What exactly is ID?

quote:

---

We know that if we change enough of the structure, the proteins become worthless in any way.

---

No, we don't because Axe didn't test for all possible functions. Worse still your claim is that you know HOW MUCH you can change the structure by without even considering what the function is.

quote:

---

But I never said it was wrong.

---

I told you what Dembski's measure of information is. You say it's wrong. You want to use a different measure. Seems pretty clear that you are saying that Dembski's measure is wrong.

quote:

---

A fabrication is when an observed pattern does not match any other pattern.

---

Wrong. A fabrication can still match other patterns - in fact you demonstrated exactly how to create such a fabrication. Just add a range of variation to the actual event. So long as the pattern cannot be determined independently of the event it is a fabrication.

quote:

---

And we never did that. I increased the chance of the flagellum forming as much as I could.

---

That's simply false. You didn't even increase it by enough to allow for the variations in structure that you allowed. There is a big difference between allowing any variation, so long as the result is at least 80% similar, and simply counting only 80% of the protein.

quote:

---

You are the one who is claiming they are different. And if they are different, they are irrelevant to our discussion.

---

If you were using the specification of a "bi-directional propellor" then any flagellum that meets that specification is relevant. If it is irrelevant simply for being outside the range of variation that you allow, then it simply proves that you are using a fabrication

quote:

---

You are the one who brought them up and claimed they have a spcification. Well, what's their specification?

---

I did not bring snowflakes up, nor did I claim that they had a specification.

quote:

---

I'm not talking about growth. I'm talking about accounting for the information that is used to build aflagellum. Flagellum's growth does not account for it. Flagellum's growth is the expression of already existing information. What we need to do, is account for how that information comes about in the first place.

---

Of course BECAUSE flagella grow you cannot use the organisation of the proteins in the flagellum to calculate the complexity - as Dembski does - since that growth relies on regularities. And to calculate the information needed to grow the flagellum you need to calculate the probability of that arising, considering all possible explanations. Which you refuse to do.

quote:

---

How can I both ignore and include all mutations at the same time?

---

Oh it's really, really simple. When you want to count how many occur you use all of them, because you want a high number. When you want an excuse for ignoring the possiiblity of beneficial mutations offsetting the effects of deleterious mutations you decide to ignore all those deleterious mutations that CAN be set by beneficial mutations. It's all very transparent.

quote:

---

Does that completely halt genetic entropy?

---

If the rate of removal at least exceeds the rate at which new deleterious mutations are introduced then genetic entropy HAS halted. And the lower the rate of deleterious mutations, the easier that is to achieve.

quote:

---

No, it's math. Math is proof. It's not a assumption. If it's an assumption that 1+1=2, than you're insane.

---

It is your assumption that 1+1=2 accurately describes the situation.

quote:

---

Natural selection will work better in larger than in smaller populations. But it will NEVER be perfect. Therefore geentic entropy will always occure.

---

Since my argument does not require that natural selection be perfect, your conclusion is premature.

quote:

---

It doesn't have to, you have have common sense to extrapolate. If small populations have more problems with genetic entropy, than larger populations will have less problems. But tell me how does that mean that some populations will have no problems whatsoever with genetic entropy

---

The papers don't say that large populations simply have less problems. They say only that meltdown sometimes occurs in small populations. Extrapolating that to the idea that large populations are liable to meltdown is simply not justifiable from the text of the papers.

quote:

---

No. By definition they are effectively neutral. They have such a smalle ffect that natural selection sees them as being neutral.

---

Of course this is wrong. Because the effect and natural selection "seeing them" are the same thing. You cannot have one without the other

quote:

---

Becasue there was not enough time!

---

If we only have theory to go on, then I for one will trust the theories of actual experts over those offered by creationists.

quote:

---

It matters to what!?!!? To slow down geentic entropy? Yes, it obviously does! That's what I've been saying from the start. But it does not matter to stopping genetic entropy. Becasue to stop it, population would ahve to be infinite in size. Which we know is not true.

---

You've not proven any such thing.

quote:

---

Why should we eliminate any mutations? Almost all degrade the genome. Even beneficial ones.

