Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
610 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, jar, nwr, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (6 members, 604 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,072 Year: 4,184/6,534 Month: 398/900 Week: 104/150 Day: 35/42 Hour: 1/4

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   (size test, HTML test) - LAVA
Inactive Member

Message 1 of 2 (525203)
09-22-2009 12:08 PM

Explained: LAVA - Lossy Adaptation Via (Natural Selection) of Alleles


You guys are no fun. So admin-nose-up-his-ass can libel people to its little hearts content, purely at its whim. That's nice.


I request that someone else be given the responsibility of evaluating this post. (Also no Muslims, since I am now on record as stating my dislike of Islam.) Note that since linking DearSir is apparently forbidden (Nozer has forbidden it, and you admins/ bureaucrats seem to be unwilling to stand up to each other's cr@p), this post will be very long. I therefore specifically ask for an exception in this regard, that it be allowed as-is in its entirety.
Unless there is some page-mechanical reason, or something, for not allowing this, I insist: I REFUSE to suffer classic 'death by segmentation unto irrelevance'.

If all this is too terribly much for you-all, then consider this my final attempt at a post. Delete it. Kindly then also delete my user (if I cannot do it myself), since I will not be back.


My suggestion for a forum: ''Is it Science?''



1859: Darwin had a Dream... Today: There is not one actual, provable, example of Evolution occurring in the recorded history of all of mankind. Even worse, not even one proper instance of the necessary precursor/partial DNA-activity has ever been seen. Ever. And entropy is rapidly murdering genetic information. Everywhere. All the time. [Grin.]


My writing style is a bit odd. I like it, which is what counts. (I've essentially been forced to be abnormally concise however; dunno if that is good or bad.) This turned out to be quite long since I had to define the required terms, here, and set some background as well.


Question: How come single examples of some 'problem' with IDOL (Intelligent Design Of Life) are held up as proof of its errancy. (ID can only claim to be a Hypothesis; ToE [Theory of Evolution] is no better, and probably [much] worse off.) But for ToE, each of a small legion of critical problems are allowed to continue? In a branch of SCIENCE? Why are there no standards when it comes to the 'science' of ToE?

I will tell you why: ToE is the premier foundational Dogma of Atheism - and modern politics is atheism.

Secular Humanism can not exist without ToE.

And where there is politics, there too are the lies of the dialectic: demonstrably the natural method of communication of the sociopath. [1:25 of people.] Real murderers, real child-fuckers. (This last can be re-phrased minus the descriptive word - but that would be even worse. Welcome to the real world, Neo: where the masters of slaves are not romantic. Evil.)

So. No matter what is written. No matter the facts. No matter logic. ToE shall remain as The Truth. The Rule of Pretend 'science'. Fact. [Grin.]


I assume the reader knows what an allele (allows you to go from wolf to Pekinese, chop! chop!) is; and also therefore what a gene-pool is; ditto for natural selection of boinking thingies.


My goal here is to try and present an algorithmic-type argument that the ToE should be the HoE (Hypothesis of Evolution). This would place it on the same level as the H.IDOL (Hypothesis of IDOL)... I do the Creepy Hannibal lip-sucking-thing...

Take note that I am aware of the dialectic, so don't bother with it. But thanks anyway!


An anti-dialectic point:  'Everything' is not magically somehow 'conceptually' brothers with 'Evolution'. Every kind of change, every kind of 'data', is not to be considered identical with 'Evolution.'

That brand of dialectic insanity is just plain retarded: if you reason like that, then you are mindless (likely clinically insane.)

Adaptation via natural selection of alleles (i.e. playing Lego [tm] with genes); is absolutely not Evolution in any way, shape or form. To state/ think otherwise is utterly moronic. (No, I don't care about the damn dictionary! Ever heard of common sense? What were you given for yours?)


An anti-dialectic point part deux: 'Everything in the world is Science'; is also bullsh@t. Science is about proof. Without proof, all that is left is 'Hypothesis'. Sorry.

