Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

[Hollie]

Well, now 27 pages into a fraud about mathematics challenging Darwinian evolution - a parade of Disco’tute charlatans in a silly YouTube video.

Something about corn vs. grass fed cattle somehow became relevant.

The hyper-religious are total hoots.

 

[ReinyDays]

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.

... whales ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

... whales ...

Just ask him what "gradual" means. That is, if you want to talk about a new subject entirely, like your credentials, or claims from an article from a sci magazine written in 1987.

I kid. Kinda.

 

[Ringtone]

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.

Hey, dummy, the term scrambled is obviously not a technical term. It's being used by me as a means of describing something we understand very little about right now regarding the pattern of crossover events in homologous recombination, because at least certain kinds of alternative traits seem to be built-in to randomly express themselves, often as new, previously unexpressed traits.

Some information is stored in the genome in compressed form. What the beep is wrong with you?
All that means is that it has yet to express itself. It's also seemingly built-in to randomly arise. Genetic decompressed information is merely that which is deciphered and expressed. By what mechanism exactly? We. Don't. Know.

Finally, I already told you KARAN, that my previous expression regarding latent information was not intended.

Hey, you said thanks in the above.

You're welcome.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Hand No Idea Amorphous Alternatives Could Assimilate Or Subsume As Well "

* Try Not To Get Anxious About The Future Of Genetic Engineering *

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?

Artificial gene synthesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

While traditional nucleic acid synthesis only uses 4 base pairs - adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine, oligonucleotide synthesis in the future could incorporate the use of unnatural base pairs, which are artificially designed and synthesized nucleobases that do not occur in nature.
This is the first known example of a living organism passing along an expanded genetic code to subsequent generations.
The successful incorporation of a third base pair is a significant breakthrough toward the goal of greatly expanding the number of amino acids which can be encoded by DNA, from the existing 20 amino acids to a theoretically possible 172, thereby expanding the potential for living organisms to produce novel proteins.[20] In the future, these unnatural base pairs could be synthesised and incorporated into oligonucleotides via DNA printing methods.

Protein engineering - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

DNA synthesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ringtone]

"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?

Link?

 

[ding]

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.

... whales ...

Just ask him what "gradual" means. That is, if you want to talk about a new subject entirely, like your credentials, or claims from an article from a sci magazine written in 1987.

I kid. Kinda.

I doubt it's kinda.

 

[ding]

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.

... whales ...

Is that anything like the logic that led to your conclusion that republicans don't believe there is a pandemic?

You know? Defining rules by exception?

 

[Ringtone]

" Hand No Idea Amorphous Alternatives Could Assimilate Or Subsume As Well "

* Try Not To Get Anxious About The Future Of Genetic Engineering *

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?

Artificial gene synthesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

While traditional nucleic acid synthesis only uses 4 base pairs - adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine, oligonucleotide synthesis in the future could incorporate the use of unnatural base pairs, which are artificially designed and synthesized nucleobases that do not occur in nature.
This is the first known example of a living organism passing along an expanded genetic code to subsequent generations.
The successful incorporation of a third base pair is a significant breakthrough toward the goal of greatly expanding the number of amino acids which can be encoded by DNA, from the existing 20 amino acids to a theoretically possible 172, thereby expanding the potential for living organisms to produce novel proteins.[20] In the future, these unnatural base pairs could be synthesised and incorporated into oligonucleotides via DNA printing methods.

Protein engineering - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

DNA synthesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The successful incorporation of a third base pair is a significant breakthrough toward the goal of greatly expanding the number of amino acids which can be encoded by DNA, from the existing 20 amino acids to a theoretically possible 172, thereby expanding the potential for living organisms to produce novel proteins.[20] In the future, these unnatural base pairs could be synthesised and incorporated into oligonucleotides via DNA printing methods.



Yep! Artificial gene synthesis: it's amazing what we're doing in this field, and it's developments will be an important aspect to designing an actual lifeform. I see no reason why it can't be done. It's difficult to project when, as I'm sure you know that advancements can drag along in the face of especially complex puzzles until some key breakthrough comes along, and, then, suddenly . . . zoom!

