Interesting counterless argument, I notice you also rarely counter anything I say.

But anyways...



Actually no a woman is born with all her eggs already.

True, but all the eggs are clearly not in the woman's fertilised ovum (single cell) already, so they are 'new' in that sense.

I actually do try to counter your arguments, to the extent that I can understand them. Often I am unable. I do think the above points are a counter to the idea that your cells are aged and have less energy because of your grandfather, and by extension everyone in your lineage back to Adam. If that were true it would be a wonder if you could get out of bed in the morning!

'New' in the sense that the parent of the woman's egg cell was a stem cell.

But I will have to stand by my arguments because there is direct cellular lineage.

"There is no new thing under the sun."

You could say cells are somehow refreshed or refurbished but I don't find it accurate to call them new cells, but thats just me.

But like I said this isn't even my argument, we are arguing over a joke.

OK, then let's leave that aside.

The problem with *all* your arguments so far is that you are insisting that an individual organism, and later an individual cell, has to somehow evolve by itself. This is not what evolution claims occurs, so all your 'proofs' that this does not and cannot occur fail as attacks on evolutionary theory because they are attacks on a claim that evolutionary theory never makes.

Evolutionary theory claims that a new cell arises with changed DNA. The DNA usually changes because it is damaged in some way, by radiation or a replication error. The vast majority of such changes are so harmful that the cell will never reproduce at all. Some changes are harmful, but still allow the cell to reproduce. A vanishingly tiny proportion of mutations are beneficial.

Now natural selection comes into play. Over thousands of generations, individuals with the beneficial genes are more successful in surviving and breeding, even if only by a tiny margin, than individuals without it. Soon the beneficial gene becomes dominant in the gene pool of that species: many more individuals have it than not. Eventually, the old, not-so-beneficial gene dies out. Now all members of the species have the beneficial gene.

Each small increment of genetic change occurs through this same multihgenerational process of mutation and natural selection.

That's a very simple but generally correct description of evolutionary theory. If you have arguments to make, they need to be responsive to that model - otherwise they are arguments made in a vacuum, responsive to nothing.

I look forward to reading your response.

If I am correct this argument all started with my...99 folly principle

I am not sure how this principle ignores true evolution. If you had read it carefully you would realize that my argument makes more sense if evolution is slow. Which is why I am puzzled by your response. If evolution is slow then weaknesses will build up because animals won't be killed instantly. (Even though as you said some of the ones that are not cute enough won't reproduce.)

I am not sure if you even understand the animal community but did you know most predators don't eat all that much. How long do snakes, crocodiles and lions go between meals. Well I think lions kill alot but they have large prides. It is true that many, many animals die because of migration but remember back in those days animals did not have to travel that far and the climate was different. The sahara desert was a forest don't forget.

I will clearly state the goal of the 99 folly principle...There is NO mechanism for the death of the weak.


Is it possible that you are arguing in a vacuum?
Is it possible you are using cookie cutter evolutionist arguments,
and you are not bothering to read my posts?

Nishaun I have no interest in debating a joke.

My point - and I think Bravus's too - has been that you quote as fact to support your argument, statements that are scientifically suspect. I have tried to point out in various ways where that is so. If you cannot see that, and that
others will reject your arguments if they cannot agree with your 'facts' - then so be it.

I am not trying to get you to listen to the evolutionist/to evolution.

I am trying to tell you that if you want to make a substantive difference in this debate, to people who are grounded in its background, get your facts straight.

I repeat what I said in an earlier post - are you trying to win arguments or to change people's opinions on serious subjects? Your last sentence above makes me wonder that anew. If you are only trying to win arguments, if you continue battering long enough, you will win for sure. But there will not be a lot of people around interested in continuing the conversation.

I am reading every one of your posts in detail and responding. I have repeatedly illustrated that your 99 folly principle is incorrect. You say 'there is no mechanism for the death of the weak'. I have said and illustrated, repeatedly, that such a mechanism is not required. All that is required is an advantage that means the strong outbreed the weak. It's a clear and simple argument that directly addresses your point, so your repeated claims that it is unresponsive might beg the same question: whether you're reading and understanding my posts when you respond.

Let me try for a quote-and-respond approach to responding to one of your recent posts:

To define complexity mathematically you would need to understand that things can't move without energy.

Well, the moment you bring in energy you are in the realm of physics rather than mathematics, but let that stand for a moment. There is also a whole branch of mathematics that deals with 'complexity' and non-deterministic patterns, but that's not what you're talking about here, so we'll leave that on the side too. The point that things can't move without energy is correct; the energy of movement, kinetic energy.

When an object is moving because of certain laws like inertia that object will always move in a straight line. So to deal with energy, energy needs to be bounced off a surface.

