Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
39,349
Reaction score
4,893
Points
1,130
Probably just some joker talking out of his ass.......
Now for the special treatment that must be given to your claim that someone, unnamed, but alluded to as "some joker talking out his ass". . . . :cul2:

Who could that be? :eusa_think:

I know someone who said that "mutations are not able to add new information to the genome", namely, Ringtone. I don't know of anyone but you, Toddsterpatriot, who said that "mutations can never add new information".

Huh. Those two statements do not appear to be the same. Maybe they don't have the same meaning. I wonder what the possible difference in meaning could be. :eusa_think:

Just kidding. As one who is versed in the pertinent potentialities of the genome, as one who knows that the term gene is used in two different ways (to denote a piece of DNA that codes for a protein or codes for a trait), and as one who has studied the models of gene duplication per evolutionary theory: I understand that previously nonexistent expressions (or traits) can arise in populations due to preexisting, albeit, latently embedded information.

Is this new information? Well, it's new information as expressively realized in any given population and is likely to be preserved if it's significantly adaptive.

Which brings us to the other half of my post in the above that someone disregarded . . . or did someone who talks out of his ass fail to grasp the ramifications? :eusa_think:

There's that catch 22 again. It depends how one defines new information.​
In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information de novo, and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.​
I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? :wink:
Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .​
Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.​
Understanding the ramifications of the potentialities of Disco’tute slogan-speak, we see the dangers of ignorant religious zealots with just enough of the wrong information to make themselves a total embarrassment: “scrambled DNA molecules”.

It’s just too funny.
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,037
Reaction score
908
Points
210
When you identify his gaffes, errors and false claims, he adds you to his creepy poetry list.
He didn't identify a gaff, you twit. He made the gaff, just as you routinely do. In fact, you have now shown your ass once again. As one supposedly versed in evolutionary theory, how did you fail to detect the essence of his ignorance regarding latent, genomic information and gene (trait) information?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,509
Reaction score
13,547
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Probably just some joker talking out of his ass.......
Now for the special treatment that must be given to your claim that someone, unnamed, but alluded to as "some joker talking out his ass". . . . :cul2:

Who could that be? :eusa_think:

I know someone who said that "mutations are not able to add new information to the genome", namely, Ringtone. I don't know of anyone but you, Toddsterpatriot, who said that "mutations can never add new information".

Huh. Those two statements do not appear to be the same. Maybe they don't have the same meaning. I wonder what the possible difference in meaning could be. :eusa_think:

Just kidding. As one who is versed in the pertinent potentialities of the genome, as one who knows that the term gene is used in two different ways (to denote a piece of DNA that codes for a protein or codes for a trait), and as one who has studied the models of gene duplication per evolutionary theory: I understand that previously nonexistent expressions (or traits) can arise in populations due to preexisting, albeit, latently embedded information.

Is this new information? Well, it's new information as expressively realized in any given population and is likely to be preserved if it's significantly adaptive.

Which brings us to the other half of my post in the above that someone disregarded . . . or did someone who talks out of his ass fail to grasp the ramifications? :eusa_think:

There's that catch 22 again. It depends how one defines new information.​
In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information de novo, and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.​
I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? :wink:
Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .​
Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.​
I know someone who said that "mutations are not able to add new information to the genome", namely, Ringtone. I don't know of anyone but you, Toddsterpatriot, who said that "mutations can never add new information".

Wow, that seems like a major difference.....not really.

So did you ever post your proof that "mutations are not able to add new information to the genome".... Or did you already admit you were wrong?

It depends how one defines new information.

Again, you made the claim....post your definiton.
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,037
Reaction score
908
Points
210
It's not just GMO foods. Many people try to just eat non-GMO foods for their nutrition.

C'mon, you're avoiding what GMO foods you like to eat. Thus, it appears you are running away from GMO foods because they're scary and can kill you earlier than your 70s and 80s.

It's not stupid if the foods you eat can kill you and give you tumors.

We just had a report today on the non-GMO foods market -- Worldwide Non-GMO Foods Industry to 2025 - Key Drivers, Challenges and Trends.

I know what you'd like to eat. Chicken butts. 5 cents a cut. Or pork butts. Any kind of butts haha.

For those who do not care to indulge in GMO and deadly foods, you can look here -- Verified Products – The Non-GMO Project.

Hey, James, still looking for that yes/no answer. See post #436. Thanks.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
39,349
Reaction score
4,893
Points
1,130
When you identify his gaffes, errors and false claims, he adds you to his creepy poetry list.
He didn't identify a gaff, you twit. He made the gaff, just as you routinely do. In fact, you have now shown your ass once again. As one supposedly versed in evolutionary theory, how did you fail to detect the essence of his ignorance regarding latent, genomic information and gene (trait) information?

No, Hollie, I only share my poetry with smack-talking know-nothings and liars. Mere ignorance is not a crime. I suppose we'll soon find out something about Toddsterpatriot's character given my last two posts.
He identified another of your embarrassing gaffes. You routinely rattle on about matters of science you know little about. It’s why you open threads about matters of biology using silly YouTube videos hosted by non-biologist charlatans from the Disco’tute.

I think we found out something about your character with your emotional tirades.

I’ll expect you to respond to this post with pointless spam poetry.

Thanks
 
Last edited:

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
48,201
Reaction score
7,062
Points
1,870
I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you?
This should have been the thread title and the entire content of every one of your posts. But you lack the honesty and integrity of character simply to do this.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
39,349
Reaction score
4,893
Points
1,130
It's not just GMO foods. Many people try to just eat non-GMO foods for their nutrition.

