Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2018 5:08 PM
213 online now:
Coragyps, CosmicChimp, kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (6 members, 207 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,820 Year: 18,643/29,783 Month: 588/2,043 Week: 140/386 Day: 43/47 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
151617Next
Author Topic:   The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 21 days)
Posts: 1483
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(1)
Message 196 of 248 (836862)
07-23-2018 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by forexhr
07-23-2018 11:57 AM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
Congratulations! You have defeated me without so much as lifting an argument!!!! Impressive.

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 194 by forexhr, posted 07-23-2018 11:57 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by forexhr, posted 07-24-2018 4:43 AM herebedragons has responded

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 197 of 248 (836907)
07-24-2018 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by herebedragons
07-23-2018 1:02 PM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
I have defeated you because you were unable to disprove my argument. The funny thing is you haven't even tried to disprove it, as you addressed neither its logical structure nor its premises. The only possible way to disprove an argument is to either show a flaw in its logical structure or falsehood of one or more of its premises. In your response you did neither, but instead, simply ignored its conclusion because it opposes your tautological arguments for the truth of evolution theory.

This is like trying to oppose the argument that humans cannot jump from Earth to the Moon because kinematic and kinetic data showed that their jumping abilities are limited to about a dozen meters, by saying: humans can perform that jump because we have empirical evidence that human are able to jump and empirical evidence that they were on the Moon.

I have provided an argument that a function coded with an average gene cannot evolve because it requires 10^405 variations, while the data showed that the varying capacity of gene pools is limited to about 10^43 and of observable universe to about 10^140. You rejected this argument by saying that we have empirical evidence that variations (new phenotypes) are produced through the process that produces variations (descent with modification) and because we have a framework within which we can explain the diversity(variety) of life forms. By this framework, life on this planet has become diverse because it changes. Simply put, you ignored valid argument on the bases of circular, tautological notion that life forms change via the process that changes life forms.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by herebedragons, posted 07-23-2018 1:02 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by herebedragons, posted 07-24-2018 12:26 PM forexhr has responded
 Message 199 by ringo, posted 07-24-2018 12:30 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 21 days)
Posts: 1483
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(4)
Message 198 of 248 (836923)
07-24-2018 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by forexhr
07-24-2018 4:43 AM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
The funny thing is you haven't even tried to disprove it, as you addressed neither its logical structure nor its premises.

This statement proves you didn't even read my messages and/or are incapable of understanding them. Either way, it's hardly worth repeating. You can go back and actually read them if you are actually interested in a discussion.

The only possible way to disprove an argument is to either show a flaw in its logical structure or falsehood of one or more of its premises.

I addressed BOTH; had you read my posts you would know what I actually argued rather than just making up what I said.

In your response you did neither, but instead, simply ignored its conclusion because it opposes your tautological arguments for the truth of evolution theory.

You didn't even read my messages did you?

I have defeated you because you were unable to disprove my argument.

Hardly... I conceded defeat because you seem to be incapable of discussion and rather you simply resort to taunting, accusations of logical fallacies (when it’s not even apparent you understand the logical fallacy you accuse me of committing) and meaningless rebuttals (e.g. Message 187 and Message 191). Your argument doesn't address particles and forces; it addresses amino acids, proteins and phenotypes (e.g. gills).

If you won't even read my posts, there is nothing else I can do but to mock and ridicule you and I am trying to avoid doing that.

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 197 by forexhr, posted 07-24-2018 4:43 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by forexhr, posted 07-25-2018 4:22 AM herebedragons has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15746
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(2)
Message 199 of 248 (836925)
07-24-2018 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by forexhr
07-24-2018 4:43 AM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
forexhr writes:

I have defeated you....


And yet the Theory of Evolution stands. It is used every day by people who actually understand it, it is taught in schools, etc. just as if you had never logged on to EvC at all.

Enjoy your "victory". Don't over-celebrate. Don't drink and drive (if you're old enough to drive).


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by forexhr, posted 07-24-2018 4:43 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 200 of 248 (836960)
07-25-2018 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by herebedragons
07-24-2018 12:26 PM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
I will make things easier to you by putting one part of my argument in the standard form:

P1: In the natural world, previously non-existent things can come into existence only by natural means, through variations.

P2: Biological functions are things that exist in nature, and many of them were non-existent in the first life forms.

C1/P3: Therefore, many biological functions are previously non-existent things.

P4: The appearance of a biological function that is coded with only one average eukaryotic gene requires 10^405 variations.

P5: The varying capacity of the natural world, from the Big Bang to the present day is 10^140.

C2/P6: Therefore, biological function that is coded with only one average eukaryotic gene didn't came into existence by natural means in Universe's history.