First sentence is correct - Newton's First Law of Motion, in fact. Second sentence, no, we can deal with the energy of a particle simply moving along in space without bouncing off a surface or another particle. A particle can also have energy because of its position in an electric or gravitational field, for example, but again, leave that on one side for the moment. Your point, as I understand it, is that a moving particle has energy.

To define a pattern you would need to define the angle of a bounce and also the speed of the object. You would need two values one for speed and another for the direction, similar to fuzzy logic.

OK, the very last phrase about fuzzy logic is not correct. I think perhaps you're thinking of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which talks about the impossibility of knowing both the speed and direction of an object precisely. (Fuzzy logic is more a label for an amalgam of mathematics and information processing theory.) So, OK, a 'pattern' is the speed and direction of a particle, right?

You would not need to define the object itself because you are thinking on the basic level of matter. We have to use a theoretical object because if we used an atom we would need a separate value for each electron or proton and neutron, every object is just a pattern made up of complex patterns.

Hang on, now a pattern is a particle in itself? Or does it still have an inherent speed and direction? The concept of a 'pattern', which is one you're introducing rather than one that exists in science, is the foundation of your argument, so it's important to be as clear as possible about what it means. Let's stick with the definition of a pattern as being an idealised, uncharged, point object - but one that nonetheless has mass, because if it didn't it would be untrue to say that it had (kinetic) energy. So a pattern is a moving particle.

You would define complexity using an equation to find the result of an interaction between a pattern one and two. As these objects interact at certain angles they may change each other's speed or they may change each other's direction, most likely both. (If the objects are moving in opposing directions speed may decrease or only direction may change. If both objects are moving in similar directions speed may increase or direction may change.)

OK, fair enough, there's good physics to describe and explain the elastic collision of two particles... even if it gets a little less clear down near the limits of knowability that the Uncertainty Principle imposes.

Complexity-level would be defined as the level of change in each object.

OK, this is a new entity, and again one that does not really exist in science, but I can understand what you're saying, I think. But isn't the change in each object's direction and velocity just the same thing as its change in kinetic energy? Certainly the velocity is included in that term, and adding a direction term is not difficult. So I'm not sure what this new term, 'complexity-level', adds to the conversation.

Now what would be the interaction of these objects on a third object or the third object on these two. Now multiply the complexity level by a number greater than a trillion, trillion, trillion; and you will have a vague understanding of the complexity value of a one-celled organism.

As a model, that is much closer to describing the behaviour of a closed container of an ideal gas. In such a situation basically we have the exact kind of idealised particles you describe racing around undergoing random collisions with one another and transferring energy. That's uncontroversial, and pretty standard particle physics. As a model of the operation of a single-celled organism, though, it's dramatically over-simplified. The molecules that go to make up an organism are large and have charge distributions, so they do not simply bounce off one another like billiard balls. They stick and cling (inelastic collisions) sometimes, and they react to make new molecules, and there are processes of osmosis and protein replication and... So, basically, your model for the complexity of an organism is OK as far as it goes, but far, far too simple: living things are *much* more complex than that.

Complexity cannot grow because numbers do not grow, a pattern of 10 has two options give up its 10 speed and energy points to one object or give 1 point to ten objects (and everything in between).

Not true, in any sense. A human starts from a single cell and ends up with trillions, so clearly numbers *do* grow. This is where your over-simple model lets you down. While what you say in the second sentence is true of billiard balls or ideal gas molecules, it is simply not true of living things. Cells replicate and create new cells all the time, and it's not a zero-sum game where whatever the daughter cells gain the parent cell loses. If that were the case we would not be able to increase our body mass.

The overall impact of a pattern can never be greater than its impact ability which is defined by its energy and direction. There is no magic speed or miraculous angle that once reached allows evolution of the pattern into a more complex pattern system,

Again, your over-simple model betrays you. It's true to say what you say for a single particle that does not interact, but as soon as you have more complex particles that do interact, and particularly once you add self-replication into the mix, all bets are off. You also seem to be claiming that no new energy can be added to a 'pattern', but what if a moving particle is placed in a strong gravitational field? Its velocity will increase and so will its kinetic energy. So looking in a larger frame of reference, even a very simple, billiard-ball type system can gain energy and increase what you've defined as its 'complexity-value'.

basic mathematics prevents evolution, because the human brain is more complex than a one-celled organism.

This is just a non-sequitur: any multicellular organism is more complex than a single-celled organism, but that does not prove anything. Your argument seems to be that complexity-increase is mathematically (you mean physically) prohibited, but as shown above this is simply not the case.

The multiplication of cells do not counter my argument. Cells reproduce because of an “inertia engine,” at least thats what I call it.

Again, this is a new term that you are introducing that is not scientific, and I'm not even sure what it means. You've attempted to define it below:

It is mathematically acceptable to channel energy you already have and repeat yourself. To explain that with “pattern logic” all the cell has to do is focus its energy only on maintaining its pattern sequence then it slowly allows external energy to channel in.