---

So you are saying that we should use a double standard in counting mutations because in your opinion (an opinion without objective support) all mutations "degrade" the genome in some way you haven't even described. Hardly a scientific attitude.

quote:

---

NOOOOOOOO!!!. You are clueless about this topic!!!! They are called NEAR NEUTRAL! Or Slightly deleterious.

​

Why?

​

Becasue they have such a small effect on reproduction that they are invisible to natural selection. They are spread around by genetic drift. In other words, by random chance.

---

On the contrary, it is you who does not understand. To be completely invisible to natural selection a mutation must be absolutely neutral. The most you can say of a nearly neutral mutation is that genetic drift has a larger effect on its spread than natural selection. Of course, in larger populations drift is weaker than in smaller populations. So again we see that population size matters.

No. I said that without a plausible explanation as to WHO or WHAT "designed" and/or HOW they "designed" you have no reason to conclude "design".All of your arguments boil down to mathematics. You claim there is a low percentage chance of X occurring naturally. However, you don't have any idea how large the data set is, therefore a percentage is a useless measurement. IF! IF! IF! IF DNA IS DESIGNED. You don't have any evidence to prove that it is! No. It isn't. You can not demonstrate a single example of this so called complexity which you can prove has arisen from design. Nor can you produce an example, based on your standards, of something which you KNOW was NOT designed.You have no field against which to gauge your guesses. Only because you KNOW the mechanism of creating a car.You DON'T know the mechanism for creating a Xylorprop, therefore if I present you with one you CAN'T tell if it was designed or not.Since you DON'T know the mechanism of your so called design, you can't conclude it was designed. We know from experience that non-intelligence also creates information.Therefore, this is not the bases for your conclusions. First off "hindu-muslim" as a term makes NO sense. Muslims are members of your "Jew Wizard" cult. Hindus are polythesists. Further, you've already accused me of being a fundamentalist atheist.Clearly you are completely confused from head to toe.

quote:

---

No, we don't because Axe didn't test for all possible functions. Worse still your claim is that you know HOW MUCH you can change the structure by without even considering what the function is.

---

He mutated the Beta lactamase protein to se when will it lose it's function. What other functions does it have except this one?

quote:

---

I told you what Dembski's measure of information is. You say it's wrong. You want to use a different measure. Seems pretty clear that you are saying that Dembski's measure is wrong.

---

Whatever you said is not what Dembski said. You can't even tell the difference between the specification and a fabrication, so why would I trst you. I don't believe anything you say. You claim to have read TDI. If you really did, can you give me the definition of spceification, exactly it was written in TDI?

quote:

---

Wrong. A fabrication can still match other patterns - in fact you demonstrated exactly how to create such a fabrication. Just add a range of variation to the actual event. So long as the pattern cannot be determined independently of the event it is a fabrication.

---

How can it be wrong? Dembski himslef said it that way?

quote:

---

That's simply false. You didn't even increase it by enough to allow for the variations in structure that you allowed. There is a big difference between allowing any variation, so long as the result is at least 80% similar, and simply counting only 80% of the protein.

---

I increased the chance by 20%, what more was I supposed to do?

quote:

---

If you were using the specification of a "bi-directional propellor" then any flagellum that meets that specification is relevant. If it is irrelevant simply for being outside the range of variation that you allow, then it simply proves that you are using a fabrication

---

They are irrelevant because of the difference in their complexity. We are than dealing with totally different machines. Which have more or less CSI. If they have the same complxity, than calcualting flagellums CSI is the same as calcualting their CSI.

quote:

---

I did not bring snowflakes up, nor did I claim that they had a specification.

---

Than what did you bring up? Salt crystals, that's the same.

quote:

---

Of course BECAUSE flagella grow you cannot use the organisation of the proteins in the flagellum to calculate the complexity - as Dembski does - since that growth relies on regularities.

---

We are setting aside that now. You see that doesn't help you. Becasue of two reasons. First is that growth does not create information itself. It only unpacks the already existing information. So yes, we do have to calculate the whole structure when it's funished.And second, you would have to account for the information of the growth information and mechanisms. Which means that this reduces teh probability of the flagellum nd the growth mechanism arising without design. This goes totally against your claim.

quote:

---

And to calculate the information needed to grow the flagellum you need to calculate the probability of that arising, considering all possible explanations. Which you refuse to do.