P7: The evolution theory holds that all previously non-existent biological functions came into existence by natural means in Earth's history.

C3: Therefore, the evolution theory is wrong.

To disprove this argument you have to show either a flaw in the above logical structure or falsehood of one or more of its premises. For e.g., if you think that the P4 is false, you must disprove my calculations and provide yours with different numbers. You cannot simply make empty assertions like you did: "You have no idea what this “deformation tolerance” actually is" or "these numbers need to be empirical". I clearly defined the deformation tolerance in the article, while numbers are 'empirical', and indeed way to generous, if we take into account the 'empirical' data showing the existence of highly conserved genes and ultra-conserved genes. Mutations that arise in these genes create such a high degree of functional disruption that they are very quickly eliminated from the gene pool. So, saying that the deformation tolerance of 50 percent is not empirical is just an empty assertion.

Further, the above argument doesn't care about what the ToE is or is not, what it teaches, how many scientists support it, or how many predictions, ad hoc hypothesis, evidences, and fancy terms it has. All it cares about is the fundamental assumption of the theory that all biological functions came into existence via variations by natural means in Earth's history. With this fundamental assumption wrong, ToE is wrong by definition.

Finally, you cannot simply wave the magic wand of your previous statements and then pretend that this somehow makes my argument invalid.

Good luck!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by herebedragons, posted 07-24-2018 12:26 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2018 8:25 AM forexhr has responded
 Message 204 by caffeine, posted 07-25-2018 12:38 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 212 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2018 8:32 AM forexhr has responded
 Message 225 by herebedragons, posted 07-28-2018 10:40 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14551
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 201 of 248 (836963)
07-25-2018 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by forexhr
07-25-2018 4:22 AM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
Your argument has a clear logical error in jumping from C2/P6 to P7. Biological functions need not be encoded by a single eukaryotic gene.

P4 is in error because the calculation assumes that the gene must be produced randomly, rather than, for instance a new function being acquired by mutation or the gene arriving via horizontal transfer (the latter being rather important for bacteria). It also assumes a predetermined function which is also an error - you would need the probability of any useful function, not a particular one.

Further I will note that the only genes even suspected of being effectively random in sequence tend to be much shorter than average anyway.

(And that is not addressing the really bizarre idea of gills as a “new biological function” when they really only increase the surface area available to a pre-existing function).

So you have both a serious problem with both P4 and the logic, invalidating your argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by forexhr, posted 07-25-2018 4:22 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by forexhr, posted 07-25-2018 9:11 AM PaulK has responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 202 of 248 (836969)
07-25-2018 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by PaulK
07-25-2018 8:25 AM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
Your argument has a clear logical error in jumping from C2/P6 to P7. Biological functions need not be encoded by a single eukaryotic gene.

I already addressed this here: Message 162

P4 is in error because the calculation assumes that the gene must be produced randomly, rather than, for instance a new function being acquired by mutation or the gene arriving via horizontal transfer (the latter being rather important for bacteria). It also assumes a predetermined function which is also an error - you would need the probability of any useful function, not a particular one.

Horizontal transfer is simply transfer of something that already existed - either functional or junk, and has nothing to do with the question of variations that are required for new functions.

Regarding predetermined function. Underwater respiratory functions is predetermined by aquatic environment, splicing function by intron-exon structure, enzymatic function by substance that needs to be metabolized, pumping function by vascular system, sperm cell by egg cell, male sex organs by female sex organs.... In short, everything is predetermined. I explained this already: Message 187

(And that is not addressing the really bizarre idea of gills as a “new biological function” when they really only increase the surface area available to a pre-existing function).

Message 140

So you have both a serious problem with both P4 and the logic, invalidating your argument.

Nice try, but better luck next time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2018 8:25 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2018 11:43 AM forexhr has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14551
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 203 of 248 (836983)
07-25-2018 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by forexhr
07-25-2018 9:11 AM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
quote:

I already addressed this here: Message 162

Unfortunately for you relying on an unstated assumption does not make your argument logically valid. Quite the opposite.

quote:

Horizontal transfer is simply transfer of something that already existed - either functional or junk, and has nothing to do with the question of variations that are required for new functions.

Horizontal transfer can certainly add features that are new to the lineage, and at the least it adds to the available resources.

quote:

Regarding predetermined function. Underwater respiratory functions is predetermined by aquatic environment, splicing function by intron-exon structure, enzymatic function by substance that needs to be metabolized, pumping function by vascular system, sperm cell by egg cell, male sex organs by female sex organs.... In short, everything is predetermined. I explained this already:

And you are still obviously wrong. While it is conceivable that there might be cases where one particular function is required it is hardly likely to be the normal case.

quote:

Message 140

The fact that you chose a bad example is hardly evidence for intelligent design. It just illustrates your sloppiness. Which is why it was presented as an aside.