And I don't care about the smoking- statistics- is- 'science' thing. Until that was verified bio-chemically, it was simply a really good guess. A really strong possibility. An Hypothesis... Any practicing statistician (except a Religious Evolutionary R-evolutionary, of course) would agree with that view - I've talked to actual 'University Professors' (tm). Stats is not about facts or absolutes, it is about degrees of strength. Only in the 'new' annals of 'science' is it used, solely by itself, as 'proof.'

I.e. saying that is 'looks as if ToE is true', is not science. 'Hey, we have five things we all think looks to show that ToE is true.' That's nice. No proof for ToE, then it is HoE. (Hey, be damn glad buildings and airplanes are not designed in that fashion! Or cars. Or heart-lung machines. Or watches. Or condoms. Or...)

The Age of Aquarius = The Age of the 'science' of look-ee like-ee proof(s) (LLP).


An anti-dialectic point part tri-ux a fix: What is science? It must be understandable (see below-ish for a rough example when explain the 'how' of entropy.) entropy via chaos; gravity you can directly see in operation; etc.[/i]) It must then be detectable, or measurable. (Not LLP! Not 'imaginable'!) This can be either in a lab, or via data taken from 'nature'. And lastly, since it is (almost) inevitable that reality will initially be misunderstood: all the component aspects of 'science' must always be open to re-examination, a.k.a re-validation. These three together constitute the Hypothesis, and the proof, and the endless re-validation.

(Yet another way in which ToE is a unique 'science', is that it per definition excludes ID. Note that ID can be the crystal brains of Mars, for all anyone knows - ID means some intelligence interfered. Perhaps ToE is true, but only for silicon-based live-forms...

Enter Old Mister Occam. It is known that there are such things as Intelligent Designers [a.k.a. humans.] There is a known set of processes [entropy] that are destroying the 'information' that are living molecular machines. There is no proof, whatsoever, at all, that ToE even exists [maybe it is just naturally perfectly invisible?] Occam therefore demands that the solution [selected Hypothesis] to 'where does life come from?' be answered as 'unknown I.D'. A cute argument methinks. It would be science, by the way.)


The Field of Play: The bedrock and endrock of any examination on ToE is DNA. No matter how weird or wonderful or subtle or complex or hidden the 'magic' of ToE may be: it MUST manifest in the DNA. [Wicked Grin.] Every little trace, of any of its actions, is made visible here: nothing is hidden. NOTHING. [Grin.] And more than that - any and all intermediate 'data storage'/ steps are limited, exclusively, to the DNA. [Grin.]

(So. Granting the assumption that there are areas of 'non-active' DNA, where 'new DNA-segments' can be crafted via 'neutral mutations', these Works In Progress must be visible. Each and every one of them.)


So what is 'Evolution'? This is: It is (some) natural process(es) which results in BOB+.

The so-called 'Fact of Evolution' is the most significant foundation-stone (not debatable, a fact) in the arena of ToE 'reasoning(s)'. So: Let's assume the 'Fossil Record' is true and correct. As 'time' goes by, it is noted (from the rock-record) that 'fossilised'-life becomes more (and more) complex. Let's call this ''more complex'' an increase in the 'ordered-complexity' of life [a.k.a. molecular machines] (as opposed to just 'random-complexity'; i.e. tabulate values from some white-noise source); or INFO+. This is just a label. Let's rather call it BOB+ to avoid debates about what exactly 'information' is (given the damage that BOB alone can do, a properly workable definition of 'information' would of course allow the formal annihilation of ToE.)

So: give what is observed in the rocks a plain, functional definition (ordered-complexity): and also a nice catch-phrase. Cool!

So the definition of the concept 'Evolution': It is (some) natural process(es) which results in BOB+, which in the real world (at present at least) is stored in DNA (& mtDNA? - in terms of tracking ToE, it is just some more data storage to take account of), as genes (alleles.)

Ah yes, TalkOrigins, gathering place of the mind-dead (dumbies...): There is no 'Fact of Evolution.' [Grin.] Stored in the rocks or otherwise: there is only the 'Fact of BOB+'. The rocks do not say that BOB+ happened via a natural process - rocks cannot speak. They are silent. Very much so.

