RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (17) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 >   
  Topic: Otangelo's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2016,11:54   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2016,22:41)
[quote=Otangelo,Jan. 09 2016,18:45]
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 19 2015,21:01)
Quote (Otangelo @ Dec. 16 2015,16:59)


Question: Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?

Question :  Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?

Question :  Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by NON "intelligent agents" at all ?

Yes.

I believe these were already mentioned for you.

1) Stars
2) Termites
3) Crystals
4) Rock Layers

Now answer the question.

Do you or do you now, have evidence of "information rich systems" being produced by intelligent agents other than humans?

non of your examples contain complex, specified, coded information, as found in a book, a computer code, a partiture, or a morse code, or..... dna.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2016,11:56   

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 10 2016,11:45)
Oooooh -- "hyper mega irreducible complexity"!
Not impressive.
There is no such thing as 'irreducible complexity'.
Your arguments from incredulity do not serve to establish the meaningfulness and applicability of the alleged concept.
It has less relevance to science than 'the current king of France' does to politics.
For the same reason.

Meanwhile, your concept of a supernatural entity is incoherent, internally contradictory, and unsupported by evidence of any sort.
Just the sort of thing you find intellectually satisfying.

Shameful.

Are your thought natural, or supernatural ?
if they are natural, can you detect , feel, smell, taste , see them ?
If not, they cannot be examined scientifically....

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2016,12:02   

Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 12 2016,11:54)
[quote=OgreMkV,Jan. 09 2016,22:41]
Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 09 2016,18:45)
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 19 2015,21:01)
 
Quote (Otangelo @ Dec. 16 2015,16:59)


Question: Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?

Question :  Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?

Question :  Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by NON "intelligent agents" at all ?

Yes.

I believe these were already mentioned for you.

1) Stars
2) Termites
3) Crystals
4) Rock Layers

Now answer the question.

Do you or do you now, have evidence of "information rich systems" being produced by intelligent agents other than humans?

non of your examples contain complex, specified, coded information, as found in a book, a computer code, a partiture, or a morse code, or..... dna.

Of course not.

I didn't think you would accept it.

You've defined (without telling us, despite us asking) information as only being produced by intelligence. Congratulations. You've created a circular argument.

Information can only come from intelligence. Therefore any thing that comes from non-intelligent sources is not information.

Tell you what. Define all that clap trap you've babbled about information in a robust, repeatable, mathematical system... then we'll talk. Until then, enjoy your circle jerk.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2016,12:13   

Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 12 2016,12:56)
Quote (NoName @ Jan. 10 2016,11:45)
Oooooh -- "hyper mega irreducible complexity"!
Not impressive.
There is no such thing as 'irreducible complexity'.
Your arguments from incredulity do not serve to establish the meaningfulness and applicability of the alleged concept.
It has less relevance to science than 'the current king of France' does to politics.
For the same reason.

Meanwhile, your concept of a supernatural entity is incoherent, internally contradictory, and unsupported by evidence of any sort.
Just the sort of thing you find intellectually satisfying.

Shameful.

Are your thought natural, or supernatural ?
if they are natural, can you detect , feel, smell, taste , see them ?
If not, they cannot be examined scientifically....

Massively dishonest.

What does it mean for something to be 'supernatural'?
What distinguishes the natural and the supernatural?

The general consensus, even amongst dualists, idealists, and religionists of most stripes, is that thoughts are natural.
The are 'detected' in the thinking of them.
Thoughts stop when brain activity stops.
Of course, for some out there, thoughts never start.
Or perhaps you are simply unable to detect your own thoughts.
That might account for your incoherent, internally contradictory, and unsupported by any evidence whatsoever notions.

Are your thoughts supernatural?
Are supernatural entities, processes, and/or events detectable?  If so, how?
Are they public, that is accessible to multiple individuals as the same entities, processes, and/or events?
If so, how?
And how do they, then, differ from natural entities, processes, and/or events?

ETA:  You clearly do not know enough  about science to dictate what the pre-requisites are for something to be susceptible to scientific study.  Yet another shameful behavior on your part.
You make a particularly contemptible representative of whatever superstition you partake in.

  
Cubist



Posts: 559
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2016,17:24   

Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 09 2016,18:45)
   
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 19 2015,21:01)

Question: Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?

