Posted on 06/17/2002 3:10:50 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
LOL, I finally got a chance to examine the code. I think you're right!
howz your search ..."for the creator via evolution"---going?
One day is excusable but the eighteen or so years Shermer has had to examine the code speaks tellingly of his "skepticism". By the way, why would anyone need a magazine in order to be skeptical? Is it a crib sheet for new excuses for Darwinians?
As I understand it, it goes more into debunking mentalists, UFOs, Holocaust deniers... things like that.
I know just kidding. Those things aren't on my radar screen.
This doesn't agree with quantum mechanics experimentally (at least not so far.) The described concept of random seems only to apply to sentience whereas most physics would ascribe randomness only to inanimate things.
Of course I should've pinged you too to check my math, Dr. Stochastic!
Yes, that is nice, but if you notice the paper you are referring is dated 1991 and the one to which I refer is dated Mar 2002 as it is out of ADVANCES IN COMPLEX SYSTEMS Mar 2002 issue. The statements "Here, random texts and real texts are compared through (a) the so-called lexical spectrum and (b) the distribution of words having the same length. It is shown that real texts fill the lexical spectrum much more efficiently and regardless of the word length, suggesting that the meaningfulness of Zipf's law is high." appear to answer the contention in the 1991 paper, namely "The facts that the frequency of occurrence of a word is almost an inverse power-law function of its rank and the exponent of this inverse power law is very close to 1 are largely due to the transformation from the word's length to its rank, which stretches an exponential function to a power-law function".
No, you are absolutely wrong and if you look it up instead of looking for excuses for you phony evolution, you would stop repeating that nonsense. The chances are 50% because there are two alleles and by all scientific research either one is as likely to be chosen as the other. Since a new gene would have no allele it would only have a 50% of going on to the next generation. If it survived, it would only have a 50% chance of continuing to the next one and so on until such time as it had spread enough that sometimes both parents would have such a gene, so stop talking garbage and start facing the truth. You must remember this is a new gene - no one else has it. The chances of its spreading are very slim indeed. Because there is no selective advantage in a useless gene the chances of its spreading are always the same 50% at each reproduction. Such genes dissappear from the population for the same reason that any gene which which is detrimental (and that is the basis of your stupid evolution) dissappears if it goes around killing those who have it - because the rate of reproduction of that particular gene is less than that of the population at large. Even if you start with a population of one million with half having one gene (call it A) who reproduces at 100% and the other half which reproduces at 90% of the rate of the first gene (call it B), gene B will almost dissappear and be in less 1/1000th of the population in a mere 100 generations.
And no, 4, 5 and 6 do not magically dissappear as a problem to evolution no matter how much you would like them to. The one chance of finding a correct series of mutation at random (because again the gene is non functional) is astronomical. In addition to which, regardless of your nonsense about 'inefficiency is good' carrying extra baggage which does nothing is never beneficial, if you don't believe me, put ten pound weights on your clothes and start carrying them around for a while and let me know how much benefit you derived from it.
How much nonsense can you put in one post? Nothing depends on knowing the mind of the designer, nothing at all. We have a model in the DNA code which almost exactly replicates the way computer code has been written (only that the way the DNA code was done much better). It is also not an intuition, we have gone over this a long time and you have already agreed that this is indeed the way programming has been done, so cut the nonsense on that. And RWNilla has not given a single piece of evidence for his statements least of all the one you mention. In fact he said no such thing to me. Lastly, it does not matter what has been found up to now. Fact is that we keep finding new things going on in the non-coding DNA on a daily basis. Your statement that this much or that much is garbage is total nonsense. You are arguing from scientific ignorance and everyday that scientific ignorance is being pushed away. In addition to which it really does not matter for my argument if the code is in 1% or 150% of the DNA. What matters is that such a program is certainly in effect, that such actions have been shown by scientists to be going on in the genome, and that such actions explain quite well how things which we know do happen - such as how a cell comes to be such and such a kind of cell, how the body changes from conception to death, how the body reacts to the environment and internal conditions take place occurs. So no, you are just blowing smoke and you cannot refute a single statement I have made with any scientific evidence.
You can make all the correct calculations you want, if your premises are wrong, the result is wrong. Evolutionists claim that a slight difference in reproduction of a trait can make a man out of a bacteria. Yet they at the same time claim that a 50% less reproduction of a trait is inconsequential? Are you guys mad? Or are you guys such utterly desperate that now you are going to tell us the theory of evolution changed again in the last 15 seconds????
And the important part of your statement in the above is 'so far'. Everything that is little known looks random. Until recently we thought that weather was pretty random. But nowadays we can follow how weather changes pretty well and know why things happen. We know very little about quantum mechanics yet, evidence is very hard to get. In fact the randomness may be due to our ignorance - we may be following a wrong path or a wrong hypothesis and thus the observed effects look random. It is way too soon to tell that this is an example of randomness in nature.
You're missing some of the fun, Patrick. When somebody blows one of gore's assertions totally and hopelessly out of the water, you know he isn't going to just acknowledge the correction. Remember whales and hippos? "Wildly elliptical?" 1720? The Line of Death? (Ooops! That was somebody else!)
Jennyp's 1616, supposedly rebutted by gore's 1631.
We have here the full-blown Holy-Warrior Syndrome brazen. "I'm caught out but by God nobody's going to make me see it."
[Dunno why, but everytime I read his posts, this is what pops into mind]
Yes, continue to blind yourself to the truth, it is the only way to continue to hold on to your faith in your materialistic/atheistic evolution theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.