Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 106 of 293 (804103)
04-07-2017 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by forexhr
04-06-2017 5:17 AM


Oh great,now I'm getting a lecture about logical fallacies.
Here you just repeated the same mantra: out of context, out of context , out of context.. but you didn't provide the evidence for your accusations. Can you please do that? Thanks.
I have several times
HBD writes:
The paper "Functionally acceptable substitutions in two alpha-helical regions of lambda repressor. " does state that 1063 figure, but it is in reference to the gamma-repressor folds, not all functional sequences in general. Your statement is that there are only 1 in 1063 functional proteins - meaning with any function. But that is not what the paper claims.
quote:
quote:
Nevertheless, the estimated number of sequences capable of adopting the gamma repressor fold is still an exceedingly small fraction, about 1 in 1063 of the total number of possible 92-residue sequences.
They did not determine how many "functional proteins" could possibly be formed from a 92-residue sequence, but how many ways a functional protein could be mutated and still retain its unique functional fold.
And...
HBD writes:
Just reading the abstract suggests that the paper does not support your position.
quote:
We suggest that the vastness of protein sequence space is actually completely explorable during the populating of the Earth by life by considering upper and lower limits for the number of organisms, genome size, mutation rate and the number of functionally distinct classes of amino acids. We conclude that rather than life having explored only an infinitesimally small part of sequence space in the last 4 Gyr, it is instead quite plausible for all of functional protein sequence space to have been explored and that furthermore, at the molecular level, there is no role for contingency.
So, your using their "data" to suggest the opposite conclusion without arguing against their position is kind of uhmmm.... shady.
I challenge you to find the information you cite in that paper "maximum number of mutations or CHNOPS re-arrangements at 1043". It's not there. Here is the only places where the number 1043 is used.
quote:
This gives an extreme upper limit of 41043 different amino acid sequences explored since the origin of life. The contribution to this number of sequences by viral and eukaryotic genomes is difficult to estimate but it is very unlikely to be orders of magnitude greater than the 41043 sequences from bacteria.
It does not say the same thing your statement does.
The evidence of what I said is in the papers you cited and had you actually read them you would have noticed.
If I were given your article to peer-review for publication, I would reject it on these grounds. Were there just one such citation problem, I would have suggested that you offer an additional citation and/or add justification why the arguments and conclusions in the cited paper were inaccurate. But with two of them and they are both foundational to your argument, there would be no way I would accept this paper for publication. This is data-mining, cherry-picking whatever you want to call it but it is dishonest.
And of course, you would cry foul... discrimination against Intelligent Design. Rejection because I don't like the conclusion. But that's not the case. I accept intelligent design, even creation, just not the false pseudoscience of the "-isms."
Your citations are seriously flawed, and if you can't see why I would object to them, please don't lecture me about logical fallacies.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by forexhr, posted 04-06-2017 5:17 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by forexhr, posted 04-07-2017 8:57 AM herebedragons has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 107 of 293 (804104)
04-07-2017 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by herebedragons
04-07-2017 8:03 AM


herebedragons writes:
If several key evolutionary concepts have indeed been "falsified," then they are not "unfalsifiable" are they?
The theory of evolution started as valid, falsifiable theory. When its key hypothesis has been falsified and replaced with unfalsifiable ad hoc hypothesis, like convergence and incomplete lineage sorting, then it became unfalsifiable.
That is why I sad that the current ToE is just the collection of unfalsifiable mental fantasies, just so stories and anecdotes.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by herebedragons, posted 04-07-2017 8:03 AM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Pressie, posted 04-07-2017 8:56 AM forexhr has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 108 of 293 (804105)
04-07-2017 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by forexhr
04-07-2017 8:51 AM


