Evolution is mathematically impossible

[tas8831]

That's what I meant. Of course we have to go deeper, examining each individual case.

TRANSLATION:

The data do not seem to support my personal beliefs on this topic, so I must find an out to allow me to save face.

 

[tas8831]

You're entitled to your opinion as I am mine.

Sure, but not all opinions are equal, and not all are valid. Opinions based on ignorance, like yours, are generally invalid.

 

[tas8831]

You reject creation outright don't you?

Now, yes. I did not always do so. I do now because 1. I went to grad school and 2. I read the bible .

Well, it's plain that science isn't too concerned with my theory at this time (and I don't do hissys).

You don't have a theory.

And yes, you do hissies.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How did this advantage evolve? What was the process?

IIRC there is more than one duplicator that can duplicate DNA and they're not equally efficient - some are far more error-prone than others. There is also a variety of DNA error-correctors, some specific to particular regions of the genome, and some more reliable than others. As I understand it, the less reliable processes are the more ancient, and some have been superseded by more reliable versions.

These duplication and error-correcting systems are controlled by regulator genes that can switch them on or off and can themselves be activated or suppressed by other chemical and/or gene activity (i.e. genetic or epigenetic control).

I'm no expert in this area, but AIUI, the evolutionary principle is that under conditions of severe stress, organisms that produce a greater range of variation are more likely to produce more offspring that can survive the conditions, so there is a selective advantage for those that can activate the less reliable duplication and/or error correction systems (or simply switch off error correction) when under stress. When not under stress, there is a selective advantage for those organisms that have more reliable duplication and error-correction systems active. Consequently, there is a long-term selective advantage for organisms that can switch between the more and less reliable systems according to their degree of stress.

Certain areas of the genome are crucial to basic functions, so will be 'highly conserved', meaning there is almost always a selective disadvantage to errors in these genes. The error-correction systems for these areas will be the most reliable. IIRC, multi-pass error correction is done in some areas. Areas that are less crucial are not under the same constraints.

It's worth noting that these are ancient mechanisms and are observed in rapidly reproducing micro-organisms, where they can be seen at work.

While such dynamic control probably isn't required in slower reproducing multicellular organisms, it's thought that cancers may be the result of the switching on of ancient 'emergency' systems of this kind, allowing unconstrained growth, rapid evolution of resistance to immune defences (and chemotherapy drugs), and independent cell dispersal through tissues (metastasizing).

 

[VirOptimus]

Perhaps you can help me with that.

Why on earth would I ever want to help you?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Now, yes. I did not always do so. I do now because 1. I went to grad school and 2. I read the bible .

You don't have a theory.

And yes, you do hissies.

You've got to stop following me. This is not good for you.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

TRANSLATION:

The data do not seem to support my personal beliefs on this topic, so I must find an out to allow me to save face.

Translation: I want a closer look, for the purpose of better understanding the issue. You'd be surprised what you learn by looking at each case closely. It's more than just a numbers game.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Some people do..so you clarified you only want to force people against their wil in some areas, not all. Let's not misrepresent what was said.

Currently you're the one misrepresenting what I said - which was, "I have no power or authority to force anyone to take vaccines, nor would I want to."

You see when you advocate a blind life and death trust/faith in the medical profession/science/vaccinations, it is a sound proposition to look at what you are selling.

Again, you misrepresent me. I don't advocate a 'blind life and death trust/faith in the medical profession/science/vaccinations', which is why I've made it clear that my views are based on the available data from around the world since vaccination began. The statistics are striking, and I consider it extremely unlikely that there has been a global conspiracy to fake the data since the start of the 18th century. YMMV.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Really? Odd then that you make so many proclamations and refuse to accept that you might be wrong.

I accept that I might be wrong about lots of things. But do you think I would ever admit it to someone who viciously attacks everything I post? Some need to study human nature.

 

[dad]

Currently you're the one misrepresenting what I said - which was, "I have no power or authority to force anyone to take vaccines, nor would I want to."

To be clear then were you not advocating mandatory vaccinations? Yes or no? Ha.

Again, you misrepresent me. I don't advocate a 'blind life and death trust/faith in the medical profession/science/vaccinations', which is why I've made it clear that my views are based on the available data from around the world since vaccination began. The statistics are striking, and I consider it extremely unlikely that there has been a global conspiracy to fake the data since the start of the 18th century. YMMV.

Maybe we need to hire an interpreter to get at your opinion? You seem to be claiming you trust the system that vaccinations are safe and should be required...no?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

To be clear then were you not advocating mandatory vaccinations? Yes or no? Ha.

I already explained my position on that in #588.

Maybe we need to hire an interpreter to get at your opinion? You seem to be claiming you trust the system that vaccinations are safe and should be required...no?

Perhaps you need some help with your reading comprehension.

As I already said, I go by the published data, which show that vaccines are as safe as, or safer than, many medicines in common use, and in general are considerably more effective, and are estimated to have saved more people from ill-health and death than any other medicine including antibiotics.

 

[dad]

I already explained my position on that in #588.