This 'unassailable proof' of ToE is an imaginary dream-figment. Another dialectic, clear as crystal; an example of moral and intellectual dishonesty of the first degree. Sad, really. Or really funny. Depends on your viewpoint: personally, flat-earthers amuse me.


As cute as the preceding little lie was, when it comes to natural selection via alleles, and calling a broomstick a Ferrari; TalkOrigins truly comes into its own.

Alleles are the Lego-blocks of Life (with different colours [alleles] for blocks of each type [gene-type].) They form the gene-pool for a given species. When faced with a 'selector' of some kind, as thingies breed, the relative percentage (a.k.a. frequency) in the total pool changes (example a higher percentage of 'tall' genes.) This is, classically, Adaptation via natural selection of alleles. It is also, by no means whatsoever, Evolution. BOB is missing. Boo hoo.

Obviously. How can anyone think otherwise? [Grin.] (Something fascinating has been demonstrated by TalkOrigins however: a great many people with high IQ's, have easily succumbed to the irrational dialectics crafted by those with even higher IQ's. Huh. [It's not paranoia... Thinking is hard work. And very slow work. Just rambling along, 'reasoning', 'thinking, like you know, stuff', is what leads people to fall to the wiles of the dialectic. Which is also why the average surfer, with his/her above average IQ, is still an idiot. Ten times truer for hippies - South Park got that right.])

This simple lie, told with such depth and conviction, so repeatedly, runs through the whole of TalkOrigins like a flame through magnesium (perhaps backup their pages before their re-'Evolution' begins...) Apparently everyone there is so fluff-brained, that they cannot differentiate between 'Evolution' and 'Adaptation'. What is even more amazing, is that I have yet to encounter a single ToE that does NOT have a death-grip on this obvious rational-fallacy.

(The Theory of Evolution, Natural Selection, Survival of the Fittest. All are held to be part and parcel of the same 'thing.' No. There is 'evolution', i.e. BOB+. Unproven. And there is, in the face of all the active selectors, survival with breeding, or weakness & death with no breeding. Proven.)

(Go ahead, page through TalkOrigins, keeping LAVA in mind - amazing... At this point, a very large chunk of TalkOrigins has become... well, kind of amusing, I guess.)


Oh. Of course ToE and LAVA are both supposed to work 'together' beneath the dreamscape of Evolution. So what? LAVA is still not evolution. And is science. And ToE still has to create new alleles. And is not science. (Those damnable higher order effect[s]/ manifestation[s] of ToE... nice thing about having DNA as the Place Where Everything Happens & Is Recorded For All To Examine At Their Leisure! [Grin.])

(The dialectic [similar type as 'Fact of Evolution'] phrase 'common descent' merges LAVA with ToE, and then says... 'Evolution is obviously taking place; ToE is happening in practice every day.' Yay! We is all happy with dancings!)


Given the prevalence of alleles in the world today, and given their fundamental role in aiding individual species to survive the harshness of the natural world, it is an obvious requirement for ToE to (perhaps primarily!) generate more and more alleles. Not one (non-trivial) instance of this happening is known to all of mankind. [Grin.]

(So. ''Since ToE 'created' LAVA, surely LAVA is proof of ToE! Also, it makes sense to call Adaptation, Evolution! Yay!'' Heh. Funny. Almost got me there.)


This is (perhaps) off topic, but I may as well point out yet another dialectic crafted by the evil people at TalkOrigins.4.Squirrels: ''There are many separate instances (blood chemistry, bone structure, etc. etc.) of the Tree of Life being seen in nature; each one serves as yet another proof of ToE.''

He he. No. The Tree is a collection of 'Branchings'. Toe is said (by 'them') to predict a branching pattern of some kind. That is it. Proof? Where?

Ah; but the nuts never surrender: ''Each separate instance is a new proof!'' No. (And also LLP.) The Branching structure/ shape of the Tree is the LLP. Each instance verifies the Tree shape. Each instance increases the statistical power/ strength of the shape of the Tree. This is like using a pen to draw the same picture, in the same place, time after time. The lines mostly become thicker, more clear. That's all.