So I guess you have no valid rebuttal. Too bad.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by forexhr, posted 07-25-2018 9:11 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by forexhr, posted 07-25-2018 5:29 PM PaulK has responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1552
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 204 of 248 (836996)
07-25-2018 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by forexhr
07-25-2018 4:22 AM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
I had a read through your article to figure out where your numbers came from, and there is all sorts of wrong going on there. Let's start with one wrongness that's simple to explain.

Since you enjoy logical fallacies, your calculation is colloquially known as the sharpshooter fallacy. You're arguing that since it's extremely unlikely for one gene to evolve; it's clearly impossible for many to evolve. But what you're calculating (wrongly) is the probability of one specific gene evolving. How likely that is is of course a very different question to whether any, non-specified functional gene could evolve.

Another obvious wrong with respect to your numbers is what you call the 'deformation tolerance' of a gene; meaning how many ways could you change it and still have a functional gene (where what you mean is the same function - see above). You use the assumption of 50% and claim that's way too big, and thus a generous assumption in favour of evolution. You present no evidence or reasoning for why that's too big, and it does not necessarily appear to be so, as discussed in one of the articles you cite a few paragraphs later.

In discussing DNA methyltransferases; it mentions that you can change most of the amino acids in these proteins and still end up with a protein performing the same function. So the 'deformation tolerance' is more than 50%. Add to this that we're talking about changing the amino acids in the gene product - many of the possible changes in the base-pair sequence of the gene coding for this product will not change the amino acid sequence. Your 50% assumption is not too high - it's woefully too small.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by forexhr, posted 07-25-2018 4:22 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7610
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 205 of 248 (836998)
07-25-2018 12:45 PM
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.

I directly addressed the evidence presented in the essay in posts 38, 39, and 42. Perhaps you could start with those posts.


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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7610
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


(3)
Message 206 of 248 (837000)
07-25-2018 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by forexhr
07-23-2018 5:10 AM


Re: Wrong again
forexhr writes:

When this definition is translated from abstract language into the language of natural world, here is how it looks like: The evolution theory is an idea according to which new clusters of particles are produced through the interaction of forces and clusters of particles in a process often referred to as modified clusters of particles.

No, that is not what the theory of evolution is. There are chemical reactions happening all around us that modify molecules and elements, but that isn't evolution. Evolution has to do with reproducing organisms, inheritance of DNA, and how those organisms change over time.

My model, which you avoided like the plague, simply states that this is impossible because the number of modifications in nature is insufficient to overcome the ratio between modifications which do not fit what is predefined by E and those that do.

No such model exists. You never show any math as it relates to human and primate mutation rates, including the rate of recombination, indel, and substitution rates.

Let's do some back of the envelope calculations. The substitution mutation rate in humans is about 100 mutations per person per generation. Most scientists place the split between the human and chimp lineages at about 5 million years ago. The generation time for humans is around 25 years. Let's use a constant population size of just 100,000 for our calculations.

Using these numbers, that's 5 million/25 or 200,000 generations. For a constant population of 100,000 and 100 mutations per person per generation, that is 10 million mutations per generation. 10 million mutations per generation for 200,000 generations is 2 trillion mutations that have happened in the human lineage over the last 5 million years.

So how many substitution mutations separate the chimp and human genomes? Just 35 million, and about half of those would be mutations that happened in the chimp genome. Out of the 2 trillion mutations that did happen we only needed about 20 million to stick around in order to produce the differences we see between the human and chimp genomes with respect to substitution mutations. That's just 0.001% of the mutations that did occur. So why do you think that the observed mutation rate is incapable of producing the differences we see between species?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by forexhr, posted 07-23-2018 5:10 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 207 of 248 (837026)
07-25-2018 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by PaulK
07-25-2018 11:43 AM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
PaulK writes:

And you are still obviously wrong. While it is conceivable that there might be cases where one particular function is required it is hardly likely to be the normal case.

