A
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Guest
"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >
> >>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Without chance events (ie chance mutations, random assortment, random
> >>>chromosomal breakage, random transposition, random selection, random
> >>>propagation, random environment), there can be no evolution per
> >>>evolutionary theory as put forth by Charles Darwin.
> >>
> >>This is a word game just like most of Chung's posts.
> >
> > This is not a game for me.
>
> The evidence of your actions give the lie to that.
It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully just as it has been
your choice to do otherwise.
> >>"Chance" as
> >>Chungishly defined means unguided, illogical, without order.
> >
> > Chance as used in what I have written is chance as commonly defined.
>
> Sure. In precis, it's what I said.
In truth, it was not what you had written.
> > From the online Webster dictionary (www.m-w.com)
> >
> > Main Entry: chance
> > Pronunciation: 'chan(t)s
> > Function: noun
> > Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin
> > cadentia fall, from Latin cadent-, cadens, present participle of cadere
> > to fall; perhaps akin to Sanskrit sad- to fall off
> > 1 a : something that happens unpredictably without discernible human
> > intention or observable cause b : the assumed impersonal purposeless
> > determiner of unaccountable happenings : LUCK c : the fortuitous or
> > incalculable element in existence : CONTINGENCY
> > 2 : a situation favoring some purpose : OPPORTUNITY <needed a chance to
> > relax>
> > 3 : a fielding opportunity in baseball
> > 4 a : the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation;
> > also : the degree of likelihood of such an outcome <a small chance of
> > success> b plural : the more likely indications <chances are he's
> > already gone>
> > 5 a : RISK <not taking any chances> b : a raffle ticket
> > - chance adjective
> > - by chance : in the haphazard course of events <they met by chance>
> >
> >
> >>The fact is
> >>that evolution proceeds according to very specific causes and effects.
> >>They may *appear* random - may *seem* to be random - but every change
> >>has a cause. If it's a stray cosmic ray or a certain Mendeleevian
> >>confluence of conditions, all the changes that happen in the genetic
> >>trail of life over these millions of years have causes. Because we can't
> >>explain them all doesn't mean they aren't clearly caused. To quote
> >>blowhole Chung, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."
> >
> >
> > "Darwin's theory of the evolution of species through natural selection,
> > starts from the premise that an organism's traits can vary in a
> > **nondeterministic** way from parent to offspring, a process Darwin
> > called 'individuation'. Darwin did not make any specific claims as to
> > how variation betwen individuals is generated, but modern genetics has
> > characterized several mechanisms that can generate such variation, e.g.,
> > random mutations of the genetic material (DNA) can arise from errors
> > during the replication of the DNA as well as from damage to the DNA
> > generated during the transcription of genes or caused by chemicals and
> > physical agents (e.g. X rays); and in sexual populations genetic
> > recombination mixes the DNA of two parents into that of offspring so
> > that the latter are guaranteed to differ genetically from each other and
> > from their parents."
> >
> > Source:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
> > with **emphasis** added.
> >
> > Definition of nondeterministic...
> > nondeterministic: Permitting more than one choice of next move at some
> > step in a computation.
> > Source:
> > http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/nondeterministic.html
>
> Yes, and...?
See below.
> The simple fact of the matter is that it all still says
> that since we can't explain each event, they are *apparently*
> nondeterministic.
Actually, the theory of evolution "starts from the premise that an
organism's traits can vary in a **nondeterministic** way from parent to
offspring." This premise is absolutely wrong according to the LORD as
written in Proverbs 16:33 which states:
"The lot is cast into the lap, but its **every** decision comes from the
LORD."
**emphasis** added.
Therefore, the theory of evolution is absolutely invalid. This is the
absolute truth.
> The fact that variation occurs is the point, not
> whether our language can precisely express a very complex idea with a
> single word.
See above.
> >>Darwin's ideas have been expanded and enlarged by responsible scientists
> >>since his first publications. Fossils discovered, connections uncovered.
> >
> > No matter the expansion or enlargement, the fundamental premise of the
> > theory that traits can vary in a nondeterministic way from parent to
> > offspring is wrong and so the entire house of cards falls.
>
> Still playing word games.
No.
> The continuing fact is that changes do occur
> between parents and offspring in *unpredictable* ways. We can't see what
> the alterations are or will be, so they aren't *determinable* in
> advance. I note you reject the examples given that could trigger changes.
See above.
> Using a mathematical definition for "nondeterministic" evades
> acknowledging the reality of ongoing change.
Precision is not evasion.
> It's all a matter of
> dealing with a word at at time rather than the content of the definition
> or explanation. The fact is that changes do occur. The fact is that we
> can't generally specifically anticipate them, and so they are not always
> foreseeable or predictable. They are occasionally predictable when we
> can see the environmental pressures moving changes.
See above.
> >>But since Chung believes that nothing - not the movement of any given
> >>atom - happens without the specific orders of God, it's simply
> >>inconceivable for him to believe that any other mechanism is at work. A
> >>stunted and crippled viewpoint, but all his.
>
> And this is the unprovable position that all of Chung's ravings hinge on.
Theories wait to be disproved by the truth. In the case of the theory
of evolution, this has now been done with the truth as revealed above.
> > It remains to GOD's infinite glory that in the truth and for the truth I
> > still stand. Truth remains invincible.
>
> It remains your diseased mind trying to foist off these wacko OCD
> urgencies. Truth remains distant from you.
>
> Pastorio
"The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to
the discerning." (Proverbs 14:6)
Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here during the next on-line chat (12/08/05):
http://tinyurl.com/cpayh
For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for how
the LORD has reshaped me:
http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt
In Christ's love always,
Andrew
http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > "Bob (this one)" wrote:
> >
> >>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Without chance events (ie chance mutations, random assortment, random
> >>>chromosomal breakage, random transposition, random selection, random
> >>>propagation, random environment), there can be no evolution per
> >>>evolutionary theory as put forth by Charles Darwin.