Ah, another word salad.
Evolutionary theory works on populations, not individuals.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by forexhr, posted 04-07-2017 8:51 AM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 109 of 293 (804107)
04-07-2017 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by herebedragons
04-07-2017 8:39 AM


herebedragons writes:
The evidence of what I said is in the papers you cited and had you actually read them you would have noticed.
If I were given your article to peer-review for publication, I would reject it on these grounds. Were there just one such citation problem, I would have suggested that you offer an additional citation and/or add justification why the arguments and conclusions in the cited paper were inaccurate. But with two of them and they are both foundational to your argument, there would be no way I would accept this paper for publication. This is data-mining, cherry-picking whatever you want to call it but it is dishonest.
And of course, you would cry foul... discrimination against Intelligent Design. Rejection because I don't like the conclusion. But that's not the case. I accept intelligent design, even creation, just not the false pseudoscience of the "-isms."
Your citations are seriously flawed, and if you can't see why I would object to them, please don't lecture me about logical fallacies.
This is not the evidence but just quotes and empty claims. You need to provide an actual, logical step by step explanation.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by herebedragons, posted 04-07-2017 8:39 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Pressie, posted 04-07-2017 9:02 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 112 by herebedragons, posted 04-07-2017 9:03 AM forexhr has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 110 of 293 (804109)
04-07-2017 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by forexhr
04-06-2017 5:17 AM


But, can the evolutionist show instances of 1 percent functional gear, 5 percent, 10, 20, 60... No, of course he can't. Can evolutionist provide a reasonable explanation for gradual, selective development of gear function? No, of course he can't.
This same kind of BS was put up regarding the bacterial flagella, the eye and the human immune system. But then when plausible step-wise evolutionary pathways were proposed for each of these, the goalposts were moved to "prove that it actually DID happen."
What it boils down to is "this system is so complex and we can't understand how it could have evolved therefore it must have been designed." Design is not the null hypothesis.
What IDists and Creationists need to do is stop focusing on how evolution can't be true and start providing some positive evidence that design or creation IS true. Those are very different endeavors.
The idea that since we don't know EVERY single step in the history of the evolution of every system in the biological world that evolution must be false is just absurd. The knowledge and unification that the ToE brings to biology makes it worth accepting, even if it is not completely right. The power of explanation it does have makes it the best theory we have to explain the diversity of life. IDism and Creationism have no explanatory power at this point, only arguments against evolution.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by forexhr, posted 04-06-2017 5:17 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by forexhr, posted 04-07-2017 9:25 AM herebedragons has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 111 of 293 (804110)
04-07-2017 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by forexhr
04-07-2017 8:57 AM


forexhr writes:
This is not the evidence but just quotes and empty claims. You need to provide an actual, logical step by step explanation.
Evolutionary theory works on populations, not individuals. Do you understand that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by forexhr, posted 04-07-2017 8:57 AM forexhr has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 112 of 293 (804111)
04-07-2017 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by forexhr
04-07-2017 8:57 AM


This is not the evidence but just quotes and empty claims. You need to provide an actual, logical step by step explanation.
Well, forexhr, I can see that debate with you is pointless. I can no longer waste my time in this discussion.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by forexhr, posted 04-07-2017 8:57 AM forexhr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Pressie, posted 04-07-2017 9:18 AM herebedragons has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 113 of 293 (804112)
04-07-2017 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by herebedragons
04-07-2017 9:03 AM


It's like trying to debate someone convinced that the earth is flat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by herebedragons, posted 04-07-2017 9:03 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by herebedragons, posted 04-07-2017 9:54 AM Pressie has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 114 of 293 (804113)
04-07-2017 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by herebedragons
04-07-2017 9:00 AM