But; the nuts never, ever, surrender: ''Each branching of the Tree serves, independently, as yet another proof! They all add [or multiply!] together! Yay!'' (Also LLP again.) ToE predicts a branching structure throughout the organizational structure of life. Actually, it does not even predict a tree. So, no.

(PS: Um, are you aware that ToE was selected as an Hypothesis [yes it was one, officially, a long time ago] because it was supposed to match the branching patterning of the Tree of Life? [Historically that is: via bones. Additionally, Darwin also seemed to confuse LAVA with ToE.] So how can you use it as a Proof of ToE? Of course, you cannot: just more verbiage, courtesy of the f@cking dialectic.)

Two more points to make here: a) As an example of 'the overwhelming support of the data for ToE' or 'the statistical strength of the evidence overwhelmingly proves ToE', it should be clear to the non-moronic that the above (and similar!) is pathetically lacking. b) The pure weakness of the above argument (and similar!): 'Toe predicts branching, of some kind; we see branching, of some kind. Yay! Science has proven ToE.' Heh. God, but you're a bunch of children: how did you lot ever end up in charge??? (No wonder people call you 'tools of Satan': how else to explain the eminence of garbage like this...?)

Oh. Forgot to include this: What is the IDOL 'explanation' for the Tree of Life? Simple: Biosphere. 'Circle of Life'. I.e. [Enables] Z Eating F, K, P and G. Dying, and then being eaten by N, Q and T.


I do not have a background in biology (of whatever flavour), nor in geology and archaeology (as applied to ToE arguments: I suppose there is some multi-syllable word for it: I don't care.) About those I cannot say very much. However, the 'brush' argument (see below somewhere; i.e. higher order effects; playing field) always remains valid. Given the above 3 dialectic examples that are so rabidly endorsed by those who are grounded in biology, geology and archaeology; if they are all that lacking in reason; then I see no reason to ever again take their word for anything. Ever. 'They are dead to me. All of them. Dead.'

(I am taking the radical step and rejecting all 'sciences' that have stood in support of ToE. Every one. You have cried 'Evolution!' too many times. Be gone, you-all of repute most low and foul.)

These people are all insane; you do realize that, don't you?


Also off topic, but I either say this now, or several times later: The 'What I Would Think If I Was God-like' dialectic/ argument. Sigh. ''My pet hamster just does not understand me! Why! Why!!'' Guess, ya smuck.


And YouTube 'simulations,' a.k.a. Virtual Worlds, Inc. What people like CDK007 do, is write convergent algorithms running off random number generators. And abstract universes for their algorithmic-abstractions to function in. That is it. Nothing else. (The 'outcome(s)' are inevitable, given enough time.) Do you get this? Is there really any need to say more?

Sigh. This is not hard to understand: program in a concept, and the concept will 'exist'. Virtually 'Test the ''virtual'' concept.' It 'works.' Awesome. So. What.

Rather than simulate the world, and look for ToE, these idiots actually directly code for the concept... (you know, I'm not sure what to call this sort of thing... technically it is a dialectic, and certainly so at the original source [Prof. whomever]. Mmmm. A 2nd generation dialectic, then? A monkey-lectic?)

The following is a bit more 'real': You build a real-world system, and try and 'evolve' it. First the built-in capability to resist 'mutation' will be rapidly overloaded, resulting in a load of sickly (built-in tolerances, per system, which allow for non-optimal performance) thingies; who will then slowly, miserably, die out. (Damaged alleles break very easily, just like the real thing.) Digital dust. Period. Obviously: WHY? Because ordered complexity is improbable (i.e. it is unstable, like a ball balanced on top of a hill), and chaotic deviations from it will usually be bad. (But ToE will fix it all!) And additive badness is not a good thing. Got that?

(You may, in a moment of silliness, think that this argument is an excellent way to straight-out disprove ToE. (This is [historically] perhaps the oldest [and first] type of objection raised to ToE.) Oh no! ToE works in mysterious ways, you see... It is out there, somewhere, just 'not perfectly understood'... So this argument is not allowed. But it is remembered. [Grin.])

(Another classic idea that has been 'disavowed': it is far easier to destroy, than it is to create.)

