as a reliable marker of purpose, intelligence, and design" [19, p. xii], it has not been defined formally in any reputable peer reviewed mathematical journal, nor (to the best of our knowledge) adopted by any researcher in information theory. A 2002 search of MathSciNet, the on-line version of the review journal [/font]Mathematical Reviews[font=CMR12~1d], turned up 0 papers using any of the terms "CSI", "complex specified information", or "specified complexity" in Dembski's sense."[/font]

[font=CMR12~1d]No doubt J C will continue to base his arguments on this totally discredited notion. To do so when he is aware that it is nonsense is completely dishonest.[/font]

equivariant

J C wrote: »

... the only problem with it is from an Evolutionist perspective!!!
... although paralell probabilities are additive the actual probabilities themselves are serial probabilities and are therefore multiplicative to the point of being effectively zero ... so adding a billion billion billion (or whatever) zeros is STILL zero!!!:D

...and ZERO is the effective probability of even one specific functional protein 'evolving' using non-intelligently directed processes!!!!:D

that would be a yes then?

token56

Just for anyone who is actually considering JC's ridiculous probability example of why evolution couldn't be possible please have a read of this:

http://www.creationtheory.org/Probability/Home.xhtml

He is of course making the massive simplification in saying evolution is equal to an extremely large set of multiplicative probabilities which of course would converge to 0. This is in essence saying that some particular sequence of events all have to occur at the same time, but it could be that the sequence happens in successive parts. This of course greatly reduces the probabilty of the sequence occuring.

he is also assuming that evolution is a completely random process, but there are certain rules that need to be adhered to such rules governing the structures of how amino acids can form or multiple other rules of basic organic chemistry. And any such rules or limitations have serious effect on the resultant probability, i.e. reducing it.

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8

Malty, if you have beaten me to this, I swear I'll...

*shakes fist*

Turtwig

Flamed Diving wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8

Malty, if you have beaten me to this, I swear I'll...

*shakes fist*

AGHHHH... I meant to post that one yesterdays or the day before, but got distracted.:(:(

*Shakes fist*

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

... SeqN is specific functional complexity in an effectiively infininte specific non-functional combinatorial space!!!
... Evolution is actually a massive serial system ... each organism is at the end of a SERIES of succeeding generations!!!
... so the mathematical probabilities of ANY such SERIES producing ANYTHING functional using non-intelligently produced processes rapidly disappears to 'vanishing point' ... EVEN with massive numbers of parallel trials!!
... and the reason ... for the mathematicains amongst you ... is that serial probablilities are multiplicative ... and parallel probabilities are additive!!!!

... and THAT is WHY we DON'T use non-intelligently controlled processes to produce complex products in factories ...
... and what is true about factories ... is ALSO true about life!!!!!

Uh oh here we go again

PDN

Congratulations to everyone for taking this thread past the 20,000 post mark. Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few

liamw

J C wrote: »

... SeqN is specific functional complexity in an effectiively infininte specific non-functional combinatorial space!!!
... Evolution is actually a massive serial system ... each organism is at the end of a SERIES of succeeding generations!!!
... so the mathematical probabilities of ANY such SERIES producing ANYTHING functional using non-intelligently produced processes rapidly disappears to 'vanishing point' ... EVEN with massive numbers of parallel trials!!
... and the reason ... for the mathematicains amongst you ... is that serial probablilities are multiplicative ... and parallel probabilities are additive!!!!

... and THAT is WHY we DON'T use non-intelligently controlled processes to produce complex products in factories ...
... and what is true about factories ... is ALSO true about life!!!!!

Yes SeqN is a specific array of nucleotides, but I've just explained how that array could have evolved without the need for a designer?! You're completely ignoring the point I made.

The rest of your post basically assumes that Seq1->Seq2...->SeqN all come straight after one another in a serial line of successive generations. That is not true. All mutations are completely random, some will be detrimental to the function, but given more generations and time, the probability of SeqX (an 'improvement' to the function) occuring increases.

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

MB/MD or a PhD?

PhD. Genetics and developmental biology.

J C wrote: »

because they needed such an array of CSI to survive close encouters with natural 'antibiotic' chemicals in their environment

And what about resistance to chemicals not found naturally?

J C wrote: »

The presence of CSI in a system reliably indicates that the system was designed by an intelligent agent.

Thanks for the cut and paste definition. As I understand it, this is the premise on which your theory is founded? Basically, you judge a "unit of information" as too complex not to have been designed. How are you in a position to make a judgement of improbability. It's basically an argument from incredulity.

Complexity cannot arise by natural means? This has been repeatedly shown to be false. I suggest you read some papers, not just limited to biology but to physics, geology, meteorology etc.

Seriously, have you not remotely questioned why Dembski has been widely discredited or that the work of ID proponents has never been accepted in any scientific circle (not just by biologists, but by mathematicians etc)? Aside from the obvious flaws (he forgot to allow for life and death in his theory), it's patently obvious that his whole argument is circular.

J C wrote: »

Emma, honey ... this would be a gain in 'expressed' CSI.

This is utter rubbish. The child has an extra piece of DNA that neither parent has. Where did it come from?

It is not a matter for "expression", yet another biological term being hijacked and hugely misunderstood - actually, can you define "expression" for me (as you are using it)?

J C wrote: »

no ... it could be due to a 'frame shift'.

No it couldn't. You do not understand what a "frameshift" is.

J C wrote: »

equally, it could be due to recombination during sexual reproduction of outbred organisms, which allows new traits to emerge from the combined pre-existing genetic diversity in both parents.

No it couldn't. Neither parent has the extra sequence of DNA - where did it come from? Again, it appears your understanding of recombination/segragation/variance are woefully lacking. Recombination does not create previously nonexisting pieces of DNA.

J C wrote: »

hybrid vigour is one of the effects of the emergence of new traits in outbred organisms.

This doesn't even make sense. What has this got to do with new pieces of DNA being found in offspring?

Sam - you were right, none of the above makes sense

JC, either you are deliberately misusing biological terms and concepts in order to create confusion - or - you have a genuine lack of understanding about what you are talking about. My natural optimism hopes it is the latter and suggest that you go off and read a biology textbook. Or even look up a few definitions. You have no concept of how the traits you are describing as novel can link to potential events within the genome. Honestly, I've spoken with 14 year olds who understand things like recombination better than you. I think if you want to argue these things, the very least you can do is give yourself a fair shot.

fatmammycat

The longer this thread has gone the more apparent it is that JC hasn't the faintest notion of what he talks about and is frantically side stepping direct questions and ignoring arguments he cannot refute. It has also been very informative and interesting for the lay non-scientific person (me), so a big thank to everyone for the education.