---

As I just said above, This does not help you in any possible way. This would just increase the amount of information, and decrease the chance.

quote:

---

Oh it's really, really simple. When you want to count how many occur you use all of them, because you want a high number. When you want an excuse for ignoring the possiiblity of beneficial mutations offsetting the effects of deleterious mutations you decide to ignore all those deleterious mutations that CAN be set by beneficial mutations. It's all very transparent.

---

You don't get it. I'm not saying that two deleterious mutations may not act as a beneficial, unlike where one deleterious mutation would just be deleterious. I'm saying that that does not help you because that still leads to degradation of genetic information in the genome, which leads to genetic entropy.

quote:

---

If the rate of removal at least exceeds the rate at which new deleterious mutations are introduced then genetic entropy HAS halted.

---

Completely WRONG! This is why you fail to understand what genetic entropy is, and how it works.Genetic entropy is NOT about beneficial VS deleterious mutations! It's about accumulation of ANY mutations.Beneficial mutations still degrade genetic information and cause genetic entropy.

quote:

---

And the lower the rate of deleterious mutations, the easier that is to achieve.

---

No. Because as I said, beneficial mutations still cause loss of genetic information.

quote:

---

It is your assumption that 1+1=2 accurately describes the situation.

---

Well than, let's hear your model.

quote:

---

Since my argument does not require that natural selection be perfect, your conclusion is premature.

---

Yes it does. Becasue if mutations can't be eliminated 100%, they will logically accumulate!

quote:

---

The papers don't say that large populations simply have less problems. They say only that meltdown sometimes occurs in small populations. Extrapolating that to the idea that large populations are liable to meltdown is simply not justifiable from the text of the papers.

---

Actually, the last paper I posted actually says just that.

quote:

---

Of course this is wrong. Because the effect and natural selection "seeing them" are the same thing. You cannot have one without the other

---

Yes I can. There is no such thing as 100% neutral mutation. And since natural selection is not 100% accurate, some mutations which are deleterious do not get noticed. Look at this picture. This is from a paper by Motoo Kimura. He has shown that some mutations are nearly neutral. They are in the shaded area. They have such a small effect on fitness that they do not get selected, and they keep accumulation in the population.

quote:

---

If we only have theory to go on, then I for one will trust the theories of actual experts over those offered by creationists.

---

In otehr words, you already made up your mind and you don't care what anyone who des not agree with you has to say...

quote:

---

You've not proven any such thing.

---

Not to you because nothing can be proven to you, can it?

quote:

---

So you are saying that we should use a double standard in counting mutations because in your opinion (an opinion without objective support) all mutations "degrade" the genome in some way you haven't even described. Hardly a scientific attitude.

---

Almost all mutations degrade the genome. Even beneficial ones. Liek sickle cell. It makes the red blood cell less efficient, but it's considered as beneficial.

quote:

---

On the contrary, it is you who does not understand. To be completely invisible to natural selection a mutation must be absolutely neutral. The most you can say of a nearly neutral mutation is that genetic drift has a larger effect on its spread than natural selection. Of course, in larger populations drift is weaker than in smaller populations. So again we see that population size matters.

---

I never said that it doesn't matter. I just said that to completely halt genetic entropy you would have to have perfect selection. Which we do not have. And no, Kimura has shown that nearly neutral mutations have low effect on the fitness, yet are invisible to natural selection, because of the noise.

quote:

---

No. I said that without a plausible explanation as to WHO or WHAT "designed" and/or HOW they "designed" you have no reason to conclude "design".

---

Which is just plain stupid you Hindu-Muslim, because even if we did have a plausible explanation for the Who/where/what designed DNA, it wouldn't hel us one bit in actually detecting design. We are better of at finding marks of design.

quote:

---

All of your arguments boil down to mathematics. You claim there is a low percentage chance of X occurring naturally. However, you don't have any idea how large the data set is, therefore a percentage is a useless measurement.

---

You should have read my whole last post because I precisely described why 1:10^120 is the ultimate chance to consider. There is no less chance than this. Therefore, if soemthing has less chance than this, and is also specified, it is designed. Why do you keep misrepresenting me, with your flawed Hindu-Muslim logic?

quote:

---

IF! IF! IF! IF DNA IS DESIGNED.