Is it your claim that the cell chooses to do this? (Anthropomorphic reasoning) Or are you using that language metaphorically to describe a natural process? The notion of 'pattern sequence' is a confusing one... is it just a much-simplified notation for the cell's DNA? Your claim seems to be that a cell can take on energy while not changing in any way, just storing up energy. How is that energy stored? As extra movement of its particles? But then that would be a disruption of the 'patterns', since velocities would increase. As chemical energy? Or somehow just as 'pure' energy sitting around in the cell? Given your model, I'm not sure how excess energy is stored in the cell.

The energy will follow the path of the cell's pattern sequence just like a river flowing down a mountain.

A river flowing down a mountain exchanges gravitational potential energy for kinetic energy. Is this what you mean by this analogy? The incoming energy becomes kinetic energy? If that's the case, and if a 'pattern' is described as a particle plus its velocity and direction, then clearly the patterns *are* being changed as energy comes into the system. Under your definition, this means an increase in complexity-value, which you are claiming is impossible.

Once the energy matches the cell it can split to its heart's content.

I assume you mean once the cell contains as much excess energy as its original total energy, it can then split to form two new cells. Under this model you have an existing cell, completely unchanged except that it is now swollen with excess energy, suddenly becoming two new cells. But where does the matter to form the new cell come from? Is it magically created? Is it created from the energy?

Therefore cellular reproduction is not technically energy increase or complexity increase because the cell uses its own patterns to channel energy inward. The energy slowly builds up and causes the cell to expand but only along the pattern's path.

As shown above, it clearly *is* both energy increase and complexity increase, under the terms of your own model.

As the cell starts to double in size it starts to split because no object can counter its own energy level, so the cell simply can't hold on.

Clearly cells *can* 'counter [their] own energy level' under this model - how else do they end up containing double their original energy? Or do you mean 'can't counter their own energy level for long'?

This means cells can only reproduce because they use their own bodies as stencils or patterns. This means if a cell tried to change the most minute detail a massive amount of energy would be lost.

Why? Say the most minute detail is the motion of one of your billiard-ball particles. It changes its direction by one degree. There are a trillion, trillion, trillion of these particles... how does this minute change cause massive energy loss? Your related claim is that cells can only identically replicate themselves - this is addressed below.

Cells like stem cells don't evolve they simply repeat their patterns or downgrade into a less complex cell.

Um, no, stem cells are able to form any cell in our bodies, from a nerve to skin to kidney to intestine. So clearly they do *not* only directly replicate themselves. The claim that they only downgrade to less complex cells is also dodgy - what defines complexity, under your model, and why is a neurone less complex than a stem cell?

Once again, all of this is to a fair extent moot, because it is an argument for why individual cells cannot evolve - and evolutionary theory does not require individual cells to evolve, does not claim that they do, does not stand or fall on whether they do. You are also claiming that cells cannot change any detail in the process of reproduction or at any other time, precluding any mutation or change at all across generations, but that is discussed in the separate post below.

I won't have time to do this often, but I think it's hard to say at this point that my answer is non-responsive, or that I haven't read your post and addressed each issue point-by-point. I've tried to work using your own frame of reference, your own model and your own terminology, and to show that even within itself it is inconsistent and doesn't add up. I'm going to make a separate post on mutation and change, but you could also read the earlier pages of this thread for quite a lot of discussion of the issues.

Mutations occur due to changes in a cell's DNA. DNA is a complex molecule that speaks an incredibly simple language. In English we use 26 letters, and from that we can write millions of books, each different. In DNA, God uses an alphabet of only 4 letters - the four bases, cytosine (C), guanine (G), thymine (T) and adenine (A). With it He has written all the immense diversity of living things, from rhinos to blue whales to (millions of species of) beetles and tropical fish and humans. DNA is a long string of these bases, sequenced in certain ways.

We are fearfully and wonderfully made - our bodies contain multiple systems for detecting and repairing breaks and damage to our DNA. DNA gets damaged by various chemicals, by radiation and just by replication errors when it is being replicated to create a new cell. Sometimes a base is knocked off, or turned into a different base. Sometimes a sequence of DNA is cut out, or added to the wrong place, or even added backward. Most errors are detected. A few get through. Some of these create cancers - a cancer is just cells whose DNA tells them to grow uncontrollably.

Check out this short movie to get a sense of the simplicity and complexity of DNA replication: http://207.207.4.198/pub/flash/24/24.html (you have to keep clicking 'Next' when it stops)

The vast majority of mutations are unfavourable, but some are not, and if they are not, natural selection will help to insure that the frequency of that particular gene will increase in a population.

Whew!!
Good explanation! Would only read long replies such as yours!!