Fair enough. All good info. Welcome.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Hey, dummy, the term scrambled is obviously not a technical term. It's being used by me as a means of describing something we understand very little about right now regarding the pattern of crossover events in homologous recombination, because at least certain kinds of alternative traits seem to be built-in to randomly express themselves, often as new, previously unexpressed traits.

Some information is stored in the genome in compressed form. What the beep is wrong with you?
All that means is that it has yet to express itself. It's also seemingly built-in to randomly arise. Genetic decompressed information is merely that which is deciphered and expressed. By what mechanism exactly? We. Don't. Know.

Finally, I already told you KARAN, that my previous expression regarding latent information was not intended.

Hey, you said thanks in the above.

You're welcome.

C’mon now, fundie boy. The term scrambled is obviously a “technical” term you folks at AIG use. And yes, you do tend to make excuses for your lack of a science vocabulary as you stumble and mumble your way through terms and definitions you don’t understand.

Consider leaving the science focused discussions to those who are trained in the sciences.

When there’s a discussion geared toward uncomplicated matters, we’ll let you know.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Hey, dummy, the term scrambled is obviously not a technical term. It's being used by me as a means of describing something we understand very little about right now regarding the pattern of crossover events in homologous recombination, because at least certain kinds of alternative traits seem to be built-in to randomly express themselves, often as new, previously unexpressed traits.

Some information is stored in the genome in compressed form. What the beep is wrong with you?
All that means is that it has yet to express itself. It's also seemingly built-in to randomly arise. Genetic decompressed information is merely that which is deciphered and expressed. By what mechanism exactly? We. Don't. Know.

Finally, I already told you KARAN, that my previous expression regarding latent information was not intended.

Hey, you said thanks in the above.

You're welcome.

What information is in compressed form? Other than some nonsense you read at the Disco’tute, why would you think anyone not associated with the fundie ministries would take that nonsense seriously?

Why do you make up this nonsense as you plow new furrows through the fields of dull and uninformed?

 

[Ringtone]

C’mon now, fundie boy. The term scrambled is obviously a “technical” term you folks at AIG use. And yes, you do tend to make excuses for your lack of a science vocabulary as you stumble and mumble your way through terms and definitions you don’t understand.

Consider leaving the science focused discussions to those who are trained in the sciences.

When there’s a discussion geared toward uncomplicated matters, we’ll let you know.

You're claiming scrambled is a routinely used technical term now? Tell me, Karen, is it dope? The wacky weed? Shrooms? LSD? Crack? Did you go ask Alice when she's ten feet tall again?

 

[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.

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

So, Toddsterpatriot, given that genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information de novo, and given that latent, originally compressed genetic information is expressed in populations, it's almost as if what constitutes "new information" depends on how one defines new information. Given that DNA codes for proteins and traits, it's almost as if what constitutes “a new function" depends on how one defines new functions relative to varying criteria. Given that many of the examples of new information and functions, touted by evolutionists over the years, were later shown to be the stuff of preexisting genetic algorithms and genetic compactions, it's almost as if the falsified designations were predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism. Indeed, given that the matter is further complicated by the fact that what constitutes "new" or "information" or "functions," in and of themselves, respectively, also depends on how one defines them, once again, relative to varying criteria. Gee whiz! Evolutionists, creationists and ID theorists not only disagree between themselves over these matters, but also disagree, respectively, among themselves.

Hot damn!

It's almost as if the incalculably complex realities of the genome defy the dogmatic, black-and-white think of your childishly simple-minded ignorance, that because of your ignorance you stupidly alleged contradictions in my explications that exist nowhere else in the world, but your boorishly arrogant mind of little knowledge!

Still winning!

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

Thanks.

 

[ReinyDays]

... whales ...

Is that anything like the logic that led to your conclusion that republicans don't believe there is a pandemic?
You know? Defining rules by exception?

Is this a matter of dogma for you? ... in spite the evidence, you cannot believe whales evolved in a slow step-wise manner ... we have the fossils in hand ... just the right behaviors in a great spot to form fossils ... we have a fairly complete sequence of whale adaptation over (I believe) many tens of millions of years ... they're quite abundant in the Sahara ...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What part of mutations have never been observed to add information to the genome don't you understand?

The part where you never proved your claim.
How about a source that says the same thing?
They must be easy to find. So post one.

 

[ding]

... whales ...