Question :  Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by NON "intelligent agents" at all ?

Why are you asking me, of all people, that question? I quote myself, from the 2nd page of this thread: "To the best of my knowledge, we have no experience whatsoever of 'information-rich systems' being produced by 'intelligent agents' other than humans."

I repeat the question you have conspicuously failed to answer: Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings? I am not asking you to provide evidence that "intelligent agents" other than human beings exist. Rather, I am asking you to provide evidence that "intelligent agents" other than human beings have produced "information-rich systems".

And while I'm at it, I may as well repeat another question you have conspicuously failed to answer: What does "new information" look like? I am not asking you to define what "new information" is. I am not asking you to justify your assumption that "new information" exists. I am, instead, asking you how one would recognize this "new information" stuff if one actually saw it.

I look forward to reading your answers to my questions.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2016,21:27   

... and I look forward to reading about successful cold fusion.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Cubist



Posts: 559
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 13 2016,05:31   

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 12 2016,21:27)
... and I look forward to reading about successful cold fusion.

You can. While it's true that the more grandiose claims of Pons and Fleischmann failed to pan out, I am given to understand that scientists attempting to replicate P&F's experiments have come up with some peculiar and interesting results.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2016,19:00   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 12 2016,12:02)
[quote=Otangelo,Jan. 12 2016,11:54]
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2016,22:41)
Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 09 2016,18:45)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 19 2015,21:01)
 
Quote (Otangelo @ Dec. 16 2015,16:59)


Question: Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?

Question :  Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?

Question :  Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by NON "intelligent agents" at all ?

Yes.

I believe these were already mentioned for you.

1) Stars
2) Termites
3) Crystals
4) Rock Layers

Now answer the question.

Do you or do you now, have evidence of "information rich systems" being produced by intelligent agents other than humans?

non of your examples contain complex, specified, coded information, as found in a book, a computer code, a partiture, or a morse code, or..... dna.

Of course not.

I didn't think you would accept it.

You've defined (without telling us, despite us asking) information as only being produced by intelligence. Congratulations. You've created a circular argument.

Information can only come from intelligence. Therefore any thing that comes from non-intelligent sources is not information.

Tell you what. Define all that clap trap you've babbled about information in a robust, repeatable, mathematical system... then we'll talk. Until then, enjoy your circle jerk.

sorry, not just information. coded, specified complex information only comes from a mind.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2016,19:03   

And here come  the next two knock out arguments against naturalistic fairy tale stories.

1. The origin of the genetic cipher 1
1.Triplet codons must be assigned to amino acids to establish a genetic cipher.  Nucleic-acid bases and amino acids don’t recognize each other directly, but have to deal via chemical intermediaries ( tRNA's and  Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase ), there is no obvious reason why particular triplets should go with particular amino acids.
2. Other translation assignments are conceivable, but whatever cipher is established, the right amino acids must be assigned to permit polypeptide chains, which fold to active funcional proteins. Functional amino acid chains in sequence space are rare.  There are two possibilities to explain the correct assignment of the codons to the right amino acids. Chance, and design. Natural selection is not a option at this stage, since DNA replication is not setup at this stage.
3. If it were a lucky accident happened by chance, luck would have  hit the jackpot  trough trial and error amongst 1.5 × 10^84 possible genetic codes . That is the number of atoms in the whole universe. That puts any real possibility of chance providing the feat out of question. Its , using  Borel's law, in the realm of impossibility. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that's universal. Put simply, the chemical lottery lacks the time necessary to find the universal genetic code.
4. We have not even considered that there are also  over 500 possible amino acids, which would have to be sorted out, to get only 20, and select  all L amino and R sugar bases......
5. We know that minds do invent languages, codes, translation systems, ciphers, and complex, specified information all the time.
6. Put it in other words : The task compares to invent two languages, two alphabets, and a translation system, and the information content of a book ( for example hamlet)  being written in english translated  to chinese  in a extremely sophisticared hardware system.
7. The genetic code and its translation system is best explained through the action of a intelligent designer.