(And then there is this: Eating your own tail: ToE is supposed to be [at least mainly] driven by the engine of entropic damage. Ex. this means that for every 100% of damage instances, ToE scores maybe less than 0.1% 'possibly-good-mutation[s]' for the system. Most of the damage simply kills. Some of it degrades the [complete, overall] system, without death.

The problem is simple: some entity, degraded but mostly functional, will 'leak' BOB- into the gene-pool. There are many such 'leak'-sources. Time passes.

According to the common understanding of complex systems [which a gene-pool is], entropy is continually assaulting the system, from all directions. Even with natural selection, highly advanced error-reduction systems, etc. etc... entropy will ultimately win.

According to ToE, the gene-pool will be kept clean, and BOB+ will also happen. In fact, ToE is apparently so awesomely powerful, that it went and created the above system - impressive.

Sigh. A deadlock. [Barring ever-zooming arguments based on less and less.] I wonder how one would break it... Entropy is powerful, and measurable. For ToE to so thoroughly dominate, it must be even more powerful, even more measurable. It is not.

So why bother writing this little section? The 2 ideas listed above both make [apparent] sense. So which one is real? Mmmm? Proof, evidence, determines the reality of a given Hypothesis. [This is why LLP is such utter cr@p, by the way.] So. Now what?)


Ok. Back to the grindstone:  What is entropy? Why care? Let entropy be the chaos that dismantles ordered-complexity (i.e. murders existing {BOB}) until it becomes random-complexity; or if you will, that re-shuffles everything, no matter if it is ordered or not, until it is purely chaotic. (This is the heart of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: which, unlike ToE, has been proven to hold true without any observed exception, ever. Free energy naturally ends up chaotically altering matter. And then it is gone. Dust. Ever diffusing EM radiation...) Statistics does allow for a certain very low level of 'order' to manifest in nature only for a while, however (the classic example being crystals - which involves a trivial amount of INFO+)

ToE is supposed to be (fundamentally) driven by the kinds of damage that entropy inflicts [without exception] on all material objects (and energy?) (Via chaotic heat/ energy/ particle-flows that rend molecular/ atomic bonds; or background radiation that climbs into everything; alpha particles, gamma rays, UV, etc. etc. etc.)

Perhaps the best known example of this, is the hard fact that repeatedly copying large amounts of data results in errors: this is an absolute rule. Which also holds true for DNA. (Copy errors are a 'Very Bad Thing' [tm] for complex machines.) And it just so happens to be scientifically measurable.

(Entropy, a.k.a. 'The Angel of Allele Death', or 'The Angel of BOB-', or... 'Perfect Anti-ToE'... [Grin.])


Life will not happen without some causal agent, in this universe (it is an improbability of not-comprehensible proportions. [If there is a 'sin' for ToE's, it is even thinking about the probabilities. Evil!]) For this reason a causal agent is needed [be it ToE or IDOL.] One thing that ToE absolutely must be, and quite obviously is not, is [insanely] strong: there is simply too much acting against BOB: entropy alone is hideously powerful; and all-encompassing as well.


At this point, it is a statement purest fact that Evolution has never been directly observed/ detected, so not measured, and hence not proven. (This alone forces the statement that ToE is not scientific; i.e. HoE.) Undeniably fact. (While the contrary is insisted upon, via the dialectic [by the same breed of nuts mentioned before] the actual dialectic nature of such efforts are visible enough.)


(Contrary to the 'Mystery' approach taken by ToE lawyers, it cannot simply 'happen' in some hidden place[s], to periodically grace the world with its art-works.

ToE was/is intended as a trick to get around the limits of 'improbability' - but there are two things to keep in mind: a) the world is being watched; b) while purely theoretical, the Path of TOE is not a [complete] mystery.