herebedragons writes:
This same kind of BS was put up regarding the bacterial flagella, the eye and the human immune system. But then when plausible step-wise evolutionary pathways were proposed for each of these, the goalposts were moved to "prove that it actually DID happen."
What it boils down to is "this system is so complex and we can't understand how it could have evolved therefore it must have been designed." Design is not the null hypothesis.
Well the fact is that we don't know ANY hypothetical step in the hypothetical history of the evolution because nobody was there to witness it. These unverifiable narrative explanations for the origin of bacterial flagella, the eye and the human immune system are just collection of just so stories that are in contradiction with empirical science. If eye for example, were evolved through a gradual series of tiny steps, by adding structures one step at a time, then step by step removal or deformation of these structures would not result in blindness but in some simpler mode of vision. Since this is not he case, your narrative explanations for the origin of the eye are just pseudoscientific mental fantasies.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by herebedragons, posted 04-07-2017 9:00 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Pressie, posted 04-07-2017 9:43 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 117 by herebedragons, posted 04-07-2017 9:44 AM forexhr has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 115 of 293 (804119)
04-07-2017 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by forexhr
04-07-2017 9:25 AM


[qs=Pressie]
forexhr writes:
Well the fact is that we don't know ANY hypothetical step in the hypothetical history of the evolution because nobody was there to witness it.
Ah, we're going that way.
Let's go.
Yes, I was there. I saw it all. Prove me wrong.[/qs=Pressie]Hey, forexr, you missed this one.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by forexhr, posted 04-07-2017 9:25 AM forexhr has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 116 of 293 (804120)
04-07-2017 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by forexhr
04-07-2017 5:07 AM


The fact that the gene pool of that 'population' contains all three alleles needed to build metabolic pathway, have nothing to do with evolution of this metabolic pathway.
I don't believe you.
I know that evolutionists often change definitions and play semantic games, but biological reality won't change because of that.
Well this is really confusing. I mean, here you come along and tell us that you have an argument against evolution. Then, it turns out that the thing you are arguing against isn't the Theory of Evolution that people ususally mean when they say "evolution". Instead, you are arguing against some different kind of evolution that you are saying is the real biological reality - but also that it cannot work
Suppose I told you that dogs don't exist - because in biological reality dogs are green and have five legs and those things just don't exist. Wouldn't you think that's weird?
Population genetics deals with populations, while evolution does not. Evolution deals with an individual organism.
Okay, well I don't know anything about this new evolution of individual organisms you are talking about.
I'm only familiar with the Theory of Evolution as put forward by Darwin.
Also, population genetics has nothing to do with the origin of alleles, but...
By "population genetics", are you referring to the thing that scientists study? Or are you talking about some new biological reality thing that nobody else knows about?
My argument states that evolution if physically impossible due to the fundamental contradiction between 'maintenance and reproduction cycle' and 'evolution cycle'.
Okay, but by "evolution" you are NOT talking about the Theory of Evolution that Darwing originated, correct?
Now, if we say that bio-structures that are needed for maintenance and reproduction cycle - evolved, than we are actually saying that in the past these bio-structures didn't exist. In other words if organs like lungs, heart, blood vessels, stomach, liver, brain, nerves, prostate, penis, vagina..., etc., work together to achieve the function of reproduction and maintenance and then we say that for e.g. heart evolved then we are actually saying that in the past this type of organism didin't have heart. But we know from the direct observation that this type of organism cannot complete its maintenance and reproduction cycle without a heart. Hence, it cannot evolve to produce the heart. This is true for all other organs - stomach, brain, penis... - without them, maintenance and reproduction are impossible.
There's this thing that helps that is called self-replication. You should learn about it. An ovum doesn't need a heart to divide.
Now, if we say that some bio-structure that is needed for binary fission -evolved, than we are actually saying that in the past this bio-structure didn't exist which means that in the past bacteria was unable to pass its genes to the next generation.
It was unable to pass its genes to the next generation in that particular way, but it must be true that is was able to pass on its genes to the next generation in some other way - otherwise it wouldn't be here.
This is the direct, empirical science, and according to it, evolution is physically impossible - maintenance and reproduction apparatus of an organisam simply cannot exist in a simpler mode to become more complex in the future.
It is also wrong.
So, how do evolutionists respond to this kind of argument?
As an evolutionsist, I will respond by saying that I don't believe in the thing that you are talking about when you use the word "evolution", and the scientific theory that I accept is very different from what you are describing.
Well, it has a hidden assumption that the existance of different modes of maintenance and reproduction in nature automatically means that the path from one mode to another exist. This is like saying, because differnet modes of energy conversion exist, for example, simple lawn mower engine and complex Ferrari engine, there is a step by step path from lawn mower engine to Ferrari engine.
First off, machines are not alive and cannot reproduce. You do know where babies come from, right?
Second, other modes just mean its possible - not that it must be that way.
It that were true, then the removal of Ferrari engine components would result in some simpler engine with retained energy conversion funtction and ultimately, in lawn mower engine. But we know this is not true. Component removal will result in nothing but malfunctioned engine. So in reality, step by step path from one mode of energy conversion to another does not exist. If the Ferrari engine were the result of a step by step design process, with retained energy conversion funtction at every step, then component removal would not result in malfunctioned engine but in some simpler engine with retained energy conversion funtction.
Exactly the same is true for organisms.
Organisms are self-replicating and car engines are not. Organisms can do things that car engines cannot, like reproduce and grow. That matters.
If bio-structures needed for maintenance and reproduction were evolved through a gradual series of tiny steps, by adding structures one step at a time, then their removal would not result in death or infertility but in some simpler mode of maintenance and reproduction . But since direct, empirical science shows this is not the case, the hidden assumption that the existance of different modes of maintenance and reproduction in nature, means that the path from one mode to another exist is false.
That is why evolution is just a mental fantasy which contradicts reality on every instance of observation.
Cool story.
You should learn about the Theory of Evolution that scientists study. It has a really good explanation for how species have evolved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by forexhr, posted 04-07-2017 5:07 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by forexhr, posted 04-07-2017 10:08 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 117 of 293 (804121)
04-07-2017 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by forexhr
04-07-2017 9:25 AM


