Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2018 9:11 PM
222 online now:
Tanypteryx (1 member, 221 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,521 Year: 15,344/29,783 Month: 1,288/1,502 Week: 45/241 Day: 45/36 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
17Next
Author Topic:   The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19575
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 166 of 248 (836679)
07-21-2018 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by forexhr
07-20-2018 4:17 AM


getting petty
I already defined evolution theory, in my own words, both in the article and on this topic:

"The evolution theory is an idea according to which the evolutionary processes of mutations, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift can produce previously non-existent biological functions".

Thank you for the clarification. I'm going to go a bit long in reply, because there is so much to cover.

As noted before, scientific theories are much more than just ideas, they are tested concepts build on known evidence and observations, they explain the evidence, and they make predictions that then can test the theory: if the prediction occurs, then another prediction is made to test it further; if something occurs that is not the predicted results, then the theory is questioned and modified or discarded.

I'll note in passing that one way people deal with cognitive dissonance is to minimize the dissonant information (calling it something less than it really is for instance -- see Reduction).

The biggest test of the Theory of Evolution was when genetic data, genomes, were used to generate a tree of life, and that tree was compared to the one that had been derived for over 300 years from the morphological study of fossils (taxonomy). They matched for over 99% of the data, an extraordinary consilience, for there is absolutely no reason for such a match from two entirely different sciences if the theory is wrong, but if the theory is right then it is an expected result.

In short, the theory assumes that changes in the DNA, coupled with the elimination process (selection), turned a simple molecule into Mozart.

My simple mathematical model, which has only two parameters — the size of an average gene and the deformation tolerance, proves this impossible.

All this proves is that your mathematical model is either incomplete or wrong, because it is at odds with reality.

As I noted before evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:

Like walking on first one foot and then the next.

I believe we agree on this.

If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation, some become sufficiently different that individuals develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population. Within each generation, however they all appear similar.

The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.

This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.

If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.

The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.

Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process.

If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.

We have fossil evidence of just such modifications over time in the fossil record:

quote:
A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate

Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked A complete fossil much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.


Here we can see anagenesis occurring from the bottom up, generation after generation, and at the top we can see cladogenesis occurring where there is a split from the parent population into two daughter populations.

Note that this does not require "new" features, just modifications of existing ones. We don't see soft tissue in fossils, so we can't tell if fur patterns etc change, but that is likely - especially at the top.

The process of anagenesis, with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. It has been observed in the modern world, not just in the past.

The process of cladogenesis, with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. It has been observed in the modern world, not just in the past.

This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypotheses, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations).

Putting these together:

The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution.

What the theory says is that modification of existing molecules and their expressed features occurs over time, that over time such changes become notably different from ancestral ones, but nothing "new" is created, it just seems so when you compare results from greatly different time periods.

I am waiting patiently for someone to come along and challenge this model. And yet after more than a hundred and fifty replies, not only that nobody came, but the majority of responders are incapable of even acknowledging the very fact that the model exists. Instead, they resort to straw men, red herrings, appeals to authority, and other dirty debate tactics. Your question is one such tactic — you are deliberately refusing to acknowledge that the process (evolution) differs from the human idea about its creative capabilities (the evolution theory), by asking the definition of something that is already clearly defined. But even this definition is irrelevant to the issue at hand since my model compares available and required variations, which are empirical values completely unrelated to the philosophical concepts or definitions of the theory. That said, you have two options: either you can finally address my mathematical model, on which my whole falsification is based, or you can continue to engage in dirty debate tactics. The first is something that I can respond to with an argument, the latter is something that I can only classify as logical fallacies. In that regard, your post is a complete red herring.

Cognitive dissonance again.

People have consistently challenged your argument with actual facts, facts that show your claim is false. You can continue to ignore those arguments or you can "acknowledging the very fact" that they exist, and that they discredit your claim.

I was asking for clarification, so I could see where you went wrong.

... But even this definition is irrelevant to the issue at hand since my model compares available and required variations, which are empirical values completely unrelated to the philosophical concepts or definitions of the theory. ...

A mathematical model is not reality, it is an attempt to model reality, and if there is a conflict between the model and reality it is not reality that is false, it is the model.