There are no isolated cases, but all biology is predetermined and in every case particularity is needed. As I already mentioned in this thread, all things in the natural world are only forces and particles that interact and produce various clusters of particles. What are biological things? They are simply clusters of particles with properties not present in other or non-biological clusters of particles. The same is true at the level of biological things. Biological thing A is a cluster of particles with properties not present in biological thing B. And "property" is nothing but specific number and 3D arrangement of particles. So in order for interactions of forces and particles, or in other words, variations to result in biological clusters of particles, they must result is something that is specific or predetermined. By denying that we are claiming that every cluster of particles is biological thing, which is obviously absurd. Finally, the number of non-biological clusters of particles is so big that it is impossible for interaction of forces and particles to result in biological things. Abiogenesis theory and evolution theory are two complex abstractions designed for denying this fact.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2018 11:43 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Taq, posted 07-25-2018 5:31 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 209 by PaulK, posted 07-26-2018 12:28 AM forexhr has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7610
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 208 of 248 (837027)
07-25-2018 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by forexhr
07-25-2018 5:29 PM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
forexhr writes:

here are no isolated cases, but all biology is predetermined and in every case particularity is needed. As I already mentioned in this thread, all things in the natural world are only forces and particles that interact and produce various clusters of particles. What are biological things? They are simply clusters of particles with properties not present in other or non-biological clusters of particles. The same is true at the level of biological things. Biological thing A is a cluster of particles with properties not present in biological thing B. And "property" is nothing but specific 3D arrangement of particles. So in order for interactions of forces and particles, or in other words, variations to result in biological clusters of particles, they must result is something that is specific or predetermined. By denying that we are claiming that every cluster of particles is biological thing, which is obviously absurd. Finally, the number of non-biological clusters of particles is so big that it is impossible for interaction of forces and particles to result in biological things. Abiogenesis theory and evolution theory are two complex abstractions designed for denying this fact.

If I am lose my thumb in a workplace accident, does this mean that all of my children will also be missing a thumb?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by forexhr, posted 07-25-2018 5:29 PM forexhr has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14551
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 209 of 248 (837046)
07-26-2018 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by forexhr
07-25-2018 5:29 PM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
quote:

There are no isolated cases, but all biology is predetermined and in every case particularity is needed.

Really? You are claiming that the E Coli in Lenski’s experiment would all have died without the mutation enabling the utilisation of citrate in aerobic conditions ? I claim that no mutations were needed at all, they could just have gone on as they were.

As for the assumption of determinism (and it is an assumption), if you believed it the probability of the evolution of gills should be 1.

quote:

As I already mentioned in this thread, all things in the natural world are only forces and particles that interact and produce various clusters of particles. What are biological things? They are simply clusters of particles with properties not present in other or non-biological clusters of particles.

A reductionistic view changes nothing - or if it did it would be wrong.

quote:

So in order for interactions of forces and particles, or in other words, variations to result in biological clusters of particles, they must result is something that is specific or predetermined

Which - even if it were true - is irrelevant to my point. It does more to undermine your probability calculations.

quote:

Finally, the number of non-biological clusters of particles is so big that it is impossible for interaction of forces and particles to result in biological things.

I guess if you ignore stuff like chemistry and assume all combinations must be completely random you’d come to silly ideas like that. Unfortunately for you ignoring relevant factors hardly makes for a sound argument.

Anyway, thank you for your irrational babbling. It demonstrates that you can’t defend your argument most effectively.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by forexhr, posted 07-25-2018 5:29 PM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by forexhr, posted 07-26-2018 4:29 AM PaulK has responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 210 of 248 (837047)
07-26-2018 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by PaulK
07-26-2018 12:28 AM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
PaulK writes:

Really? You are claiming that the E Coli in Lenski’s experiment would all have died without the mutation enabling the utilisation of citrate in aerobic conditions? I claim that no mutations were needed at all, they could just have gone on as they were.As for the assumption of determinism (and it is an assumption), if you believed it the probability of the evolution of gills should be 1.

In Lenski's experiment, one pre-existing biological thing (which enables citrate utilization) was moved from one location to another — near the switch (pre-existing biological thing ) that is active under oxic conditions. So, no new biological thing appeared in Lenski's experiment.

Regarding the last point. Philosophical determinism has nothing to do with my claims. I am simply saying that in order for biological things to appear, the interaction of forces and particles must result in something taht is determined or specific. Biological things are for example gears in the small hopping insect Issus coleoptratus. In nature all around us and within us, there is a constant interaction of forces and particles. But did you ever see that in some instance of the natural world, which hasn't had clusters of particles in the form of gears, this biological thing came into existence? No, you did not. Thus, what must happen in order for this biological thing to appear. Well, interaction of forces and particles must result in something specific. And this specific thing is so deeply isolated in the space of all possible non-specific things, that interactions of forces and particles in the whole observable universe, from the Big Bang to the present day, would be insufficient for gears to appear in some random place in the universe, let alone to appear exactly near the locomotor structures that require transmission of rotational motion.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by PaulK, posted 07-26-2018 12:28 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by PaulK, posted 07-26-2018 7:50 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 213 by Taq, posted 07-26-2018 4:16 PM forexhr has responded
 Message 226 by herebedragons, posted 07-28-2018 11:26 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
151617Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018