Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[Toddsterpatriot]

Information that is translocated, inverted or duplicated results in new information.
The info at the end is different than the info you started with.

Hey, dummy, you just gave an illustrative definition and an example of arguably new information. I thought you said something about the burden being on me. Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is yes, new information can arise. But you stupidly think that's a contradiction regarding my stance per the information in genomes.

Alas, ye of little knowledge.

But, hey, good job overall!

Thanks.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #606 again.

Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is yes, new information can arise.

Thanks for finally admitting your previous error.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #606 again.

There is no post #606.

 

[Ringtone]

Did it have proof of your claim.... Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.

As far as I know, you haven't satisfactorily resolved an enormous blunder in your mind yet. . . .

There is a dramatic difference between the following two statements:

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.​

​

Mutations can never add new information.​

The first statement is true, the second statement is arguably false. You attributed the arguably false statement, which I never made, to me out of rank ignorance.

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

Translation of what Toddsterpatriot is actually claiming, albeit, unwittingly, because he's an arrogant know-nothing of rank fideism:

In spite of the significant, speciational potentialities relative to the categorical order of genomic information and gene (trait) information, there's no major difference between the following two statements:​

​

Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome.​

​

Mutations can never add new information.​

First: say derp derp, and tell your significant other to slap you.

Second: drop and give me 50!

Third: Link?

Thanks.

 

[james bond]

I think we'll have the evidence and know more about it this coming decade.

haha... so things we don't know yet are the reason for your beliefs.

A moment of accidental honesty and clarity from a magical thinker.

I didn't say that. We don't have the smoking gun. It's not like we can test a food and find out what amount or from what source. If someone has tumors or cancer, then we can't trace it to them eating too much GMO foods.

Yet, we know quite a bit so far. GMO foods are based on gene mutations. We know what foods they are found in and what ingredients they may be in. We know how to avoid eating too much GMO foods.

For example, I can tell that I didn't eat corn-fed beef yesterday by how it looked; It was grass-fed.

The taste was definitely beefy and sous vide cooking makes it a nice pinkish color inside and oh so tender. Now, cattle can be fed grains after they have been grass fed. I don't think I had that grain finish either. Generally speaking, you're going to get bigger and larger parts with corn-fed meats.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I didn't say that. We don't have the smoking gun.

You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever. In fact, you don't even have a hypothesis for how GMOs could cause tumors. You not only have no smoking gun, you have no body, no suspect, and no crime scene. You once saw a blog you never actually full read or understood, and, as faithy types are inclined to do, you forever adopted a belief that matched the first feeling that fizzled into your colon upon seeing the blog headline.

 

[Ringtone]

Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is yes, new information can arise.

Thanks for finally admitting your previous error.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #606 again.

There is no post #606.

And you're a lying ass dog. You remind me of somebody who goes by the name of James Bond, who lies like a flaming leftist and incessantly tries to bluff his way out of it when caught. The new information you're talking about, dummy, is newly expressed latent information, not genomic information. Recall? That's the very essence of your enormous blunder, dumbass.



As for the other, that's because it's now in post #523 as you well know and why it's there. Thanks for letting me expose your enormous blunder again!



If you like, have the administrator remove #506.

 

[Hollie]

Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is yes, new information can arise.

Thanks for finally admitting your previous error.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #606 again.

There is no post #606.

And you're a lying ass dog. You remind me of somebody who goes by the name of James Bond, who lies like a flaming leftist and incessantly tries to bluff his way out of it when caught. The new information you're talking about, dummy, is latently expressed information, not genomic information. Recall? That's the very essence of your enormous blunder, dumbass.



As for the other, that's because it's now in post #524 as you well know and why it's there. Thanks for letting me expose your enormous blunder again!

"Latently expressed information''

This is why YEC'ist graduates from the Disco'tute are sans a career in the STEM fields.

 

[Ringtone]

Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is yes, new information can arise.

Thanks for finally admitting your previous error.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #606 again.

There is no post #606.

And you're a lying ass dog. You remind me of somebody who goes by the name of James Bond, who lies like a flaming leftist and incessantly tries to bluff his way out of it when caught. The new information you're talking about, dummy, is latently expressed information, not genomic information. Recall? That's the very essence of your enormous blunder, dumbass.



As for the other, that's because it's now in post #524 as you well know and why it's there. Thanks for letting me expose your enormous blunder again!