C'mon, you're avoiding what GMO foods you like to eat. Thus, it appears you are running away from GMO foods because they're scary and can kill you earlier than your 70s and 80s.

It's not stupid if the foods you eat can kill you and give you tumors.

We just had a report today on the non-GMO foods market -- Worldwide Non-GMO Foods Industry to 2025 - Key Drivers, Challenges and Trends.

I know what you'd like to eat. Chicken butts. 5 cents a cut. Or pork butts. Any kind of butts haha.

For those who do not care to indulge in GMO and deadly foods, you can look here -- Verified Products – The Non-GMO Project.

Hey, James, still looking for that yes/no answer. See post #436. Thanks.
Hey, charlatan. Still looking for that “General Theory Of Supernatural Creation”

See many posts requesting such. Thanks.
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,037
Reaction score
908
Points
210
Wow, that seems like a major difference.....not really.
There is a dramatic difference in those two statements, which go to the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information.

Again, you made the claim....post your definition.
I did, in detail, in the major post in the above, and I just distinguished two forms of genetic information defined in the major post in the above in this post.
 
Last edited:

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,509
Reaction score
13,547
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Wow, that seems like a major difference.....not really.
There is a dramatic difference in those two statements, which go to the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information?

Again, you made the claim....post your definition.
I did, in detail, in the major post in the above, and I just distinguished two forms of genetic information defined in the major post in the above in this post.
You're claiming there's no difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information?

A mutation can add either? Just one?
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,037
Reaction score
908
Points
210
A mutation can add either? Just one?
Your question makes no sense.

There is a dramatic difference in those two statements, which go to the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information.

Did you not understand the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information? I illustratively defined each in the above.
 
Last edited:

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,509
Reaction score
13,547
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
A mutation can add either? Just one?
You question makes no sense.

There is a dramatic difference in those two statements, which go to the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information.

Did you not understand the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information? I illustratively defined each in the above.
You claimed "mutations are not able to add new information to the genome"

Is this still your claim, or have you modified your claim?
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
48,201
Reaction score
7,062
Points
1,870
A mutation can add either? Just one?
You question makes no sense.

There is a dramatic difference in those two statements, which go to the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information.

Did you not understand the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information? I illustratively defined each in the above.
Hey son...do that bit again where you plagiarize the work and comments of scientists for 10 pages, then spend 10 pages saying all the scientists are incompetent liars. That's my favorite bit you YECers do.
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,037
Reaction score
908
Points
210
Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.

Mutations can never add new information.
There is a dramatic difference in those two statements, which go to the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information.

The first statement is true; the second statement, which I did not make, is false.

Did you not understand the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information? I illustratively defined each in the above.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,509
Reaction score
13,547
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.

Mutations can never add new information.
There is a dramatic difference in those two statements, which go to the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information.

Did you not understand the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information? I illustratively defined each in the above.
Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.

Link?
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
39,349
Reaction score
4,893
Points
1,130
Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.

Mutations can never add new information.
There is a dramatic difference in those two statements, which go to the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information.

The first statement is true; the second statement, which I did not make, is false.

Did you not understand the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information? I illustratively defined each in the above.
Perhaps you could relate some of those dramatic differences™ that were a part of the discussion among the Disco’tute charlatans in their YouTube based infomercial clown show?.
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,037
Reaction score
908
Points
210
Technically speaking, your original claim was wrong.
No. It depends on YOUR definition, not mine.

Do you regard the following to entail the generation of new information, and if so, why?

In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information de novo, and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.​
Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .​
Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.​
 
Last edited:
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,037
Reaction score
908
Points
210
Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.

Link?
Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.

Mutations can never add new information.
There is a dramatic difference in those two statements, which goes to the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information.

The first statement is true; the second statement, which I did not make, is false.

Did you not understand the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information? I illustratively defined each in the above.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
39,349
Reaction score
4,893
Points
1,130
Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.

Link?
Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.

Mutations can never add new information.
There is a dramatic difference in those two statements, which goes to the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information.

The first statement is true; the second statement, which I did not make, is false.

Did you not understand the difference between genomic information and gene (trait) information? I illustratively defined each in the above.
What is the dramatic difference™ ?

What is this information? The charlatans at the Disco’tute clown show used the term information™ but never defined that term.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,937
Reaction score
1,143
Points
170
I have no idea, because i don't pay any attention to that. I don't have an irrational fear of GMO foods that was created by lying bloggers. That's your department.
It's the nutritional science department. Slowly, we are learning that GMO foods are bad and likely causes early death and tumors.

In the Bible, God told Adam and Eve (and us) that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their and our food. GMO foods are not that.

We also know from the Bible that Jesus ate meat. Thus, I had a nice lunch today and am greatly satisfied.
Slowly, we are learning that GMO foods are bad and likely causes early death and tumors.

Where did you learn that? Was it the voices in your head telling you that? LOL!
Between you who never evolves in this forum and remains at status quo (do not pass go, do not collect $200), I rather trust the intuition or the Holy Spirit. GMO foods are bad and I provided a couple of links to it. I've heard it causes tumors, but others call it cancer. Both are bad.

I have to thank Sunsettommy for admitting evolution is artificial selection and leading to this discussion. God created natural selection. It's not a slam dunk argument like being against abiogenesis or singularity (claim of actual infinity by the atheist scientists (!)).

Anyway, it is what it is and you atheists can eat all the GMO foods that you want. I think one day, GMO foods makers will be forced to label their products as containing GMO. It gives you a strange idea of what the Kentucky Derby is like. I like horse racing a lot, but it's eerie that we are watching some type of awkward genetic relationship between the horses. I can accept a brother, sister, and distant cousin, but a stranger who is genetic mutation is a bit much.
 
Last edited:

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top