2. The software and hardware of the cell are irreducibly complex 2
1. The cell contains a complex information storage medium through DNA and mRNA.
2. The cell has a complex information processing system ( through  RNA polymerase, transcription factors , a spliceosome , a  ribosome,  chaperone enzymes, specialized transport proteins , and ATP
3. The cell contains a genetic code which is at or very close to a global optimum for error minimization across plausible parameter space
4. The cell stores complex, specified, coded information ( the software )
5. The cell has a complex translation system through a universal cipher, which assigns 61 codons (4x4x4=64-3 stop and start=64) to 20 amino acids and permits the translation of the genetic code into functional proteins
6. This constitutes a logical structure of information processing : DNA>>RNA>>>Protein, based on software and hardware. Both aspects must be explained.
7. There is no reason for information processing machinery to exist without the software, and vice versa.
8. Systems of interconnected software and hardware are irreducibly complex.
9. A irreducible complex system can not arise in a step wise, evolutionary manner.
10. Only minds are capable to conceptualise and implement  instructional information control systems transformed into molecular dynamics
11. Therefore , a  intelligent designer  exists.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2016,21:45   

Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 20 2016,19:00)
[quote=OgreMkV,Jan. 12 2016,12:02]
Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 12 2016,11:54)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2016,22:41)
 
Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 09 2016,18:45)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 19 2015,21:01)
   
Quote (Otangelo @ Dec. 16 2015,16:59)


Question: Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?

Question :  Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?

Question :  Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by NON "intelligent agents" at all ?

Yes.

I believe these were already mentioned for you.

1) Stars
2) Termites
3) Crystals
4) Rock Layers

Now answer the question.

Do you or do you now, have evidence of "information rich systems" being produced by intelligent agents other than humans?

non of your examples contain complex, specified, coded information, as found in a book, a computer code, a partiture, or a morse code, or..... dna.

Of course not.

I didn't think you would accept it.

You've defined (without telling us, despite us asking) information as only being produced by intelligence. Congratulations. You've created a circular argument.

Information can only come from intelligence. Therefore any thing that comes from non-intelligent sources is not information.

Tell you what. Define all that clap trap you've babbled about information in a robust, repeatable, mathematical system... then we'll talk. Until then, enjoy your circle jerk.

sorry, not just information. coded, specified complex information only comes from a mind.

As I said, you have a circular reasoning.

Coded is the result of an activity done to information. In general use, it does imply a mind to do the coding and decoding. Of course, a mind isn't required, but your simplistic understanding does.

Specified requires something to specify the information. Again, in general use, it does imply a mind to make the specification. Of course, a mind isn't required, but your simplistic understanding does.

You have defined the information you seek as only that which comes from a mind, then use that to justify belief in the mind that created it. That is circular logic.

Define "coded, specified complex information"

What does "coded" mean in this context? What determines if some information is "coded" or not? Does meaning play any part in that?

What does "specified" mean in this context? Who does the specifying? With what tools and systems? How?

What does "complex" mean in this context? How do you measure complexity? What units? Why?

What does "information" mean in this context? How do you measure it? What units? Why?

What values of the above require a mind? What values do not require a mind? Why?

What is the "mind" that resulted in life as we know it? How do you know?

Can you, Otangelo, determine the difference between coded, specified information and random information? I challenge you to do so.

If you cannot, then you have no possible way to determine the answers that you think you already know. If you can, and can do so reliably, then you will have a Nobel prize (or whatever the equivalent is) for mathematics waiting for you.

Just let me know when you are ready. I'll provide two strings. One random and one that is complex, coded, and specified.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2016,21:55   

A propaganda fly-by!

Thanks for dropping your leaflets there, Otangelo, we were running out of TP.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2016,22:31   

Otangelo:

 
Quote

3. If it were a lucky accident happened by chance, luck would have  hit the jackpot  trough trial and error amongst 1.5 × 10^84 possible genetic codes . That is the number of atoms in the whole universe. That puts any real possibility of chance providing the feat out of question. Its , using  Borel's law, in the realm of impossibility. Natural selection would have to evaluate roughly 10^55 codes per second to find the one that's universal. Put simply, the chemical lottery lacks the time necessary to find the universal genetic code.


Piffle. This assumes that one and only one genetic code will work. We know of a number of alternative genetic codes that are somewhat different from the canonical genetic code, which is presumably the one that Otangelo believes is uniquely functional.

