evolution calculations

What lovely prose. The whole passage trips off the tongue like a poem, except more so. The ding-dong repetition of that highly suggestive word "bubbles" reinforces with sensuous fire the morbidity of the meme (life is like a bubble).

Just ignore it wont you? Ill take up some Derridian ideas elsewhere. I had not wanted this to get too complicated here. When I was returning through NYC from winter break I had to merely make a walk across port authority and there I found a women standing after apparently completely a double shift in the city trying to get back to jersery and seemingly the only one who could see where indeed NY city stands in NJ, anyway she continued to have an argument through the tunnel and down all the roads of garden state IN TWO LANGUAGES ( not spanish). I never blinked the whole time.I knew NY better than she didnt know NJ and I dont know the city very well. I had just left DC that morning. My guess is that posts like that are made by multiple language users only.

I think you are right, Brad. Parasomiun speaks (or writes)Dutch, too, I believe. For all I know she might speak French and Italian too. Wouldn't surprise me.Parasomnium, could you explain the new avator please?

There is a 1996 issue of the SMITHSONIAN in which the Orangs are pictured and having to read it because the social services dept of Tompkins County refused to tell me "no" and thus forced me to sit for one hour I gained a renewed respect for Oook who rasied this issue of base changes earlier(in color). I think we should both find that thread if we want to continue to take up this issue. I will provide detailed references and USES of the word "perversion" if you still want, there. I am done now here no matter what is posted next.There are no maths. If they show up, then of course I'll reconsider.

Brad, monsieur Derrida would be spinning in his fresh grave if he heard his name mentioned in connection with that piece of prose, especially when, in the last paragraph of this post, I will 'deconstruct' it for you, or rather, give you the rough recipe for its reconstruction - perhaps much to the chagrin of Robin, for it removes the poetic quality entirely.But first let me tell you my reason for posting it in the first place. I have noticed that whenever somebody feeds you something intelligible, you come back with a dissemination of ideas (another Derridian favourite!) that even Jacques lui-mme would have had great trouble deconstructing in any meaningful way. So I thought: maybe it works the other way around as well. Feed Brad complete gibberish, and who knows...? And it seems to have worked: I could actually follow what you wrote back. And I liked it, it read like a scene from a Charlie Kaufman film.And how perceptive you were in that last remark! For here's how I produced the gibberish: I took two words from your post, 'biophysics' and 'orang' (which I extended to 'orangutan') and googled them. The second hit was a PubMed text, the abstract of which I ran through an automatic translator, converting it to Japanese. Then I converted it back to English, then to Russian, then back to English again. I believe French and Portugese were also involved, I don't quite remember. The resulting text I introduced to you with a sentence that began in an inconspicuously normal way."Therefore we will be incoherent, but without systematically resigning ourselves to incoherence" - Jacques Derrida.This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 10 February 2005 22:47 AM

Dutch, German, a little French, Italian negligible.What about my avatar?

Looks very different from the other.The device around the left eye--some religious relic, I suppose?

You're not going to tell me you have never seen "Star Trek Voyager", are you?The avatar is a picture of one of the characters in the series. Her name is Seven of Nine, maybe you can do a bit of googling yourself.

Yeah but you're much better looking than she is.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You are quite handsome yourself. Orang-wise.

Oh Brad, you old Tart!! Flattery will get you everywhere . Although the colour problem was never really overcome (a conflict between vIEwing and MACking sense of it all), I appreciate the time you took to peruse and digest it all! Now this I completely agree with! (I think :confused

You spelled oogling wrong.

I responded to your dissemination "allegation"
http://EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall. -->EvC Forum: All about Brad McFall.
only I dont think it is for this four as I rarely ply purely (of) my own ideas much (any) more, even when I feel the need to

quote:

---

come back with a dissemination of ideas (another Derridian favourite!) that even Jacques lui-mme would have had great trouble deconstructing in any meaningful way. So I thought: maybe it works the other way around

---

When I first encounted that idea in JD, I was thinking of Lavosier and a gravitaional clinamen but the quote from Shepard deduces (transcendentally) that prior into something much more comprehensible and intelligiable, even if only by me.Funny thing how reality works. Its a small world actual all.