We ~ can ~ see ~ you... ;-)


Robust[/b]' Genes. So why care about entropy?

a) Well, ToE must not only generate BOB+, but generate it against the 'pull' of [all-encompassing] entropy. And not just that, the DNA which ToE is to have generated, is also (highly) resistant to [all-encompassing] entropy. And not just that, the molecular machines (a.k.a. living things) are themselves also resistant to [all-encompassing] entropy. And not just that, this all has to be true for every new allele 'created' by ToE... Let's call these little miracles 'robust' alleles.

b) Given that Natural Selection, fundamentally, runs off the damage that the entropy 'engine' ceaselessly inflicts, how can you determine the direction of the pattern? I.e. how can you (properly!) figure if something was generated via entropy, or if something was (properly) designed to resist entropy [at all levels {*}]. (Not to even mention the same LLP problem as encountered before... No proof, no science.)

{*} [all-encompassing entropy] (Since entropy is so nicely random, it has the quaint property of manifesting on every known & unknown level of [sane] abstraction - i.e. no matter which angle you look at a real-world object from, no matter how you conceptualize it, no matter which pattern(s) you see, entropy is there. Entropy is the truly universal law of 'change': and not in a good way...)

(Cute Thing: so ToE would have to create living systems that are resistant to entropy... which means that they must either have some way of discriminating between ToE and entropy, or otherwise they will be resistant to ToE itself.)


Elegant[/b]' Genes. (This is linked to defining what 'information' is, but a sidestep is better, methinks.) What has ToE 'created'? Alleles. Which are multiple instances of certain gene-functions. So what ToE must create, where it can be measured, is this: NEW, &true-unique (not a trivially damaged [in whatever way, via whatever mechanism] copy of another gene[s]), &well-functional (it must work; and more the point, it must work at the same high level of performance expected via the median of all the other observable genes.)

These types of 'elegant' genes are visible, in everything, and are everywhere. (And the median rather than the average, to enforce REAL compliance to this definition: no selling a rotten tomato for the price of a good one.)


Polished[/b]' Genes. In general living thingies work extremely well - too well. Define 'polish' as extra gene-information that gifts small enhancements to performance. The example aimed at is that one gene (ex. shape of a given protein) will be altered in such a way that it fits 'together' with another gene(s!!!). Not only is life quite robust and elegant, but it is extremely 'polished'. It makes sense that this happens under semi-stable-selector conditions. HOWEVER, 'polish' is in direct conflict with Changes to Basic System Functionality. (I.e. as a product of ToE, it opposes ToE: a stability issue inherent to ToE-creations, perhaps?) For a 'new' gene, all those other genes affected by polish must ALSO be changed. (And become re-polished in turn.) Not only that, the available scope of 'valid' functional deviation will be radically reduced for the new gene (efficiency; but especially the impact on functionality.) This becomes a real maggot nest of molecular-machine construction-issues. The ONLY way this could work, would be for ToE to happen extremely fast... (which it obviously is not.)

'Polish' is an indicator of the 'rapid-ness' of ToE: either ToE is slow, and there will be no time/chance for polish, or ToE happens so fast, with such strength, that everything is polished. Everything is highly polished.

Oh, there is one other alternative. [Very Evil Grin.] That the world has been 'stable' in terms of selectors for such a long time, that 'polish' has come into being, and that ToE has, in effect, been locked out of the system... Heh.


Fancy DNA = Robust, Elegant, Polished DNA.


And Finally - Introducing The Topic: The logic-'brush' used here has a somewhat broad tip (and not exhaustive, nor complete, etc), but its strokes are still reasonably well defined. It is always possible to zoom in more and more and more. But since those fine ToE-strokes are to manifest in real-world living things, higher-order constraints must exist - specifically: detectable fancy DNA. So unless everyone is willing to accept that ToE is as hidden (result = HoE) as the Lord Himself is held to be (i.e. super-naturally) some broader questions must have reasonable answers.


An allele is a Lego-block (tm) of living thingies. Whenever there are selector(s)-pressure in nature, the first response is adaptation via the natural selection of alleles. This is (relative to postulated evolution) very, very fast. (You can see it happening in a lab, if you wanted to.)

ToE is supposed to counter what is listed below - in fact, ToE is 'supposed' to be so powerful, that it does this with the predictability of a metronome...


Question Zero: What is the rate at which ToE happens? (Using the BOB definition.) This has been measured. It is zero. There has not been one single instance of BOB+ in the recorded history of the world.