In fact, if one uses the partition rule and determines the number of genetic codes that are alternatives to the canonical code, but have *exactly* the same distribution of degenerate coding, one gets a number around 2.3e69 alternatives. And that isn't even allowing for the alternative codes that have slightly different patterns of redundancies and probably would work just fine.

If God had wanted a clear signal that species were immutable, it would have been simple for Him to provide each species with its very own genetic code. That isn't what we find. We find the canonical genetic code is widespread, and the alternatives to it when analyzed phylogenetically show the usual nested hierarchy pattern of divergence expected under common descent.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
RumraketR



Posts: 19
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,02:15   

Otangelo, aka Elsamah, aka Jireh, aka Coroama, aka Elsamah77, aka lonelynutjob is emerging as a remarkably incompetent copy-paster on several sketicism/rationalist fora.

See for example how he mindlessly copy-pastes the same crap over here: The" target="_blank">http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtop.... Thread (It's one of five such threads he has over there where he just mindlessly copy-pastes from his personal "library" of quotemines and copypasta).

He has no idea what any of the stuff he copy-pastes even means. He seems to be totally infatuated with engineering and computer-science related technical jargon, and diagrams with lots of arrows and tables with abbreviations and numbers in them.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,02:54   

Quote
1.Triplet codons must be assigned to amino acids to establish a genetic cipher.  Nucleic-acid bases and amino acids don’t recognize each other directly, but have to deal via chemical intermediaries ( tRNA's and  Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase ), there is no obvious reason why particular triplets should go with particular amino acids.


Trollangelo, now explain why this is not possible within the laws of physics and chemistry alone without the interference of your gods.

In retrospect don't bother, I know you can't.

  
Cubist



Posts: 559
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,15:02   

Hello, Otangelo! I see that you found time to deposit another load of verbiage on this forum. I also see that your latest load of verbiage does not contain anything within bazooka range of an answer to either of the questions I've repeatedly asked you. That's okay, here they are again; boldfacing was apparently not enough to get you to notice these questions the last time around, but perhaps boldface plus a larger font will do the job:

Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?

What does "new information" look like?


I look forward to reading your answers to my questions.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,15:06   

Quote (Cubist @ Jan. 21 2016,13:02)
Hello, Otangelo! I see that you found time to deposit another load of verbiage on this forum. I also see that your latest load of verbiage does not contain anything within bazooka range of an answer to either of the questions I've repeatedly asked you. That's okay, here they are again; boldfacing was apparently not enough to get you to notice these questions the last time around, but perhaps boldface plus a larger font will do the job:

Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?

What does "new information" look like?


I look forward to reading your answers to my questions.

and cue rubber/glue response in 3, 2....

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,16:23   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 20 2016,21:45)

Quote
Of course, a mind isn't requiredOf course, a mind isn't required, but your simplistic understanding does.


baseless assertion. Can you show me a example of coded, specified, complex information, that has not a intelligence as origin ?

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,16:35   

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 21 2016,13:06)
 
Quote (Cubist @ Jan. 21 2016,13:02)
Hello, Otangelo! I see that you found time to deposit another load of verbiage on this forum. I also see that your latest load of verbiage does not contain anything within bazooka range of an answer to either of the questions I've repeatedly asked you. That's okay, here they are again; boldfacing was apparently not enough to get you to notice these questions the last time around, but perhaps boldface plus a larger font will do the job:

Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?

What does "new information" look like?


I look forward to reading your answers to my questions.

and cue rubber/glue response in 3, 2....



--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,17:24   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 20 2016,22:31)

Quote
Piffle. This assumes that one and only one genetic code will work. We know of a number of alternative genetic codes that are somewhat different from the canonical genetic code, which is presumably the one that Otangelo believes is uniquely functional.


I agree . But its not any code and cipher that will to the job.