"Latently expressed information''

This is why YEC'ist graduates from the Disco'tute are sans a career in the STEM fields.

Shut up, Hollie, that was merely a brain fart. There's nothing rocket sciency about the term latent. LOL! Thanks for pointing that out to me. I didn't proof read. The term is used correctly by me in all other instances in the above.

By the way, how are you coming along on that explication of the processes of abiogenesis? It's a real hoot, ain't it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is yes, new information can arise.

Thanks for finally admitting your previous error.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #606 again.

There is no post #606.

And you're a lying ass dog. You remind me of somebody who goes by the name of James Bond, who lies like a flaming leftist and incessantly tries to bluff his way out of it when caught. The new information you're talking about, dummy, is latently expressed information, not genomic information. Recall? That's the very essence of your enormous blunder, dumbass.



As for the other, that's because it's now in post #524 as you well know and why it's there. Thanks for letting me expose your enormous blunder again!

"Latently expressed information''

This is why YEC'ist graduates from the Disco'tute are sans a career in the STEM fields.

Did you ever see him post proof of his claim, " Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome"?

 

[Ringtone]

Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is yes, new information can arise.

Thanks for finally admitting your previous error.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #606 again.

There is no post #606.

Again, the error, of course, is yours. See your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

Moving on. . . .

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome or did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not. Also, after you failed to bluff your way out of an embarrassingly stupid contention like James does all the time, did you forget to own up to it like a man as you peed your panties or did you already admit to your rank ignorance regarding the significant, speciational potentialities relative to the categorical order of genomic information and gene (trait) information?

Thanks.

Winning!

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

 

[Hollie]

Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is yes, new information can arise.

Thanks for finally admitting your previous error.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #606 again.

There is no post #606.

And you're a lying ass dog. You remind me of somebody who goes by the name of James Bond, who lies like a flaming leftist and incessantly tries to bluff his way out of it when caught. The new information you're talking about, dummy, is latently expressed information, not genomic information. Recall? That's the very essence of your enormous blunder, dumbass.



As for the other, that's because it's now in post #524 as you well know and why it's there. Thanks for letting me expose your enormous blunder again!

"Latently expressed information''

This is why YEC'ist graduates from the Disco'tute are sans a career in the STEM fields.

Shut up, Hollie, that was merely a brain fart. There's nothing rocket sciency about the term latent. LOL! Thanks for pointing that out to me. I didn't proof read. The term is used correctly by me in all other instances in the above.

By the way, how are you coming along on that explication of the processes of abiogenesis? It's a real hoot, ain't it?

You seem to have these ''brain farts'' in so many of your saliva-slinging tirades.

From ''Latently expressed information'' to ''scrambled DNA'' to "decompressed genomes'', it's just a cavalcade of nonsense that I can only attribute to sheer ignorance you rattle off until your specious nonsense is called out for what it is.

The process of abiogenesis? There are several theories and plausible theories are available for experimentation. The exact path to life in the planet is still subject to confirmation but obviously, we know it happened. Can you guess how we know?

On the other hand, we're still waiting for your
''General Theory of Supernatural Creation''

I think your plausible theory of a 6,000. year old planet, talking snakes, Arks cruising the waters, men living to be 900 years etc. sound fascinating.

I'm sure you will be offering your General Theory soon, right? It should be a total hoot.

Oh, BTW, can you offer some guidance on your gods providing for familial and incestuous relations when the Ark crew disembarked from their cruise?

Thanks.

That should be a hoot.

 

[ding]

I understand the theory on large and small populations. That MAY address stasis but I don't believe that addresses the lack of transitional fossils.

What transition fossil do we expect to find? ... and where should we find them? ... if the rock strata is discontinuous, and quite a few are, the fossil record within will be discontinuous ... locally here where I live, there are no fossils of any kind ... all Mid-Holocene deposits laid down at 700 ºC ... living matter cooked on impact ...

In the places and lineages that lack that lack transitions pieces, is the rock strata continuous ... i.e. an example please ...

The ones that prove speciation is gradual because of natural selection? But if you recall, I'm not expecting to find any cause I don't believe it is.

 

[Hollie]

Thanks for affirming my previous observation that, technically, the answer is yes, new information can arise.

Thanks for finally admitting your previous error.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #606 again.

There is no post #606.