---

Assuming htat it is, doesn't that also mean there was a designer? I mean, don't they teach you basic logic at Hindu-Muslim church-schools?

quote:

---

You don't have any evidence to prove that it is!

---

CSI is the evidence DNA was designed. Unlike no evidence for your Hindu-Muslim chance god.

quote:

---

No. It isn't. You can not demonstrate a single example of this so called complexity which you can prove has arisen from design. Nor can you produce an example, based on your standards, of something which you KNOW was NOT designed.

​

You have no field against which to gauge your guesses.

---

This whole topic, and the words written on it, is an example of specified complexity. And if you weren't a Hindu-Muslim, you would have known that.

quote:

---

Only because you KNOW the mechanism of creating a car.

---

Even if I did not know that, it would still be true. And you would still be a Hindu-Muslim.

quote:

---

You DON'T know the mechanism for creating a Xylorprop, therefore if I present you with one you CAN'T tell if it was designed or not.

---

You can't present me with something that doesn't exist. Liek your Hindu-Muslim chance god who supposedly created all life by evolution.

quote:

---

Since you DON'T know the mechanism of your so called design, you can't conclude it was designed.

---

Neitehr do you knwo how the Rosetta stone was designed, so you can't infer design. And no, your Hindu-Muslim chance god is not the answer.

quote:

---

We know from experience that non-intelligence also creates information.

​

Therefore, this is not the bases for your conclusions.

---

By information I mean CSI unless stated otherwise. Natural causes do not create CSI, only intelligence does. Un like your non-existent Hindu-Muslim chance god.

quote:

---

First off "hindu-muslim" as a term makes NO sense. Muslims are members of your "Jew Wizard" cult. Hindus are polythesists. Further, you've already accused me of being a fundamentalist atheist.

​

Clearly you are completely confused from head to toe.

---

No, you are confused since you are a Hindu-Muslim, not me. You are a chance worshipping Hindu-Muslim, be proud of it already!

oh, I smell one massive assumption of front-loading Please guys, surely this troll is long past his sell-buy date? I can smell the stink from here.

You _CAN NOT_ detect design if you don't know HOW design is made.If I present you with a crystal, it would appear designed so long as you didn't know HOW crystals were formed. If you know HOW crystals are formed, there's no reason to suspect it's designed.Without knowing method YOU CANT JUDGE results. And that claim is incorrect. So IF we ASSUME that design exists THEREFORE there is a designer.SO IF we ASSUME that a faller exists THEREFORE there is an intelligent faller. As I am clearly neither of these things, I'm not particularly offended. However, since there are RULES to these forums, I suggest you ease up on the name calling before they boot your ass.

Since you clearly are having a lot of trouble with this, I'm gonna radically simplify and see if you can follow.There is a word: "tea" which is constructed of individual letters "t" "e" and "a".The letters in and of themselves don't express a meaning, however when put together in a specific order they spell out the word "tea" which has a specific meaning.If you change the letters around, they no longer spell "tea" and therefore the meaning (a drink made from soaking leaves in water) is no longer expressed.However, if you look at all the combos:tea, tae, aet, ate, eta, eatYou will notice that "tea", "ate" and "eat" are common words. "eta" is a common term, "tae" is a word from a different language than English and AET is the stock symbol for a large company.In other words, just because a combo NO LONGER expresses the ORIGINAL bit of information doesn't mean that the NEW combo doesn't express any information.

quote:

---

You _CAN NOT_ detect design if you don't know HOW design is made.

---

You can't detect design in Rosetta stone, if you don't know how it was made. But than again, you are a Hindu-Muslim, so you have no logic to judge with.

quote:

---

If I present you with a crystal, it would appear designed so long as you didn't know HOW crystals were formed.

---

Wrong. I already told you. Why do I must repeat myself? No specification = no design. Crystals = no specification = no design. End of story. Don't brng it up again. Unless you're a Hindu-Muslim, then you would think crystals were designed.

quote:

---

HOW crystals are formed, there's no reason to suspect it's designed.

---

Neitehr do I claim they were designed. But if you saw an alien spaceship for the first time in your life. You would still conclude it was designed, without knowing how it was made. Unlike your Hindu-Muslim chance god, who doesn't exist.

quote:

---

Without knowing method YOU CANT JUDGE results.