Is that anything like the logic that led to your conclusion that republicans don't believe there is a pandemic?
You know? Defining rules by exception?

Is this a matter of dogma for you? ... in spite the evidence, you cannot believe whales evolved in a slow step-wise manner ... we have the fossils in hand ... just the right behaviors in a great spot to form fossils ... we have a fairly complete sequence of whale adaptation over (I believe) many tens of millions of years ... they're quite abundant in the Sahara ...

No. It's not. I have told you what it's about. I haven't even deviated once.

 

[Ringtone]

" 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 ?

Yes, they are superlatives. In classical theism, when we say that God is infinite, we mean that he's incomparably great and perfect in his being. He's an indivisible, unembodied mind who knows all things about existence, can do all things possible, and interdimensionally encompasses all of existence. The qualitative infinity of classical theism and the quantitative infinities of mathematics are categorically distinct things.

God is not an actual infinite!

Now, since you do understand what an actual infinite is, go explain it to James Bond. I've tried. He's a classical theist, who, if he were to ever grasp the derp derp of his contention, would realize that it's not only inherently absurd, but contradicts what he ultimately believes.

His problem is that he unwittingly conflates the qualitative infinity of classical theism and the quantitative infinities of mathematics.

But, then, on the other hand, I have shown him every which way there is that his contention is nuts, and his responses are clearly that of a liar who is too proud to admit his error. It's either that or a matter of being frozen in a state of cognitive dissonance in the face of the falsification of a long-held belief. In that case, he's refusing to think about it.

 

[Ringtone]

The part where you never proved your claim.
How about a source that says the same thing?
They must be easy to find. So post one.

You're either incredibly stupid, a liar or both.

As I said before, your questions are nonsensical, and you obviously don't know why. In fact, you don't seem to know much of . . . well, anything about evolution. You still don't grasp the importance of the distinction between genomic information and gene (trait) information relative to the speciational potentialities of their categorical order or, apparently, the speciational significance of the distinction between DNA that codes for proteins and DNA that codes for traits. You don't know anything about the models of gene duplication, and you don't seem to know anything about genetic algorithms, compressed genomes, homologous recombination, crossover events, adaptive immunity . . . the complexities of determining what constitutes new information and functions when our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy!

Worse, you can't seem to grasp the ramifications of anything you read.

So you believe evolution is true when in fact you don't know dick about it and, therefore, why you believe it.

Do you make it a habit of believing things you don't understand or, for that matter, like James, denying things you don't understand?

Winning!

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

Thanks.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The part where you never proved your claim.
How about a source that says the same thing?
They must be easy to find. So post one.

You're either incredibly stupid, a liar or both.

As I said before, your questions are nonsensical, and you obviously don't know why. In fact, you don't seem to know much of . . . well, anything about evolution. You still don't grasp the importance of the distinction between genomic information and gene (trait) information relative to the speciational potentialities of their categorical order or, apparently, the speciational significance of the distinction between DNA that codes for proteins and DNA that codes for traits. You don't know anything about the models of gene duplication, and you don't seem to know anything about genetic algorithms, compressed genomes, homologous recombination, crossover events, adaptive immunity . . . the complexities of determining what constitutes new information and functions when our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy!

Worse, you can't seem to grasp the ramifications of anything you read.

So you believe evolution is true when in fact you don't know dick about it and, therefore, why you believe it.

Do you make it a habit of believing things you don't understand or, for that matter, like James, denying things you don't understand?

Winning!

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

Thanks.

Don't be sad that you can't prove your claim.

I've come to terms with your failure.

 

[Hollie]

C’mon now, fundie boy. The term scrambled is obviously a “technical” term you folks at AIG use. And yes, you do tend to make excuses for your lack of a science vocabulary as you stumble and mumble your way through terms and definitions you don’t understand.

Consider leaving the science focused discussions to those who are trained in the sciences.

When there’s a discussion geared toward uncomplicated matters, we’ll let you know.

You're claiming scrambled is a routinely used technical term now? Tell me, Karen, is it dope? The wacky weed? Shrooms? LSD? Crack? Did you go ask Alice when she's ten feet tall again?

I’m not surprised that scrambled is a routinely used technical term used at your Disco’tute meetings.

Understand, Karen, that your gaffes and blunders are a result of your own failings and ineptitudes.