And you're a lying ass dog. You remind me of somebody who goes by the name of James Bond, who lies like a flaming leftist and incessantly tries to bluff his way out of it when caught. The new information you're talking about, dummy, is latently expressed information, not genomic information. Recall? That's the very essence of your enormous blunder, dumbass.



As for the other, that's because it's now in post #524 as you well know and why it's there. Thanks for letting me expose your enormous blunder again!

"Latently expressed information''

This is why YEC'ist graduates from the Disco'tute are sans a career in the STEM fields.

Did you ever see him post proof of his claim, " Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome"?

Yeah. That was comedy gold.

Although, he identified earlier that he has problems with what he calls ''brain farts''. The translation resolves to his willful ignorance of the subject matter. He reads the nonsense that oozes from AIG and when those errors and falsehoods are identified, he puts on his Disco'tute dancing shoes and does a Michael Jackson quality moonwalk to deflect from his obvious falsehoods.

"decompressed genomes'' is among my favorite Ringtone'isms.

 

[Ringtone]

"decompressed genomes'' is among my favorite Ringtone'isms.

Link, you lying whore?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Mind Games Smything Word Puzzles "

* Fishing For Professed Tenets *

Correct! Insofar as you're talking about an actual infinite. God is not an actual infinite. You want to take that issue up with James Bond. He insists that God is an actual infinite, not I.

Would omniscience , omnipresence , omnipotence be superlatives you profess to be characteristics of gawd and how are those terms different with the term infinite ?

The theory of monism presumes an identity set of identity elements known as monads , and the infinite identity set includes an infinite count of infinitesimals , and each infinitesimal monad has infinitude inferred from an irrational number .

Is it conceivable that an identity set with an infinite count of infinitesimal monads with infintude could also be omniscient , omnipresent , omnipotent and infinite ?

 

[Ringtone]

Did you ever see him post proof of his claim, " Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome"?

So you still don’t understand the ramifications of the following relative to the fact that mutations have never been observed to add new information to the genome?:

On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. That's the theory. In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.​

​

Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?​

​

Again, that's the theory.​

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome or did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not.

Thanks.

Winning!

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

o you still don’t understand the ramifications of the following relative to the fact that mutations have never been observed to add new information to the genome?:

Link?

 

[Ringtone]

Did you ever see him post proof of his claim, " Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome"?

So you don’t know how to Google either? Dear God, man! What do you know? As far as I can tell, you don't seem to know a damn thing about the topic. What the hell are you doing on this thread?

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

 

[Ringtone]

Link?

Link, again, no friggin' clue.

I can't prove a negative in this instance, you idiot, and it's not my contention. The burden of proof is on the evodelutionist per his hypothesis. What part of mutations have never been observed to add information to the genome don't you understand? That's one of the hypothetical aspects of evodelusion.

It's as if some true believers were lobotomized zombies or something.

Moving on. . . .

So did you ever answer the question regarding the point mutations on the duplicate genes of the DDC model of gene duplication? Do they constitute new information or produce new functions in your opinion or are you too lazy to inform yourself? In other words, are you a braying jackass who asks stupid questions and asserts stupid things due to your rank ignorance or are you going to contribute something real to this thread?

Thanks.

Winning!

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

 

[Hollie]

"decompressed genomes'' is among my favorite Ringtone'isms.

Link, you lying whore?

There are four occurrences in this nonsense thread. See if you can find them.

Do you kiss William Lane Craig with that mouth?

 

[Hollie]

Link?

Link, again, no friggin' clue.

I can't prove a negative in this instance, you idiot, and it's not my contention. The burden of proof is on the evodelutionist per his hypothesis. What part of mutations have never been observed to add information to the genome don't you understand? That's the hypothetical aspects of evodelusion.

It's as if some true believers were lobotomized zombies or something.

Moving on. . . .

So did you ever answer the question regarding the point mutations on the duplicate genes of the DDC model of gene duplication? Do they constitute new information or produce new functions in your opinion or are you too lazy to inform yourself? In other words, are you a braying jackass who asks stupid questions and asserts stupid things due to your rank ignorance or are you going to contribute something real to this thread?

Thanks.

Winning!

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

"mutations have never been observed to add information to the genome,''

False, you silly crank. I addressed your false, ignorant claim earlier.

Have you considered that the Disco’tute has played a cruel joke on you?