So when you ask:
forexhr writes:
Can evolutionist provide a reasonable explanation for gradual, selective development of gear function?
What you really mean is "Can an evolutionist go back in time and watch the gradual development of complex systems over the course of millions of years?" Well I have to admit, then that the answer is "No, we can't." I guess that resolves the issue then, huh?
This is a prime example of why it is a waste of time debating with you.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by forexhr, posted 04-07-2017 9:25 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by forexhr, posted 04-07-2017 10:09 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 118 of 293 (804124)
04-07-2017 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Pressie
04-07-2017 9:18 AM


Yea, and the sad part is, the argument is actually a fairly good one especially as compared to other arguments of the type and I thought it was going to provide a decent discussion. But obviously forexhr is not willing (or maybe even capable of - doubt he/she came up with the argument him/herself) to defend the argument against scrutiny except to say that he is right because evolution is a fairy-tail.
Yaaaawwn...
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Pressie, posted 04-07-2017 9:18 AM Pressie has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 119 of 293 (804128)
04-07-2017 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by New Cat's Eye
04-07-2017 9:44 AM


Your claims are too ambiguous to be meaningful. There is nothing of substance worth rebutting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-07-2017 9:44 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 2067 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 120 of 293 (804129)
04-07-2017 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by herebedragons
04-07-2017 9:44 AM


herebedragons writes:
What you really mean is "Can an evolutionist go back in time and watch the gradual development of complex systems over the course of millions of years?" Well I have to admit, then that the answer is "No, we can't." I guess that resolves the issue then, huh?
This is a prime example of why it is a waste of time debating with you.
No, what I really mean is "Can an evolutionist provide a reasonable explanation for a gradual development of complex systems without presupposing something that is contradicted by direct empirical science. If system like eyes evolved through a gradual series of tiny steps then why does the step by step removal or deformation of eye components results in blindness and not in some simpler mode of vision? Presupposing that eyes evolved gradually without even considering this empirical question is what makes the evolution theory pseudoscience.
Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by herebedragons, posted 04-07-2017 9:44 AM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by caffeine, posted 04-07-2017 2:46 PM forexhr has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024