---

Since you don't know how Rosetta stone was made, you can't say it was designed. So stop pushing your Hindu-Muslim religion into my face already!

quote:

---

And that claim is incorrect.

---

Explain why. Oh, and btw. you're a Hindu-Muslim.

quote:

---

So IF we ASSUME that design exists THEREFORE there is a designer.

​

SO IF we ASSUME that a faller exists THEREFORE there is an intelligent faller.

---

No, you insane Hindu-Muslim! It was a hypotehtical question! Are you that drugged up on heroin that you can't even tell a hypothetical question when you see one?

quote:

---

As I am clearly neither of these things, I'm not particularly offended. However, since there are RULES to these forums, I suggest you ease up on the name calling before they boot your ass.

---

When you stop using stupid names as "Jew Wizard" than I'll stop. If you can claim that I'm a Christian, than I can claim that you're a Hindu-Muslim bishop. There you just got promoted!

quote:

---

Since you clearly are having a lot of trouble with this, I'm gonna radically simplify and see if you can follow.

​

There is a word: "tea" which is constructed of individual letters "t" "e" and "a".

​

The letters in and of themselves don't express a meaning, however when put together in a specific order they spell out the word "tea" which has a specific meaning.

​

If you change the letters around, they no longer spell "tea" and therefore the meaning (a drink made from soaking leaves in water) is no longer expressed.

​

However, if you look at all the combos:

​

tea, tae, aet, ate, eta, eat

​

You will notice that "tea", "ate" and "eat" are common words. "eta" is a common term, "tae" is a word from a different language than English and AET is the stock symbol for a large company.

​

In other words, just because a combo NO LONGER expresses the ORIGINAL bit of information doesn't mean that the NEW combo doesn't express any information.

---

What about the word "PROFESSIONAL"? You can't mutate that one that much, now can you?And that is precisely what Axe's work was about. To find how much working sequences there were for this particular protein. And he found that the functional sequences are like an island of functionality in a sea of meaninglessness. In toehr words, you can change about 20% of the protein before it looses it's function. And than, there is this whole sequence space which is totally useless for biological functions. It has absolutely no function whatsoever.