The genetic code is nearly optimal for allowing additional information within protein-coding sequences
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc....1832087

DNA sequences that code for proteins need to convey, in addition to the protein-coding information, several different signals at the same time. These “parallel codes” include binding sequences for regulatory and structural proteins, signals for splicing, and RNA secondary structure. Here, we show that the universal genetic code can efficiently carry arbitrary parallel codes much better than the vast majority of other possible genetic codes. This property is related to the identity of the stop codons. We find that the ability to support parallel codes is strongly tied to another useful property of the genetic code—minimization of the effects of frame-shift translation errors. Whereas many of the known regulatory codes reside in nontranslated regions of the genome, the present findings suggest that protein-coding regions can readily carry abundant additional information.

if we employ weightings to allow for biases in translation, then only 1 in every million random alternative codes generated is more efficient than the natural code. We thus conclude not only that the natural genetic code is extremely efficient at minimizing the effects of errors, but also that its structure reflects biases in these errors, as might be expected were the code the product of selection.

Fazale Rana wrote in his book Cell's design:   In 1968, Nobel laureate Francis Crick argued that the genetic code could not undergo significant evolution. His rationale is easy to understand. Any change in codon assignments would lead to changes in amino acids in every polypeptide made by the cell. This wholesale change in polypeptide sequences would result in a large number of defective proteins. Nearly any conceivable change to the genetic code would be lethal to the cell.

Question: how did the translation of the triplet anti codon to amino acids, and its assignment, arise ?  There is no physical affinity between the anti codon and the amino acids. What must be explained, is the arrangement of the codon " words " in the standard codon table which is highly non-random, redundant and optimal, and serves to translate the information into the amino acid sequence to make proteins, and the origin of the assignment of the 64 triplet codons to the 20 amino acids. That is, the origin of its translation. The origin of a alphabet through the triplet codons is one thing, but on top, it has to be translated to a other " alphabet " constituted through the 20 amino acids. That is as to explain the origin of capability to translate the english language into chinese. We have to constitute the english and chinese language and symbols first, in order to know its equivalence. That is a mental process.

And:

the fact that various genetic codes exist, means, common ancestry, bye bye:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2277-t....c-codes

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,17:31   

Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 21 2016,17:24)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 20 2016,22:31)

   
Quote
Piffle. This assumes that one and only one genetic code will work. We know of a number of alternative genetic codes that are somewhat different from the canonical genetic code, which is presumably the one that Otangelo believes is uniquely functional.


I agree . But its not any code and cipher that will to the job.

The genetic code is nearly optimal for allowing additional information within protein-coding sequences
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........1832087

Your own source gives a supported evolutionary hypothesis for how the code evolved.

 
Quote
How did such near optimality for parallel codes evolve? One possibility is that the ability to include parallel codes within protein-coding sequences conferred a selection advantage during the early evolution of the genetic code. Alternatively, the genetic code might have been fixed in evolution before most parallel codes existed. We therefore sought a different selection pressure on the code, which could have existed in the early stages of the evolution of the genetic code. One such inherent feature of protein translation is frame-shift translation errors (Parker 1989; Farabaugh and Bjork 1999; Seligmann and Pollock 2004). In these errors, the ribosome shifts the reading frame, either forward or backward. This results in a nonsense translated peptide, and usually loss of protein function. These errors occur in ribosomes nearly as frequently as misread errors (3 × 10−5 per codon, compared with misread errors of 10−4 per codon [Parker 1989]). These errors have a relatively large effect on fitness because they result in a nonsense polypeptide. Frame-shift errors may thus pose a selectable constraint on the genetic code: Codes that are able to abort translation more rapidly following frame-shift errors have an advantage


Nice own goal there Otangebozo.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,17:33   

Quote (RumraketR @ Jan. 21 2016,02:15)
Otangelo, aka Elsamah, aka Jireh, aka Coroama, aka Elsamah77, aka lonelynutjob is emerging as a remarkably incompetent copy-paster on several sketicism/rationalist fora.

See for example how he mindlessly copy-pastes the same crap over here: <a href="http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&p=170215#p170215The" target="_blank">http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtop.... Thread (It's one of five such threads he has over there where he just mindlessly copy-pastes from his personal "library" of quotemines and copypasta).

He has no idea what any of the stuff he copy-pastes even means. He seems to be totally infatuated with engineering and computer-science related technical jargon, and diagrams with lots of arrows and tables with abbreviations and numbers in them.