It doesn't matter how much you fuss over the responses, your model is wrong, demonstrated wrong by reality.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by forexhr, posted 07-20-2018 4:17 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by forexhr, posted 07-21-2018 12:52 PM RAZD has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15414
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 167 of 248 (836700)
07-21-2018 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Faith
07-20-2018 6:01 PM


Re: Wrong again
Faith writes:

Not one single person on this thread has actually addressed what the OP is arguing.


You admit to not understanding the OP. How could you possibly know if it has been addressed?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 07-20-2018 6:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15414
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 168 of 248 (836702)
07-21-2018 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by forexhr
07-21-2018 4:40 AM


Re: Wrong again
forexhr writes:

Neither your question has something to do with the subject of this topic...


My question has as much to do with the topic as your OP has to do with evolution.

When you get on an airplane, do you go up to the cockpit and tell the pilot he's flying wrong? Any unbiased observer would naturally ask you why you think you understand flying better than the pilot.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by forexhr, posted 07-21-2018 4:40 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
forexhr
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 169 of 248 (836713)
07-21-2018 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by RAZD
07-21-2018 8:13 AM


Re: getting petty
@RAZD

I am not interested to discuss your personal rationalizations to keep the faith in the theory of evolution. The subject of this topic is pretty clear - molecular rearrangements(variations/DNA changes) that are required for genes to adopt biologically functional states and model which proves their insufficiency. You cannot disprove numbers provided in this model with philosophical concepts, abstractions, colorful graphs, and fancy terms that nobody understands. These are just distractions, your personal way to avoid what you cannot disprove. At the end of the day everything is pretty simple - if you don't want to address the subject at hand, you might be happier somewhere else. But please, please... stop trolling my thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2018 8:13 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-21-2018 1:15 PM forexhr has responded
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 07-21-2018 2:34 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 177 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2018 7:13 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1726
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 170 of 248 (836714)
07-21-2018 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by forexhr
07-21-2018 12:52 PM


Re: getting petty
You cannot disprove numbers provided in this model with philosophical concepts, abstractions, colorful graphs, and fancy terms that nobody understands. These are just distractions, your personal way to avoid what you cannot disprove.

There are only 2 people in this thread that don't understand the "fancy terms."

Your model is total bullshit.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by forexhr, posted 07-21-2018 12:52 PM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by forexhr, posted 07-22-2018 6:23 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 29844
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 171 of 248 (836722)
07-21-2018 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by forexhr
07-21-2018 12:52 PM


Re: getting petty
You might as well give up, forexhr. I'd like to see your argument addressed with some understanding but it isn't going to happen. RAZD is only going to write lengthy arguments against something else entirely, Taq does something similar, I'm not sure what Meddle is trying to do but he seems to be missing it, ringo is only going to do snarky oneliner potshots, Tanypteryx is famous for his know-nothing "Me Too" attitude and nobody is even going to try to get what you are talking about. Too bad, I think there are some brains here somewhere but they seem to be badly misused these days.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by forexhr, posted 07-21-2018 12:52 PM forexhr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by ringo, posted 07-21-2018 2:39 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15414
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 172 of 248 (836723)
07-21-2018 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Faith
07-21-2018 2:34 PM


Re: getting petty
Faith writes:

RAZD is only going to write lengthy arguments against something else entirely, ringo is only going to do snarky oneliner potshots, Tanypteryx is famous for his knownothing "Me Too" attitude"....


And Faith is going to cling fanatically to anything that she thinks supports her preconceived notions - whether she understands them or not.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 07-21-2018 2:34 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-22-2018 8:46 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6183
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 173 of 248 (836724)
07-21-2018 4:41 PM


And Tangle is wondering why the man is dicking around on a hobbyist forum when he has the most important scientific proof for a century all wrapped up.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 07-21-2018 6:09 PM Tangle has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 29844
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 174 of 248 (836732)
07-21-2018 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Tangle
07-21-2018 4:41 PM


My guess is he would like to have some reasonable discussion with reasonable knowledgeable people in order to sharpen up his argument before trying it out at the professional level. Unfortunately he came to the wrong place. As of course did I. But if this is the wrong place there is no right place these days, sad to say.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Tangle, posted 07-21-2018 4:41 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by forexhr, posted 07-22-2018 6:24 AM Faith has responded
 Message 179 by Tangle, posted 07-22-2018 3:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
forexhr
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 175 of 248 (836765)
07-22-2018 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Tanypteryx
07-21-2018 1:15 PM


Re: getting petty
Tanypteryx writes:

There are only 2 people in this thread that don't understand the "fancy terms."
Your model is total bullshit.