Thread summary, for my small part at least:Let it be noted that after several opportunities Smooth Operator has been unwilling--or unable--to defend his claims concerning "genetic entropy."Given the 3.5 billion years life has been around, the only conclusion one can reach is that life has reached an equilibrium with mutations, deleterious or otherwise. There is no inevitable sliding downhill to impending disaster because of "genetic entropy."The only way one could reach a conclusion to the contrary is by ignoring scientific evidence and instead accepting a belief in a ca. 6,000 year old creation and a decline from "perfection" based on the biblical concept of "the fall."Is this why Smooth Operator is ignoring my posts? Because he can't refute them without further exposing the fact that biblical literalism--not science--is at the root of his arguments? And that biblical literalism has been shown once again to be wrong?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Which of the two words "small" and "population" is giving you difficulties? Hello, Earth to creationist.When the genetic bottleneck was 300 individuals or more, genetic meltdown did not take place.If you wish to make the claim, unsupported by observation, that it should have taken place, it's up to you to explain why your daydreams trump reality.For my part, I have explained to you why meltdown will not take place if the population is sufficiently large. Let me point out once more that you are telling this lie to someone who, unlike you, has a PhD in math. Once more, you are lying to me about my own opinions. Not only are you a liar, but you are a stupid liar, because there is not the faintest iota of a possibility that you will deceive me.Why do you lie when you know that you're going to get caught? If you're going to claim that some proposition applies to every species, then I should like some sort of experimental evidence besides one experiment proving that you're wrong. I did. This is why I reject your absurd fantasies. I didn't say that I agreed with all of them. But you pretended that "everyone" has a different definition. To falsify that, it is only necessary for me to find two people who can agree on the definition. small (sml)
adj. smaller, smallest
1. Being below the average in size or magnitude.
2. Limited in importance or significance; trivial: a small matter.
3. Limited in degree or scope: small farm operations.
4. Lacking position, influence, or status; minor: "A crowd of small writers had vainly attempted to rival Addison" (Thomas Macaulay).
5. Unpretentious; modest: made a small living; helped the cause in my own small way.
6. Not fully grown; very young.
7. Narrow in outlook; petty: a small mind.
8. Having been belittled; humiliated: Their comments made me feel small.
9. Diluted; weak. Used of alcoholic beverages.
10. Lacking force or volume: a small voice.
adv.
1. In small pieces: Cut the meat up small.
2. Without loudness or forcefulness; softly.
3. In a small manner.
n.
1. A part that is smaller or narrower than the rest: the small of the back.
2. smalls
a. Small things considered as a group.
b. Chiefly British Small items of clothing. You remember you I explained to you that your daydreams were not evidence? It stops it dead.When the population is big enough that the fixation rate of beneficial mutations is greater than the fixation rate of deleterious mutations, then genetic meltdown will not occur. Your fantasies are amusing. Back in reality, because I have a PhD in math, I found it easy to spot the ludicrous blunders you made when you pretended that you understood the No Free Lunch Theorem. This statement is ludicrously wrong. It is ludicrously, risibly, comically wrong.It is also contemptibly wrong. This is what's wrong with creationists --- you go shooting your stupid mouths off about things that you've never taken a moment to study. If you knew what the No Free Lunch Theorem actually says, you'd never have said anything so droolingly pathetically halfwitted. But you want to talk about the theorem without having spent half a minute studying it.You've never tried to be right. This is why you're wrong. When you understand what the No Free Lunch Theorem says, you will understand why this question is a pointless diversion. You inadvertently said something that was true.When you understand the No Free Lunch Theorem, you will understand why it is true.I'm going to snip out your other ravings about the No Free Lunch Theorem, because my answer to them is the same as the answer I've already given --- go away and study the No Free Lunch Theorem until you understand it. You are lying to me about me.I have already pointed out to you the futility of this exercise.Let's think about it this way. The two of us disagree about mathematics. One of us has a PhD in math. The other, let's be fair, is a self-conceited halfwit who has never undertaken any serious study of the subject he's babbling about. Which of us is more likely to be right about math? I have an easy target. It would be difficult not to mock your mistakes. Evolution. Random search. Simulated annealing. No.Let me explain.When I say that your daydreams are not evidence, I am not "basicly", nor even basically, saying that 100 + 100 is not equal to 200. What I am saying is that your daydreams are not evidence. Well, apart from my statement being right and your statement being wrong, I guess there is a resemblance between them. Your lies continue to amuse me. No, of course not.Let me talk you through this.When I said: "Really, when you tell lies this stupid, how can you expect people to regard you as anything but a clown?", what I meant was that when you tell lies this stupid, you can hardly expect people to regard you as anything but a clown.You will notice that nothing in that statement refers to your attitudes towards religion, a subject on which I have never speculated. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to drive you into hysteria. I just want you to learn the basics of the math that you're talking such pitiful garbage about.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Your ravings about "Hindu-Muslims" persuade me that you have actually been driven insane with rage and frustration by the ease with which sane people prove you wrong.Literally, insane. Your fantasies appear to have destroyed your connection with reality to such a degree that I think you might actually be mad enough to believe the things that you're saying.This makes me feel sorry for you, and I don't want to. Please relieve me by letting me know that the more stupid and delirious of your ravings are deliberate lies, rather than sincere insanity.

Seriously? Admins, this is ALL from one post after about 4 posts of the exact same crap.How often does this have to happen before someone steps in?

quote:

---

Which of the two words "small" and "population" is giving you difficulties?

---

I want a number. Is 10 a small population? Is 100 a small population? What number of individuals is a small population?

quote:

---

Hello, Earth to creationist.

​

When the genetic bottleneck was 300 individuals or more, genetic meltdown did not take place.

​

If you wish to make the claim, unsupported by observation, that it should have taken place, it's up to you to explain why your daydreams trump reality.

​

For my part, I have explained to you why meltdown will not take place if the population is sufficiently large.

---

But why did it no happen? Because genetic entropy totally stopped? Or is it because it needed more time to happen?

quote:

---

Let me point out once more that you are telling this lie to someone who, unlike you, has a PhD in math.

---

So what? Your PhD is useless if you don't know any math. Which obviously you don't.

quote:

---

Once more, you are lying to me about my own opinions. Not only are you a liar, but you are a stupid liar, because there is not the faintest iota of a possibility that you will deceive me.