In 554 you said this
"It is my opinion that children should be protected from avoidable harm due to people acting out of ignorance."
That sounded like you thought parents should have no choice about vaccinations.


in 514 you said this

"Their rights are constrained when they live in a society with other people who may come to harm as a result of their actions."

That sounded like you wanted people's rights restrained.

In the same post you said this
"So there is a good argument that this constitutes parental neglect." Now you suggest parents have no choice in what is good for their kids.
And the icing n the cake here is what you said in post 588

"In my view, vaccinations that demonstrably provide significant public protection from serious disease should be mandatory. YMMV."

Don't give us that nonsense about reading comprehension!

As I already said, I go by the published data, which show that vaccines are as safe as, or safer than, many medicines in common use, and in general are considerably more effective, and are estimated to have saved more people from ill-health and death than any other medicine including antibiotics.

You are entitled to a view.

 

[the iconoclast]

I gave you an extended quotation from and a link to the wikipedia article on randomness.

Hey hey brother and thank you for your replies.
You did supply a link to randomness for me to peruse. I do not disagree with you here.

However the substance was the word random as opposed to randomness. Random implies no method, while randomness in essence is unpredictable. Similar but different.

The original substance is referred to in the below statements.

Sf - "That's not what 'random' means in science."

Icon - "I could not find a link to how science defines random. Could you give me a reference?"

To which you suggest you that "you gave an extended quotation from and a link to the wikipedia article on randomness."

Please excuse me saint, I do not find this answer satisfying at all, im always suspicious when someone changes a word to suit their position.

Anyways this terminological development does not 'put a spanner in the works'. Please see next part.

I think it's all wrong and repetition of things that I've already corrected.

I implore you brother, please not not ignore this question again as it may look suspect. I do not believe its wrong - or i wouldnt have asked. It is not repetition as this is new material. I politely and respectfully ask you to take this question seriously. Lets combine randomness and process A randomness process is a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end but having the quality or state of lacking a pattern or principle of organization to acheive a particular end. What do you think about this definition and could you explain how works with an example? What you think?

Which are you interested in, learning the concepts scientists actually use or looking up words in the dictionary?

Please excuse me, my dear do you not remember your 2nd reply to me re 2 nouns for process? You seemed to have no problems showing me the meaning of the word process to begin with? Im interested and motivated to discuss the theory of evolution. Im pentecostal and creationist, i believe the theory of evolution is antiquated, false and only the conclusion for desperate men. I want formal discussion in which opposing arguments are put forward. I want to question to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions. I want to question evolution or would you prefer for me not to?

I told you what a random process is. If you don't understand part of what I said, ask.

Show me how rain is a random prcoess? I do not understand how rolling a dice is a random process. Show me how rolling a dice is a random process? What do you think about the series of steps involved here?

Yes, for the reason you yourself state: where each raindrop falls is unpredictable.

So for it to rain, rain does not follow a series of actions or events. The steps involed for it to rain are unpredictable and the process can change at anytimes?

The species that lived 7 million years ago was the species that lived 7 million years ago. It (probably) doesn't have a name -- you can call it "Bob" if you like. Beyond the name, what are you asking about it?

I like it, he is called bob but ill refer to him as robert. Well, we never got to finish our discussion, im asking about proof? What have you got to prove bob existed?

I don't know what your question means or what actions you're talking about. Various steps in a rain shower lead to a particular outcome. It doesn't matter whether you call those steps a method or not, they still happen and still lead to that outcome.

My dear we are not talking about unpredictable outcomes! We are talking about random processes and randomness processes. An outcome is not a process but only an outcome of a process. We are talking about a series of steps, not the outcome of thoss steps. Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

Lack of evidence to support the existance of a god with the characteristics the christian theology applies. Quite simple really.

Hey hey bhsmte

Quite simple. What lack of evidence do you speak of? What evidence are you looking for?

Religious opinions are a dime a dozen, because there are countless different ones, even amongst christianity itself.

Countless. What are there different opinions you believe exist? What are we divided on?

You see, people just choose their flavor and it typically is one that suits their personal psychological needs.

I see. So i choose my denomination typically to one that suits my psychological need. Im Pentecostal, what psychological needs do you think gravitate me there?

I would say atheists are more unique in there diverse views then Christians. Most atheists ive spoken to have their own system cherry picked to taste. Atheists are only united by one thing, their rejection of God and gods.

You see, people just choose their flavor and it typically is one that suits their personal psychological needs.

What personal pyscological needs gravitate you to atheism?

What personal pyscological needs would gravitate an atheist to nihlism?

Cheers

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In 554 you said this
"It is my opinion that children should be protected from avoidable harm due to people acting out of ignorance."
That sounded like you thought parents should have no choice about vaccinations.

I explicitly said everyone should have a choice.

"Their rights are constrained when they live in a society with other people who may come to harm as a result of their actions."

That sounded like you wanted people's rights restrained.

Most rights are contingent. As the old saying goes, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".

In the same post you said this
"So there is a good argument that this constitutes parental neglect." Now you suggest parents have no choice in what is good for their kids.

No, I've explicitly said everyone should have a choice. But I think the child's right to protection from serious dangers to health should override parental opinion.