{{ BOB+.rate(ToE, All Life) = not measurable [or experimentable!] = zero, zip, zilch, de-nada. }}


The Minimum ToE Speed (Rate) Question:

Velocity Trap 1: The ToE Super-Law, Type 1: As stated before, ToE must somehow, miraculously, as BOB+ happens to individual species each specific BOB+ instance/ event must take other BOB+ instances/ events into account. Needs feedback. So ToE must be even faster!

Velocity Trap 2: The ToE Super-Law, Type 2: BOB+ instances inside a specific species must work together - i.e. walking upright requires a lot of changes. That needs feedback: gigantic amounts of it. (Ultimately driven by the process of entropic damage...) So ToE must be even faster!


Minus Problem 1: Lossy Adaptation. If some strong selector comes into play, and stays in play long enough, you will lose alleles. BOB-. And Quickly. And forever. This you can even measure - which is the classic backbone of science. (The more strong selectors in play, the better the stripping away of alleles: periodic environmental change, anyone?)

The Standard Counter-Argument to this is Gene-Reservoirs. Prove it. (I mean, step out of your little Mental Evolutionary Laboratories (tm) [MEL's], and into the real world.) Your reservoir itself WILL BE under constant (time additive!) assault via adaptation & entropy: stasis = entropic death. Fact. The split-off braches, will have (significantly) smaller (and smaller) gene-pools. (And so be less important in terms of BOB+) As this process repeats, the gene-pool shrinks drastically: and the species becomes less and less able to utilize adaptation. Which makes it less 'fit'. Oh, and after a short while, the 'adapted' species can no longer inbreed with the reservoir... damn it! Too bad. Oops. (...and all these 'bad' things happen at a rate which can be measured, i.e. science.) (Um, why the hell are there any alleles left at all???)

{{ BOB-.rate(Adaptation, All Life) = finite, fast, understandable, experimentable }}


Minus Problem 2: Lossy Copying. (Entropic damage inflicted at all levels.) As already stated, entropy WILL cause damage during the copying process (when breeding). This you can measure (& draw estimates from) - which is yet more science.

{{ BOB-.rate(Copy Damage, All Life) = finite, understandable, experimentable }}


Rate Problem 1: Intermediate Stages - Natural Selection very powerfully opposes damaged/ non-functional genes. Since such a stage is an inevitable intermediary in the forming of new genes...

{{ BOB+.rate(ToE[full attempts], All Life) = (1/k1)*BOB+.rate(ToE[partial attempts], All Life) = not measurable or experimentable: not even one proper 'partial attempt' (an activity predicted by ToE) has never even been seen something[/b], of a new gene; that part of the 'iceberg beneath the water'. }}


Rate Problem 2: Complex Systems:

Stability: ToE is, per definition, and especially for punctuated equilibrium (which has the interesting property that it does not have the nice rapid-feedback Darwin's gradualism did), blind. Simply, most of its attempts kill, or produce failed outcomes, etc... which means only a fraction of 'new' genes would end up being viable... which means there should be many, many, many more failed attempts... would all be visible, open to being measured... mmmm, strange how this is not happening, at all, isn't it? (On the ToE side of the equation - only a small fraction of the 'created' genes are viable.)

Complexity: The environment ToE has to work inside of (highly complex molecular machines [a.k.a. 'Life']) is extremely complex: making something that can even work together with all the rest of the machine... magnificent in the required complexity, really. (On the ToE side of the equation - only a tiny fraction of the 'created' genes are viable.) (Especially true for punctuated equilibrium: absence of strong feedback.)

{{ BOB+.rate(ToE[new & functional], All Life) = (1/k2)*BOB+.rate(ToE[full attempts], All Life) = not measurable or experimentable }}


Rate Problems 3 & 4 & 5: DNA & its product(s) are resistant to entropy (robust). DNA is elegant. DNA is polished. Each of these implies that out of the number of 'resultant'/ fancy genes, are only a small number of those actually 'generated'. (Subset- of- subset- of- subset.)