Thanks for your response. True. Many creationists would reject any such model for evolutionary possibility. I propose the challenge to you simply because evolutionists are attached to a system of thought which should be mathematically scrutinized, but isn't. Evolution will fall not because of creationism's triumph, but simply because the mechanism is seriously flawed and cannot produce the complexity and vast amounts of information on our planet. Creationism, and Theism is often rejected for other reasons than evolution. However, naturalism and evolution have made it "far more comfortable to be an intellectually fufilled athiest" according to Richard Dawkins. (The blind watchmaker)Information can certainly be defined genetically as well as in other forms. Hypothetical example. Suppose a DNA sequence which specified some trait were laid out as follows. IWILLCREATEAHAIRFOLLICLE. Then it mutates or replicates and mutates. ILLEICRSKDLFIELCKSHEIATEID Have you created any infromation? Can evolutionists point to one example where a DNA mutation created new information? Here's the issue put a different way. "In a classic experiment, [Sol] Spiegelman ... showed what happens to a molecular replicating system in a test tube, without any cellular organization around it. The replicating molecules (the nucleic acid templates) require an energy source, building blocks (i.e., nucleotide bases), and an enzyme to help the polymerization process that is involved in self-copying of the templates. Then away it goes, making more copies of the specific nucleotide sequences that define the initial templates. But the interesting result was that these initial templates did not stay the same; they were not accurately copied. They got shorter and shorter until they reached the minimal size compatible with the sequence retaining self-copying properties. And as they got shorter, the copying process went faster. So what happened with natural selection in a test tube: the shorter templates that copied themselves faster became more numerous, while the larger ones were gradually eliminated. This looks like Darwinian evolution in a test tube. But the interesting result was that this evolution went one way: toward greater simplicity. Actual evolution tends to go toward greater complexity, species becoming more elaborate in their structure and behavior, though the process can also go in reverse, toward simplicity. But DNA on its own can go nowhere but toward greater simplicity. In order for the evolution of complexity to occur, DNA has to be within a cellular context; the whole system evolves as a reproducing unit."IDer's are rejected by evolutionists and yes, essentially none have been pubilished in evolutionary peer reviewed articles. Stephen Meyer did get one pubished in one of these journals and it created quite a stir in evolutionary circles. The article was not retracted on it's merit, but wholly on the great outcry by evolutionists who felt threatened. Great change does not happen overnight. But will when evolutionists begin honestly critiquing the foundations of their theory.Please point me to one of those "beneficial" mutations.Evolution is directional. Look at where you start and look at what we have. Less Complex to more complex. While you may want to apply this to a smaller subset of events, or get philosophical, evolution is nothing without the ability to produce increasingly complexity. Otherrwise, you and I don't exist my friend, and that would get very philosophical.Without committing to a book, feel free to browse some of Dembski's writings at http://www.designinference.com/Do you seriously believe that life sprang from non life? Is it probable in your mind? Was it clay templates and billions of years, hot vents on the bottom of the sea floor, panspermia. I don't expect an answer, just an honest assessmentID'ers do not, as far as I know, do not propose rates for creation of information. Our point is that information does not spring from non information any more than energy can be produced from a perpetual motion machine. Creatures change as the information they pass from generation to the next is recombined, selected, deleted and then conveyed in a new offspring. DNA is a lot more complex than throwing dice. You don't just reconstitute new DNA structures by random processes and create meaningful information.Thanks for the discussion,Dan

a;lskjs;lslslkd;aslew02
L;LALSD8089F09A8SD VXCLAKSDF0W8E2LKJAF
928243;S97SOAS9D8LSD, ,COSOO8E9W867ELW
PWOIUE;SKHDLSKJDF;SAOIUSYFPOEIUWKCKSLDK
poIWLEKYOSEILSKYELKSD,C,SLIYUOWELIY;TLKSPlease enjoy the aforemtioned "information". I am sure it contains the answer to your questions. I am quite sure it is the pathway to our next evolutionary pathway and we can ditch this snail mail all together.Only to make a point. Done with a smile.Dan