There is no need to "understand" fancy terms as they are just abstract instances of human mind that have nothing to do with the cause and effect structure of the natural world. Natural world is composed of atoms that change their positions in space and time according to four fundamental forces, which results in arrangements of various 3D shapes and sizes. All functions in biology are just one type of such arrangements. Starting with the premise that biological arrangements din't exist on the early Earth or at our Universe's Birth, there is only one way for them to come into existence - atoms must change their positions - regardless if this happens in a 'warm little pond' or on the DNA strands. This is the first simple truth upon which my model is based.

The second simple truth is the quantitative relation between two mathematical values. One quantifies all possible arrangements that can provide biological functions and the other those arrangements that can't. This quantitative relation coupled with the principle of mathematical expectation determines the number of changes that are required for new biological functions to emerge. Now, given the second truth, all that one needs to do to challenge my model is to explain which of the two values is wrong and why it is wrong. Nothing more and nothing less.

Has anyone on this thread even tried to do that? No. Instead, majority of responders resort to rhetorical gymnastics with fancy terms and useless abstractions in order to maintain their faith in the theory. And this behaviour is how true dogmatic believers operate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-21-2018 1:15 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-22-2018 1:46 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
forexhr
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 176 of 248 (836767)
07-22-2018 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Faith
07-21-2018 6:09 PM


Faith writes:

My guess is he would like to have some reasonable discussion with reasonable knowledgeable people in order to sharpen up his argument before trying it out at the professional level. Unfortunately he came to the wrong place. As of course did I. But if this is the wrong place there is no right place these days, sad to say.

You are right. Now I realize that I came to the wrong place, which is why this is my last response here. But before I leave, I would like to ask you a questions, if you don't mind. You said that you can't follow my arguments, so can you please tell me what exactly you can't follow so that I can articulate and frame my arguments more clearly in the article. Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 07-21-2018 6:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 07-22-2018 5:54 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19575
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 177 of 248 (836775)
07-22-2018 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by forexhr
07-21-2018 12:52 PM


getting silly
@RAZD

I am not interested to discuss your personal rationalizations to keep the faith in the theory of evolution. The subject of this topic is pretty clear - molecular rearrangements(variations/DNA changes) that are required for genes to adopt biologically functional states and model which proves their insufficiency. You cannot disprove numbers provided in this model with philosophical concepts, abstractions, colorful graphs, and fancy terms that nobody understands. These are just distractions, your personal way to avoid what you cannot disprove. At the end of the day everything is pretty simple - if you don't want to address the subject at hand, you might be happier somewhere else. But please, please... stop trolling my thread.

And there we have the full personification of cognitive dissonance. Ad hominum attacks on people who disagree with you and the complete denial of the arguments against you are not validations for your failed model, it's just you crawling into your shell, closing your eyes and ears and shouting nananana .....

Sadly, for you, this is completely incapable of altering the reality: evolution has, does, and will continue to occur, and the theory of evolution -- the actual scientific one -- will continue to produce predictable results ... until it is disproven by evidence, objective empirical evidence,

... You cannot disprove numbers provided in this model with philosophical concepts, ...

No, it is disproved with objective empirical evidence of the reality of the world that surrounds you. Nothing philosophical about it. You only call it philosophical so you can tell yourself you can ignore it -- that's your cognitive dissonance in action.

In science, when someone shows you that you are wrong with evidence, you correct yourself, you don't deny the evidence. When someone says I think you are wrong because my model says so, you say where is your objective empirical evidence that your model actually works: you . don't . have . any .

A mathematical model is not evidence, it is hypothetical, yours is built on cherry picked information and not a complete analysis of all the evidence ... and a model is only as good as far as it models reality. You can't force reality to fit the model.