> >>
> >>This is a word game just like most of Chung's posts.
> >
> > This is not a game for me.
>
> The evidence of your actions give the lie to that.
It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully just as it has been
your choice to do otherwise.
> >>"Chance" as
> >>Chungishly defined means unguided, illogical, without order.
> >
> > Chance as used in what I have written is chance as commonly defined.
>
> Sure. In precis, it's what I said.
In truth, it was not what you had written.
> > From the online Webster dictionary (www.m-w.com)
> >
> > Main Entry: chance
> > Pronunciation: 'chan(t)s
> > Function: noun
> > Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin
> > cadentia fall, from Latin cadent-, cadens, present participle of cadere
> > to fall; perhaps akin to Sanskrit sad- to fall off
> > 1 a : something that happens unpredictably without discernible human
> > intention or observable cause b : the assumed impersonal purposeless
> > determiner of unaccountable happenings : LUCK c : the fortuitous or
> > incalculable element in existence : CONTINGENCY
> > 2 : a situation favoring some purpose : OPPORTUNITY <needed a chance to
> > relax>
> > 3 : a fielding opportunity in baseball
> > 4 a : the possibility of a particular outcome in an uncertain situation;
> > also : the degree of likelihood of such an outcome <a small chance of
> > success> b plural : the more likely indications <chances are he's
> > already gone>
> > 5 a : RISK <not taking any chances> b : a raffle ticket
> > - chance adjective
> > - by chance : in the haphazard course of events <they met by chance>
> >
> >
> >>The fact is
> >>that evolution proceeds according to very specific causes and effects.
> >>They may *appear* random - may *seem* to be random - but every change
> >>has a cause. If it's a stray cosmic ray or a certain Mendeleevian
> >>confluence of conditions, all the changes that happen in the genetic
> >>trail of life over these millions of years have causes. Because we can't
> >>explain them all doesn't mean they aren't clearly caused. To quote
> >>blowhole Chung, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence."
> >
> >
> > "Darwin's theory of the evolution of species through natural selection,
> > starts from the premise that an organism's traits can vary in a
> > **nondeterministic** way from parent to offspring, a process Darwin
> > called 'individuation'. Darwin did not make any specific claims as to
> > how variation betwen individuals is generated, but modern genetics has
> > characterized several mechanisms that can generate such variation, e.g.,
> > random mutations of the genetic material (DNA) can arise from errors
> > during the replication of the DNA as well as from damage to the DNA
> > generated during the transcription of genes or caused by chemicals and
> > physical agents (e.g. X rays); and in sexual populations genetic
> > recombination mixes the DNA of two parents into that of offspring so
> > that the latter are guaranteed to differ genetically from each other and
> > from their parents."
> >
> > Source:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
> > with **emphasis** added.
> >
> > Definition of nondeterministic...
> > nondeterministic: Permitting more than one choice of next move at some
> > step in a computation.
> > Source:
> > http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/nondeterministic.html
>
> Yes, and...?
See below.
> The simple fact of the matter is that it all still says
> that since we can't explain each event, they are *apparently*
> nondeterministic.
Actually, the theory of evolution "starts from the premise that an
organism's traits can vary in a **nondeterministic** way from parent to
offspring." This premise is absolutely wrong according to the LORD as
written in Proverbs 16:33 which states:
"The lot is cast into the lap, but its **every** decision comes from the
LORD."
**emphasis** added.
Therefore, the theory of evolution is absolutely invalid. This is the
absolute truth.
> The fact that variation occurs is the point, not
> whether our language can precisely express a very complex idea with a
> single word.
See above.
> >>Darwin's ideas have been expanded and enlarged by responsible scientists
> >>since his first publications. Fossils discovered, connections uncovered.
> >
> > No matter the expansion or enlargement, the fundamental premise of the
> > theory that traits can vary in a nondeterministic way from parent to
> > offspring is wrong and so the entire house of cards falls.
>
> Still playing word games.
No.
> The continuing fact is that changes do occur
> between parents and offspring in *unpredictable* ways. We can't see what
> the alterations are or will be, so they aren't *determinable* in
> advance. I note you reject the examples given that could trigger changes.
See above.
> Using a mathematical definition for "nondeterministic" evades
> acknowledging the reality of ongoing change.
Precision is not evasion.
> It's all a matter of
> dealing with a word at at time rather than the content of the definition
> or explanation. The fact is that changes do occur. The fact is that we
> can't generally specifically anticipate them, and so they are not always
> foreseeable or predictable. They are occasionally predictable when we
> can see the environmental pressures moving changes.
See above.
> >>But since Chung believes that nothing - not the movement of any given
> >>atom - happens without the specific orders of God, it's simply
> >>inconceivable for him to believe that any other mechanism is at work. A
> >>stunted and crippled viewpoint, but all his.
>
> And this is the unprovable position that all of Chung's ravings hinge on.
Theories wait to be disproved by the truth. In the case of the theory
of evolution, this has now been done with the truth as revealed above.
> > It remains to GOD's infinite glory that in the truth and for the truth I
> > still stand. Truth remains invincible.
>
> It remains your diseased mind trying to foist off these wacko OCD
> urgencies. Truth remains distant from you.
>
> Pastorio
"The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to
the discerning." (Proverbs 14:6)
Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here during the next on-line chat (12/08/05):
http://tinyurl.com/cpayh
For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for how
the LORD has reshaped me:
http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt
In Christ's love always,
Andrew
http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk