Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-17-2018 2:57 AM
242 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 240 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 840,362 Year: 15,185/29,783 Month: 1,129/1,502 Week: 127/492 Day: 1/40 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
121314
15
1617Next
Author Topic:   The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14415
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 211 of 248 (837050)
07-26-2018 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by forexhr
07-26-2018 4:29 AM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
Your comment on Lenski’s experiment is irrelevant (and obviously wrong). The point is that the changes weren’t needed.

quote:

Regarding the last point. Philosophical determinism has nothing to do with my claims

Your assertion that “everything in biology is predetermined” would seem to disagree.

quote:

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.

The point you are arguing against is that the appearance of new biological function simply requires the appearance of a new biological function, not some specific function.

And let us note that you are still not defending your “proof”. We may safely conclude that it is no such thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by forexhr, posted 07-26-2018 4:29 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19567
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 212 of 248 (837055)
07-26-2018 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by forexhr
07-25-2018 4:22 AM


Bad form, false premises
I will make things easier to you by putting one part of my argument in the standard form:

Thanks.

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.

Your "conclusion" is already stated in P2 -- this is a logically false argument of begging the question.

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.

These are your numbers, and they have been disputed in previous posts in this thread. They are basically assumptions that have not been shown to be true. The validity of your argument requires that they be true, so that validity has been questioned and you have yet to answer that honestly (ie -- not by calling the posters names and dismissing the arguments as logical fallacies and beliefs).

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.

What about two or three genes interacting? Not covered. A fatal flaw to your argument -- you have not covered all the possibilities, just singled out one cherry-picked subset. This is the logical fallacy of the part for the whole.

You assume that only one variation can occur at a time, whereas all sections of DNA can - and do - undergo variation at the same time.

You assume that new biological function is only due to one variation, and not to an interaction of variations in different sections of the DNA -- something that has been observed.

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

The evolution theory holds that the existence of variation is adequately explained by the observed processes of evolution seen in everyday life. This has not been demonstrated to be false by your argument.

C3: Therefore, the evolution theory is wrong.

Now we take that hypothesis (regardless of it's basis) and test that against the evidence of reality to see if it passes scientific muster:

In the e-coli experiment "previously non-existent biological functions" of being able to metabolize citrate was observed to occur and it was determined that this ability developed by mutation and selection as is documented by the frozen samples of each generation.

Note: this ability developed due to the interaction of two changes in the DNA.

In other words your hypothesis failed -- it was falsified by [i]one[i] well documented experiment.

Obviously your premises and your logical form are false.

Thank you for playing.

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 200 by forexhr, posted 07-25-2018 4:22 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by forexhr, posted 07-27-2018 5:46 AM RAZD has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7572
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 213 of 248 (837081)
07-26-2018 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by forexhr
07-26-2018 4:29 AM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
forexhr writes:

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.

That is wrong. The changes resulted in an arrangement of particles that had never existed before, so that counts as a new function under your definitions.

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.

This claim is falsified by the simple fact that there are millions of species, all with different genomes. Obviously, it doesn't have to be specific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by forexhr, posted 07-26-2018 4:29 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by forexhr, posted 07-27-2018 5:49 AM Taq has responded

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


Message 214 of 248 (837120)
07-27-2018 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by RAZD
07-26-2018 8:32 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises
RAZD writes:

Your "conclusion" is already stated in P2 -- this is a logically false argument of begging the question.


No, it is not, because P2 refers to previous non-existence in life forms, while the conclusion refers to previous non-existence generally. Further, C1/P3 is truth in itself, and P1 and P2 are not needed at all for the whole argument to be valid. In other words, the conclusion C3 is valid even without P1 and P2. I used these premises simply because you people misrepresent even the obvious facts, so the first two premises (facts) were added to the argument in order to make the third premise (fact) more obvious.

These are your numbers, and they have been disputed in previous posts in this thread. They are basically assumptions that have not been shown to be true. The validity of your argument requires that they be true, so that validity has been questioned and you have yet to answer that honestly (ie -- not by calling the posters names and dismissing the arguments as logical fallacies and beliefs).

No shit Sherlock! If I arrived at these numbers, then obviously, these numbers are mine. Now, to dispute them you must provide your own numbers, i.e. show that deformation tolerance of 50 percent is not empirically founded. In other words, you must show that all biological things will retain their functions after we randomize 50 percent of their coding molecules. I must show only one opposite example to refute the evolution theory. With highly conserved genes and ultra-conserved genes I have thousands of them. Further, in the article, in the RNA splicing example, I assumed 90 percent deformation tolerance, and still ended up with a ridiculously enormous number of required variations: 10^16,200. So, nothing has been disputed in previous posts in this thread. “Your side” is just throwing around empty claims.

What about two or three genes interacting? Not covered. A fatal flaw to your argument -- you have not covered all the possibilities, just singled out one cherry-picked subset. This is the logical fallacy of the part for the whole.
You assume that only one variation can occur at a time, whereas all sections of DNA can - and do - undergo variation at the same time.
You assume that new biological function is only due to one variation, and not to an interaction of variations in different sections of the DNA -- something that has been observed.