​

Why do you lie when you know that you're going to get caught?

---

Than explain yourself. Why does 100+100 does equal 200, but genetic entropy completely halts at a finite increase of population, even if that means that natural selection is not perfect.

quote:

---

If you're going to claim that some proposition applies to every species, then I should like some sort of experimental evidence besides one experiment proving that you're wrong.

---

What stupid logic. You stole your PhD, im sure of it!NEWSFLASH! ALL animals on Earth have this thing I'm applying my extrapolation to. It's called a genome! And it's based on DNA.

quote:

---

I did. This is why I reject your absurd fantasies.

---

No you didn't you clown! You just proved in your last qute that you CAN'T extrapolate! You weren't even able to extrapolate based on the genome! LOL! I'm laughing at you right now!

quote:

---

I didn't say that I agreed with all of them. But you pretended that "everyone" has a different definition. To falsify that, it is only necessary for me to find two people who can agree on the definition.

---

Not everyone, but almost everyone has a diferent definition.

quote:

---

small (sml)
adj. smaller, smallest
1. Being below the average in size or magnitude.
2. Limited in importance or significance; trivial: a small matter.
3. Limited in degree or scope: small farm operations.
4. Lacking position, influence, or status; minor: "A crowd of small writers had vainly attempted to rival Addison" (Thomas Macaulay).
5. Unpretentious; modest: made a small living; helped the cause in my own small way.
6. Not fully grown; very young.
7. Narrow in outlook; petty: a small mind.
8. Having been belittled; humiliated: Their comments made me feel small.
9. Diluted; weak. Used of alcoholic beverages.
10. Lacking force or volume: a small voice.
adv.
1. In small pieces: Cut the meat up small.
2. Without loudness or forcefulness; softly.
3. In a small manner.
n.
1. A part that is smaller or narrower than the rest: the small of the back.
2. smalls
a. Small things considered as a group.
b. Chiefly British Small items of clothing.

---

Do you understand that none of those give me a number. Tehrefore, your definition is relative. And therefore can not be used as a marker for absolute effects. For instance, you can't say that genetic entropy will stop when teh population is large, becasue compared to another population, it may be small. Do you understand that?

quote:

---

You remember you I explained to you that your daydreams were not evidence?

---

When you understand the difference between relative and absolute descriptions than you will be able to explain something to me. Untill than, youre nothiung but a clown to me.

quote:

---

It stops it dead.

​

When the population is big enough that the fixation rate of beneficial mutations is greater than the fixation rate of deleterious mutations, then genetic meltdown will not occur.

---

What a disgrace you are! LOL! You are wrong in two ways.1.) As I said earlier, for that to be true, you clown, you would have to have an infinitely large population, for natural selection to be perfectly good. If it's not perfectly good, than any population can be considered small or large in relative terms only. So that stopping of genetic entropy does not apply to something that is only relative.2.) Again, you are wrong about this because even beneficial mutations degrade the information in the genome. And they also contribute to genetic entropy. Like sickle cell, which is considered a beneficial mutation, yet it makes the red blood cells less efficient.

quote:

---

Your fantasies are amusing. Back in reality, because I have a PhD in math, I found it easy to spot the ludicrous blunders you made when you pretended that you understood the No Free Lunch Theorem.

---

Wow, how smart you must be! Are you proud of yourself right now?

quote:

---

This statement is ludicrously wrong. It is ludicrously, risibly, comically wrong.

​

It is also contemptibly wrong. This is what's wrong with creationists --- you go shooting your stupid mouths off about things that you've never taken a moment to study. If you knew what the No Free Lunch Theorem actually says, you'd never have said anything so droolingly pathetically halfwitted. But you want to talk about the theorem without having spent half a minute studying it.

​

You've never tried to be right. This is why you're wrong.

---

This is not an argument. You just said I was wrong. Exlain why.

quote:

---

When you understand what the No Free Lunch Theorem says, you will understand why this question is a pointless diversion.

---

Oh, but I do understand. And if you think I don't. Than do go ahead, and point out why I'm wrong.

quote:

---

You inadvertently said something that was true.

​

When you understand the No Free Lunch Theorem, you will understand why it is true.

​

I'm going to snip out your other ravings about the No Free Lunch Theorem, because my answer to them is the same as the answer I've already given --- go away and study the No Free Lunch Theorem until you understand it.