And the icing n the cake here is what you said in post 588

"In my view, vaccinations that demonstrably provide significant public protection from serious disease should be mandatory. YMMV."

Yes, ideally I think they should be required by law for those who wish to participate in society. Like paying taxes. In practice, I think a programme of education and incentivisation is the best way to get to the point where it can be required by law.

However, judging by the current American health system and attitudes, I wouldn't expect rational health policies to be implemented there in the forseeable future; but even there, the individual states require specific vaccines for school-aged children (although some defeat that with 'philosophical' exemptions).

 

[bhsmte]

Hey hey bhsmte

Quite simple. What lack of evidence do you speak of? What evidence are you looking for?



Countless. What are there different opinions you believe exist? What are we divided on?



I see. So i choose my denomination typically to one that suits my psychological need. Im Pentecostal, what psychological needs do you think gravitate me there?

I would say atheists are more unique in there diverse views then Christians. Most atheists ive spoken to have their own system cherry picked to taste. Atheists are only united by one thing, their rejection of God and gods.

You see, people just choose their flavor and it typically is one that suits their personal psychological needs.

What personal pyscological needs gravitate you to atheism?

What personal pyscological needs would gravitate an atheist to nihlism?

Cheers

Already addressed these points.

 

[bhsmte]

Hey hey bhsmte

Quite simple. What lack of evidence do you speak of? What evidence are you looking for?



Countless. What are there different opinions you believe exist? What are we divided on?



I see. So i choose my denomination typically to one that suits my psychological need. Im Pentecostal, what psychological needs do you think gravitate me there?

I would say atheists are more unique in there diverse views then Christians. Most atheists ive spoken to have their own system cherry picked to taste. Atheists are only united by one thing, their rejection of God and gods.

You see, people just choose their flavor and it typically is one that suits their personal psychological needs.

What personal pyscological needs gravitate you to atheism?

What personal pyscological needs would gravitate an atheist to nihlism?

Cheers

Personally, i have a psychological need to believe as many true things and to not believe as many false things. I roll over a lot of rocks in this process. Knowing we all have personal bias (some more than others), i look to independent objective evidence in my decision process and not really on subjective emotional comfort.

 

[sfs]

However the substance was the word random as opposed to randomness. Random implies no method, while randomness in essence is unpredictable. Similar but different.

Incorrect. The article that I linked to and quoted used the word "random" to describe unpredictable events.

I implore you brother, please not not ignore this question again as it may look suspect. I do not believe its wrong - or i wouldnt have asked. It is not repetition as this is new material. I politely and respectfully ask you to take this question seriously. Lets combine randomness and process A randomness process is a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end but having the quality or state of lacking a pattern or principle of organization to acheive a particular end. What do you think about this definition and could you explain how works with an example? What you think?

I think it's wrong, just like every other attempt you make to stitch dictionary definitions together -- that's not how you understand concepts. A random process is a series of connected events that has unpredictable outcomes. That's what scientists are talking about. Do you understand that concept or not? Don't glue together definitions -- do you understand that concept or not?

I want to question to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.

If this is true then you'd better adopt a different approach, because so far you're not drawing out anything but exasperation.

Show me how rain is a random prcoess?

It's a process because the evaporation, transportation, condensation, and falling of water are a "continuous and regular action or succession of actions occurring . . . in a definite manner, and having a particular result or outcome", and it's random because the specific outcomes are unpredictable.

I like it, he is called bob but ill refer to him as robert. Well, we never got to finish our discussion, im asking about proof? What have you got to prove bob existed?

The genetic evidence that humans and chimpanzees descend from a single ancestral species. Given DNA from you and your third cousin, I can tell you that your shared great-great-grandparent existed for the same reason.

 

[Speedwell]

Please excuse me saint, I do not find this answer satisfying at all, im always suspicious when someone changes a word to suit their position.

Nobody has "changed a word." That has been the scientific definition of "random" for centuries.

 

[dad]

I explicitly said everyone should have a choice.

Most rights are contingent. As the old saying goes, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".

Some people think the rights of others are contingent on what they prefer. Many people feel they do not want big brother swinging his fist near the nose of their free choice.

No, I've explicitly said everyone should have a choice. But I think the child's right to protection from serious dangers to health should override parental opinion.

Your opinion that the state basically owns kids is noted. I disagree. If a parent brings a child up right, they might not allow, for example sex changes or killing babies or obeying school or state rules that forbid preaching the gospel, etc etc. Some people might want the kid protected from God and Scripture. Who is to say what is best? Your opinion of what we need protecting against might actually be what we need protection from.

Yes, ideally I think they should be required by law for those who wish to participate in society. Like paying taxes. In practice, I think a programme of education and incentivisation is the best way to get to the point where it can be required by law.

So it seems like you are advocating mandatory vaccinations after all?

However, judging by the current American health system and attitudes, I wouldn't expect rational health policies to be implemented there in the forseeable future; but even there, the individual states require specific vaccines for school-aged children (although some defeat that with 'philosophical' exemptions).

Your idea of rational health policies may be someone else's idea of wickedness.