{{ BOB+.rate(ToE[fancy], All Life) = (1/k3 * )*BOB+.rate(ToE[new & functional], All Life) = not measurable or experimentable, since ToE is not }}


So, roughly, the situation looks pretty bad for ToE. Many natural processes are busy hacking away at BOB. Hard-core, old-school science: the processes are understandable (which is nice), experiments can estimate these, and measurements can be taken from both lab experiments and nature.

There are, lots of, observed instances of BOB-.

There are no observed instances of BOB+.

And to top all this off, only the smallest possible fraction of all the hard work that ToE puts it, finally manages to graduate... yet somehow, ALL OF THE ICEBERG still stays mysteriously hidden... Mmmm?

You know, the absolute invisibility of ToE is becoming pretty annoying - at what point does 'extreme lack of instance-data' start to count against 'T'oE? I mean, can even a 'Hypothesis' survive such a lack of ANY supportive data? And ToE is supposed to be such a prolific little bunny... it has to explain the real world, after all. [Grin.]


Perspective. Always a good thing to have. So one last task is laid before you: remember that law-case with those stupid ID's, who were ripped a new one by the invincibility of ToE and its shining morally-pure paragons? Why not read an expert report, as presented by team-ToE's Dr. Pennock. So, what do you think of it now? Mmmm?


Oh. And a mandatory paranoid segment. (Missed that one, Noze-Boy!) I am personally of the opinion that the loudest voices in the ID-'movement', are in the paid employ of the 'Rockefellers', whomever they may really be. (Explain to me, then, why they ignore arguments like these? Why are the dialectics of ToE not entombed with scorn & shame? I'm not the first to suggest all these things, you know.)


By the way, Darwin did make sense about gradual changes - what exactly is the true (proper) reasoning behind why this is wrong? I mean, apart from the fact that it was never, has never, been demonstrated, of course. (Like anything else to do with ToE. And no damn dialectics.)


Epilogue: 1st: Where are the 'good' arguments for ToE? Mmmm? Putting aside the endless stream of 'fluff' (arguments/ debates/ dialectics), I have yet to encounter simple, sane, counters to the plain arguments presented here.

I do not think that there are any: only verbiage, mental vomit.

Sigh. It is sad that Reason has lost its value, perhaps it flowered for only a little while - the 'ideology of the moment' is the great mover in these dark days: it has become 'the truth' - despite it's obvious falsity, the dark irrationality.

Shrug. Very well then, but know that you have abandoned reason: even if there is no God, you have declared your lack of worth for all the universe to see. You fool. You worthless, foul, fool. You are not Sapien.


Epilogue: 2nd: And the little mandatory Christian segment: It is commonly held that people who go hunting for the correct 'god' a sadly rare endeavour; and one complicated by the existence of devils-who-whisper-into-the-subconsciousness, are so weak minded that they are trapped by their own self-imagined fantasies - they are powerless to cling onto rationality & reality. Poor little things. Psychology says that of you... are you that weak? Why do you listen to the Psychologist-Scientists who say so? Mmmm?


1859: Darwin had a Dream... Today: There is not one actual, provable, example of Evolution occurring in the recorded history of all of mankind. Even worse, not even one proper instance of the necessary precursor/partial DNA-activity has ever been seen. Ever. And entropy is rapidly murdering genetic information. Everywhere. All the time. [Still grinning...]


PS: Writing this took up the greater part of a week. Compiling the ideas took months. I write. Very. Slowly. [Shrug]



Edited by AChristianDarkly, : No reason given.

Edited by AChristianDarkly, : final revision - maybe

Edited by AChristianDarkly, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminPD, : Contents hidden, use peek to view.

"Unity without verity (truth) is no better than conspiracy." - John Trapp

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPD, posted 09-22-2009 3:08 PM AChristianDarkly has taken no action

Inactive Administrator

Message 2 of 2 (525231)
09-22-2009 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AChristianDarkly
09-22-2009 12:08 PM

Not Proper PNT Procedure
Please do not circumvent the PNT procedure again.

You are capable of making your account inactive through the profile link.

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AChristianDarkly, posted 09-22-2009 12:08 PM AChristianDarkly has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022