---

Are you just going to keep telling me to go learn about something that I already know more than you ever will? Because that's just plain pathetic...

quote:

---

You are lying to me about me.

​

I have already pointed out to you the futility of this exercise.

​

Let's think about it this way. The two of us disagree about mathematics. One of us has a PhD in math. The other, let's be fair, is a self-conceited halfwit who has never undertaken any serious study of the subject he's babbling about. Which of us is more likely to be right about math?

---

You stole your PhD. Admit it already...

quote:

---

I have an easy target. It would be difficult not to mock your mistakes.

---

What mistakes?

quote:

---

Evolution. Random search. Simulated annealing.

---

Where has that been demonstrated?

quote:

---

No.

​

Let me explain.

​

When I say that your daydreams are not evidence, I am not "basicly", nor even basically, saying that 100 + 100 is not equal to 200. What I am saying is that your daydreams are not evidence.

---

Keep it up, I'm not going anywhere. What was it you were saying about 100 + 100 not being 200?

quote:

---

Well, apart from my statement being right and your statement being wrong, I guess there is a resemblance between them.

---

Why is my statement wrong?

quote:

---

Your lies continue to amuse me.

---

You mean your lies?

quote:

---

No, of course not.

​

Let me talk you through this.

​

When I said: "Really, when you tell lies this stupid, how can you expect people to regard you as anything but a clown?", what I meant was that when you tell lies this stupid, you can hardly expect people to regard you as anything but a clown.

​

You will notice that nothing in that statement refers to your attitudes towards religion, a subject on which I have never speculated.

---

Great. But do you think I'm a Christian, or not?

quote:

---

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to drive you into hysteria. I just want you to learn the basics of the math that you're talking such pitiful garbage about.

---

From who? A guy who stole his PhD?

quote:

---

Your ravings about "Hindu-Muslims" persuade me that you have actually been driven insane with rage and frustration by the ease with which sane people prove you wrong.

​

Literally, insane. Your fantasies appear to have destroyed your connection with reality to such a degree that I think you might actually be mad enough to believe the things that you're saying.

​

This makes me feel sorry for you, and I don't want to. Please relieve me by letting me know that the more stupid and delirious of your ravings are deliberate lies, rather than sincere insanity.

---

Naw... I jsut think it's funny to call people what they are not, in return for calling me something that I'm not. It's really childish, I must admit, but I didn't start it, so why should I stop? Oh, and btw. I noticed you didn't even remotely address my Vertical NFL theorem explanation, and my diagram. Are you kidding me? Why are you still here, when, you have clearly shown that you didn't get what I was presenting to you? Go on, admit that you didn't get it. At least I'll have more respect than I have now...

quote:

---

Seriously? Admins, this is ALL from one post after about 4 posts of the exact same crap.

​

How often does this have to happen before someone steps in?

---

How many times do I have to read the words "Jew Wizard" and "Jew Magic Beams"? Are you retarded?Are you really that STUPID not to understand that you started it, and that I was getting back at you for being so childish? Are you really that braindead nto to get that simple fact, that if you start acting like an idiot, you should expect to get the same treatment back?

I actually knew a Hindu-Muslim at one point.Really he had just added Allah to his collection, you know? Had a bit of mosque decor up against the east wall of one room, facing Mecca, in between some voudun guys on one side and Yahweh and three Jesuses on the other. Basically every once in a while, when he got the yen, he liked to kneel on his prayer-rug there and bang his head against the ground and chant some Arabic. Not 5 times a day though, closer to 5 times a year.I told him that sort of thing was just going to get him killed. He said "Yes, yes, it is so. Many times already I have been killed." A shrug and a sly half-smile, and he was off, burning incense to the Laughing Buddha and polishing his Kali again. Uhm, no, it's about the deleterious ones. Hence the name. The neutral ones don't do much of anything, again hence the name. Oh, if they pile up long enough you get an emergent property, which may be good or bad, but nature just kills it. As long as the population is big enough to where the genes involved aren't the sole representatives, the species gets right over it.Don't let me discourage you though. You are really just courting martrydom at this point anyway, right?Shame you aren't Muslim yourself. They are a lot more fun to watch when they martyr ....