It must be frustrating seing your world view cranked down bits by bits, argument by argument, one after the other, isnt it, Rumraket?
I hope you will get the curve before its too late. Because then you will still enjoy a meaningful life here on earth, and a happy time in eternity.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,17:37   

Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 21 2016,17:33)
Quote (RumraketR @ Jan. 21 2016,02:15)
Otangelo, aka Elsamah, aka Jireh, aka Coroama, aka Elsamah77, aka lonelynutjob is emerging as a remarkably incompetent copy-paster on several sketicism/rationalist fora.

See for example how he mindlessly copy-pastes the same crap over here: <a href="http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&p=170215#p170215The" target="_blank">http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtop.... Thread (It's one of five such threads he has over there where he just mindlessly copy-pastes from his personal "library" of quotemines and copypasta).

He has no idea what any of the stuff he copy-pastes even means. He seems to be totally infatuated with engineering and computer-science related technical jargon, and diagrams with lots of arrows and tables with abbreviations and numbers in them.

It must be frustrating seing your world view cranked down bits by bits, argument by argument, one after the other, isnt it, Rumraket?
I hope you will get the curve before its too late. Because then you will still enjoy a meaningful life here on earth, and a happy time in eternity.

Brought to you by Spammerz4Jebus.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,17:37   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 21 2016,17:31)
Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 21 2016,17:24)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 20 2016,22:31)

   
Quote
Piffle. This assumes that one and only one genetic code will work. We know of a number of alternative genetic codes that are somewhat different from the canonical genetic code, which is presumably the one that Otangelo believes is uniquely functional.


I agree . But its not any code and cipher that will to the job.

The genetic code is nearly optimal for allowing additional information within protein-coding sequences
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........1832087

Your own source gives a supported evolutionary hypothesis for how the code evolved.

   
Quote
How did such near optimality for parallel codes evolve? One possibility is that the ability to include parallel codes within protein-coding sequences conferred a selection advantage during the early evolution of the genetic code. Alternatively, the genetic code might have been fixed in evolution before most parallel codes existed. We therefore sought a different selection pressure on the code, which could have existed in the early stages of the evolution of the genetic code. One such inherent feature of protein translation is frame-shift translation errors (Parker 1989; Farabaugh and Bjork 1999; Seligmann and Pollock 2004). In these errors, the ribosome shifts the reading frame, either forward or backward. This results in a nonsense translated peptide, and usually loss of protein function. These errors occur in ribosomes nearly as frequently as misread errors (3 × 10−5 per codon, compared with misread errors of 10−4 per codon [Parker 1989]). These errors have a relatively large effect on fitness because they result in a nonsense polypeptide. Frame-shift errors may thus pose a selectable constraint on the genetic code: Codes that are able to abort translation more rapidly following frame-shift errors have an advantage


Nice own goal there Otangebozo.

aham. Because the papper says so, it most be true. Forgot to activate your brain and think critically ? ah. Almost forgot. Naturalists have the bad habit to swallow junk food, aka. just so scientific papper stories brainlessly. Isnt it ?

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,18:09   

Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 21 2016,15:33)
Quote (RumraketR @ Jan. 21 2016,02:15)
Otangelo, aka Elsamah, aka Jireh, aka Coroama, aka Elsamah77, aka lonelynutjob is emerging as a remarkably incompetent copy-paster on several sketicism/rationalist fora.

See for example how he mindlessly copy-pastes the same crap over here: <a href="http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&p=170215#p170215The" target="_blank">http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtop.... Thread (It's one of five such threads he has over there where he just mindlessly copy-pastes from his personal "library" of quotemines and copypasta).

He has no idea what any of the stuff he copy-pastes even means. He seems to be totally infatuated with engineering and computer-science related technical jargon, and diagrams with lots of arrows and tables with abbreviations and numbers in them.

It must be frustrating seing your world view cranked down bits by bits, argument by argument, one after the other, isnt it, Rumraket?
I hope you will get the curve before its too late. Because then you will still enjoy a meaningful life here on earth, and a happy time in eternity.

a.s.s.f.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
Cubist



Posts: 559
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,18:35   

Hm. Curious. Otangelo posted, but again seems not to have notice my questions. Okay, a little larger this time…

Do you have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?

What does "new information" look like?


I look forward to reading your answers to my questions.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,20:16   

Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 21 2016,16:23)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 20 2016,21:45)

 
Quote
Of course, a mind isn't requiredOf course, a mind isn't required, but your simplistic understanding does.


baseless assertion. Can you show me a example of coded, specified, complex information, that has not a intelligence as origin ?