And, sorry, I'll keep saying it, because reality matters. If not to you then to other readers of these threads.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by forexhr, posted 07-21-2018 12:52 PM forexhr has not yet responded

  
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 382
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 178 of 248 (836787)
07-22-2018 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by forexhr
07-22-2018 6:23 AM


Re: getting petty
Mathematics is a language that describes reality. As a descriptor, or as a predictor, of reality, it is useful only to the degree that the symbols accurately map that reality. When a model is presented that contradicts a large number of consilient physical observations, it will be approached with a high degree of skepticism. Typically, individuals who have a high degree of confidence in their model, and an appropriate level of technical knowledge to defend it, do not end up in the hinterlands of the internet. Crank scientists, on the other hand, often do.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by forexhr, posted 07-22-2018 6:23 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6183
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 179 of 248 (836791)
07-22-2018 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Faith
07-21-2018 6:09 PM


Faith writes:

My guess is he would like to have some reasonable discussion with reasonable knowledgeable people in order to sharpen up his argument before trying it out at the professional level.

If he wasn't just another creationist nutter with a half-arsed, bullshit 'proof' he would be talking to accademics that might have an interest in his numbers. He'd then try to get something published.

Instead he turns up at a science v religion forum and tells everybody that the ToE is the equivalent of Flat Earth Theory. Nope, he's just another drive-by nutter.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 07-21-2018 6:09 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1483
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 180 of 248 (836801)
07-22-2018 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by forexhr
07-20-2018 4:17 AM


Re: Wrong again
"The evolution theory is an idea according to which the evolutionary processes of mutations, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift can produce previously non-existent biological functions".

This theory teaches that at the beginning, there was only one biological function — reproduction, i.e. that life began with a simple molecule that could reproduce itself

I would call this characterization of evolution to be somewhat misleading because it represents your biased spin on the subject rather than the scientific view.

First, “can produce previously non-existent biological functions”. Granted this is kind of the implication of the theory, but to me, the way you put this statement makes it sound as if the theory predicts that new biological functions will just pop into existence with no predecessor. A more accurate representation of the scientific view is:

The evolution theory is an idea according to which new phenotypes are produced through the evolutionary processes of mutations, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift in a process often referred to as descent with modification.

Second, “there was only one biological function — reproduction, i.e. that life began with a simple molecule that could reproduce itself”. This statement ventures into the more uncertain realm of abiogenesis. Strictly speaking, the theory of evolution takes over once life is established. Yes, some do talk about pre-biotic processes in an “evolutionary” way, but the ToE doesn’t really explain how life came to be in the first place. The ToE starts with living organisms; how those organisms came be - whether by abiogenesis, intelligent design, creation ex nihilo or panspermia - is irrelevant to the ToE.

Early life would include more biological functions than just reproduction. I would also argue the evolution would require a system of inheritance that is passed on by reproduction, such as DNA/RNA. So these life processes needed to be in place before the ToE begins to explain the diversification of life.

In short, the theory assumes that changes in the DNA, coupled with the elimination process (selection), turned a simple molecule into Mozart.

Again, misleading; not really representative of what the ToE theorizes, but a statement that attempts to capture the perceived irrationality of the ToE in a reduction of the theory to a ridiculous statement. Basically a reduction ad absurdum. While I respect this type of argument and often use it myself to show the absurdity of the consequences of a position, I don’t think the statement accurately describes the ToE.

1. The processes of evolution are observed facts. You yourself admit this. These processes have been demonstrated to bring about novel phenotypes and new biological functions. This is what is often referred to as “microevolution” by ToE opponents (I say opponents because scientists define microevolution slightly different). But anyway, these processes are observed.

2. The earth is very old and its history has been recorded in geological formations and can be studied. I know that some deny the earth is old and use Noah’s flood to explain all geological features including fossil evidence, but this is hardly a scientific position. That the earth is old and fossils represent a record of the history of life on earth is considered a scientific fact by the scientific community.

3. The history of life on earth shows a progression of forms that are increasingly different from modern forms the further back in time you go. This progression demands an explanation. In addition, the current distribution of organisms in the environment is highly dependent on the history of that species and its interaction with other species and the environment. Having a framework within which to explain HOW life came to be diversified can help answer questions about current species distribution.