Sure. But to provide the information you want... I need...

Define "coded, specified complex information"

What does "coded" mean in this context? What determines if some information is "coded" or not? Does meaning play any part in that?

What does "specified" mean in this context? Who does the specifying? With what tools and systems? How?

What does "complex" mean in this context? How do you measure complexity? What units? Why?

What does "information" mean in this context? How do you measure it? What units? Why?

What values of the above require a mind? What values do not require a mind? Why?

What is the "mind" that resulted in life as we know it? How do you know?

Also, I note you snipped all the questions AND ignored my challenge. Which I will repeat here for you...

Can you, Otangelo, determine the difference between coded, specified information and random information? I challenge you to do so.

If you cannot, then you have no possible way to determine the answers that you think you already know. If you can, and can do so reliably, then you will have a Nobel prize (or whatever the equivalent is) for mathematics waiting for you.

Just let me know when you are ready. I'll provide two strings. One random and one that is complex, coded, and specified.

eta: I have already provided the information that you requested, however, YOUR definitions seem to reject those systems. Therefore, without precise definitions of what you mean, nothing more can be done.

I'm willing to bet any amount of money that you've never even tried to define or measure those words you keep using.

Edited by OgreMkV on Jan. 21 2016,20:17

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,20:55   

Otangelo:

Quote

the fact that various genetic codes exist, means, common ancestry, bye bye:


Hmmm... what part of the statement that when examined phylogenetically, the alternative codes are in the pattern expected from common descent is Otangelo having difficulty comprehending?

Plus math doesn't seem to be his strong suit.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,21:06   

Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 21 2016,17:37)
aham. Because the papper says so, it most be true.

You posted the paper to support your claims you moron.  Are you now saying the paper is false and doesn't support your claims? :D

What a clueless tool.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
RumraketR



Posts: 19
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2016,03:59   

Quote (Otangelo @ Jan. 21 2016,17:33)
Quote (RumraketR @ Jan. 21 2016,02:15)
Otangelo, aka Elsamah, aka Jireh, aka Coroama, aka Elsamah77, aka lonelynutjob is emerging as a remarkably incompetent copy-paster on several sketicism/rationalist fora.

See for example how he mindlessly copy-pastes the same crap over here: <a href="http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=8&p=170215#p170215The" target="_blank">http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtop.... Thread (It's one of five such threads he has over there where he just mindlessly copy-pastes from his personal "library" of quotemines and copypasta).

He has no idea what any of the stuff he copy-pastes even means. He seems to be totally infatuated with engineering and computer-science related technical jargon, and diagrams with lots of arrows and tables with abbreviations and numbers in them.

It must be frustrating seing your world view cranked down bits by bits, argument by argument, one after the other, isnt it, Rumraket?
I hope you will get the curve before its too late. Because then you will still enjoy a meaningful life here on earth, and a happy time in eternity.

Did he seriously just write this bafflegab? Somebody tell me I'm being trolled.  :p

  
RumraketR



Posts: 19
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2016,04:05   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 21 2016,20:55)
Otangelo:

 
Quote

the fact that various genetic codes exist, means, common ancestry, bye bye:


Hmmm... what part of the statement that when examined phylogenetically, the alternative codes are in the pattern expected from common descent is Otangelo having difficulty comprehending?

The whole thing. He does not know what a phylogenetic relationship is. He does not know how one is constructed. He does not know about the logic involved, he has never looked into the inferences. He has zero skill or education in even rudimentary logic or reasoning. He does not understand what a prediction is, he does not understand how falsification happens or what it means. He does not understand why it is even important for something to be falsifiable, or to make predictions. All of these concepts are totally foreign to him.

He thinks scientists are like priests, they just read stuff and believe it really hard, then make up rationalizations after the fact to "save" their worldview from disproof.

After all, that is what he does himself and how he thinks his own authority figures work. But he also believes his own authority figures are "more right" and "more trustworthy" than secular/nonbelieving authority figures, because "his" authority figures are infallibly inspired by an omnipotent god.

  
  490 replies since Nov. 15 2015,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (17) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]