And finally, the part you are actually attacking...

4. The scientific consensus is that the Theory of Evolution is currently the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. HOW life came to be diversified and structured like it is can be adequately explained by the ToE without resorting to unobserved, unsupported process (such as intelligent design or creation ex niliho).

In short, the ToE is a framework that is used to explain how and why life on this planet is so diverse. The ToE doesn’t require molecules to Mozart nor is it one of the premises or assumptions of the ToE. The ToE is a model, a framework that is used to explain how life on this planet has come to be diverse. For example, there is no requirement that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. But, the ToE provides a framework within which to understand and explain the observations that have been made that indicate that chimps and humans do indeed share a common ancestor.

What doesn’t seem to be clear to ToE deniers is that even if it was discovered that all “kinds” of creatures were created ex niliho only 6,000 years ago, the ToE would still remain solid. It would still be the best explanation for how life on earth has become diversified. We would have to tweak it somewhat, but the core principals would remain. It is observed facts.

(note: I think if you used your math skills to analyze the probability that life diversified from a small number of “kinds” that were created 6,000 years ago, that would also prove to be impossible - for example, even for a genus like Drosophila to diversify into what it is today would require mutations at a rate that is completely untenable. Of course, you could speculate, as Faith does, about a super-genome that existed at creation, but that is way more unrealistic than anything the ToE proposes)

My simple mathematical model, which has only two parameters — the size of an average gene and the deformation tolerance, proves this impossible.

1. In your last thread about this “mathematical proof,” I pointed out how you lifted the values for your parameters out of context from the papers you cited without addressing their arguments or conclusions. This is dishonest within a scientific context. Unless the paper you are presenting here addresses those issues I brought up previously, there is really no need for me to go further with this.

2. How evolution occurs at a molecular level requires more than 2 parameters to model it. It is not just the make-up of genes that determines an organism’s phenotype, but the interaction of those genes with each other and with the environment. You have no parameter in your model for interactions.

3. You seem to be under the misconception that genes are the blueprint for a trait, but reality is not that simple. Yes, genes determine phenotype, but there is no such thing as an “arm” gene or “wing” gene. You model assumes that in order to produce a biological structure, the gene needs to provide the blueprint or recipe for that trait. That is an overly simplistic way of understanding how the genotype determines phenotype. Your model does not take this into account. Your model assumes, incorrectly, that new biological features just pop into existence where they previously did not exist. This is not how the ToE predicts that new biological functions arise. New biological functions arise through modification of existing functions. The processes involved are: duplication, gene regulation, epigenetic modifications, environmental interactions, developmental processes, and changes to protein sequence. Your model only considers that latter process.

4. At best, your model could cause us to rethink how the evolutionary process occurs. It may indicate that there is a process in the long term scheme of evolution progress that we have overlooked or underestimated. I myself tend to think that there is something additional going on that the ToE has overlooked. If I had to choose a category within to place my particular position in this EvC debate (which I am uncomfortable doing), I would consider myself to be a theistic evolutionist. Thus I would not preclude the intervention of God in the evolutionary process. However, this would be very difficult, if not impossible to examine scientifically and so, at this point, remains just a personal belief and not a scientific position.

5. Without an alternative model, the ToE will not be abandoned. Scientists would abandon the ToE if a better model comes along, although the adoption of an alternative model would be very hard fought. The reason is the ToE works, very well I might add, to predict and explain a wide range of biological and ecological phenomenon. It simply works. It is the best model/framework for studying biological systems we have. BAR NONE. There is no competing model (not even a close second) that can serve to explain the diversity and relationships of life on this planet. No, intelligent design is NOT a competing model. It has little to no explanatory power. No, creationism is NOT a competing model; it is in direct contradiction to accepted scientific facts. There just is NO competing model. It is fine to challenge the premises of the ToE, but without a functional model that explains the facts better, there is no real point in proposing that the ToE should be scrapped. What is it about your model that explains the facts better?

The rest of your post is just trash-talk and taunting. Ignoring...

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 153 by forexhr, posted 07-20-2018 4:17 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by forexhr, posted 07-23-2018 5:10 AM herebedragons has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1011
12
1314
...
17Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018