This is another series of empty, random and nonsensical claims. Take for example this one: "You assume that only one variation can occur at a time." What that even means? When and how did I assume something like that? Whose ass in hell did you pull that claim out of? P5 clearly states that literally all theoretically possible variations, from the Big Bang to the present day, i.e. 10^140 of them, were available for the origin of one average function. And you are claiming that I assumed only one. It is simply astounding to see all mental gymnastics you are doing just to deny the obvious.

The evolution theory holds that the existence of variation is adequately explained by the observed processes of evolution seen in everyday life. This has not been demonstrated to be false by your argument.

The evolution theory holds many assumptions, hidden assumption, hypotheses, ad hoc hypotheses, predictions and falsified predictions about the observed processes of mutations and selection? So what? My argument is concerned with its fundamental, hidden assumption that mutations can result in previously non-existent functions and renders this assumption invalid. Tossing around random statements about the evolution theory doesn't make the argument invalid.

Now we take that hypothesis (regardless of it's basis) and test that against the evidence of reality to see if it passes scientific muster:
In the e-coli experiment "previously non-existent biological functions" of being able to metabolize citrate was observed to occur and it was determined that this ability developed by mutation and selection as is documented by the frozen samples of each generation.
Note: this ability developed due to the interaction of two changes in the DNA.
In other words your hypothesis failed -- it was falsified by one well documented experiment.
Obviously your premises and your logical form are false.

None of the premises of my argument state anything about Lenski's experiment, so what you wrote is just another useless entry in this thread. Further, I mentioned a dozen times already, and it is clearly stated in the papers linked in the article, that the ability to metabolize citrate in not new, since the gene that transports citrate into the bacterium (citT) already existed in 12 initial populations of E.coli. What is new is the location of this pre-existing function. And changing the location of X says nothing about the formation of X. So you are either deliberately intellectually dishonest or too intellectually inept to comprehend something so simple. Either way I will further ignore your posts as I simply don't have mental capacity to deal with this level of ignorance and stupidity.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2018 8:32 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by RAZD, posted 07-27-2018 9:15 AM forexhr has responded

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


Message 215 of 248 (837121)
07-27-2018 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Taq
07-26-2018 4:16 PM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
Taq writes:

That is wrong. The changes resulted in an arrangement of particles that had never existed before, so that counts as a new function under your definitions.

The changes in Lenski's experiment resulted in a different location of pre-existing arrangement of particles, so this doesn't count as a new function under my definition. Also, under my definition even 10^405 different arrangements of particles count as one function. Hence, under my definition, the arrangement of particles that had never existed before is not new function.

This claim is falsified by the simple fact that there are millions of species, all with different genomes. Obviously, it doesn't have to be specific.

If you had actually read what I said in above comments then you'd know that specificity requirement means that the general arrangements of particles that result from the interaction of forces and particles, won't provide biological functions, but only specific ones. Millions of different species are not millions of different general arrangements of particles but millions of different specific arrangements of particles.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Taq, posted 07-26-2018 4:16 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Taq, posted 07-27-2018 12:08 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19567
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 216 of 248 (837126)
07-27-2018 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by forexhr
07-27-2018 5:46 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises
RAZD writes:

Your "conclusion" is already stated in P2 -- this is a logically false argument of begging the question.

No, it is not, because P2 refers to previous non-existence in life forms, while the conclusion refers to previous non-existence generally. ...

Really? Here they are again:

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.

Now please elucidate the difference between:

" ... many of them (biological functions) were non-existent in the first life forms."

and

" ... many biological functions are previously non-existent things."

They both refer to "previous non-existence generally" as far as I can see. Can you explain the difference?

... Further, C1/P3 is truth in itself, and P1 and P2 are not needed at all for the whole argument to be valid. In other words, the conclusion C3 is valid even without P1 and P2. ...

In other words you are agreeing that the C3 conclusion is included in the premises and that you were in fact committing the logical fallacy of begging the question. Glad you cleared that up.

... I used these premises simply because you people misrepresent even the obvious facts, so the first two premises (facts) were added to the argument in order to make the third premise (fact) more obvious.

One of the signs of a losing argument is the use of the ad hominem attack on the messengers instead of dealing with their arguments.

No shit Sherlock! If I arrived at these numbers, then obviously, these numbers are mine. Now, to dispute them you must provide your own numbers, i.e. show that deformation tolerance of 50 percent is not empirically founded. In other words, you must show that all biological things will retain their functions after we randomize 50 percent of their coding molecules. I must show only one opposite example to refute the evolution theory. With highly conserved genes and ultra-conserved genes I have thousands of them. Further, in the article, in the RNA splicing example, I assumed 90 percent deformation tolerance, and still ended up with a ridiculously enormous number of required variations: 10^16,200. So, nothing has been disputed in previous posts in this thread. “Your side” is just throwing around empty claims.

Reality refutes your numbers, because evolution of new functions has been observed. This is a "(fact)" that you are ignoring.

Message 215: The changes in Lenski's experiment resulted in a different location of pre-existing arrangement of particles, so this doesn't count as a new function under my definition. Also, under my definition even 10^405 different arrangements of particles count as one function. Hence, under my definition, the arrangement of particles that had never existed before is not new function.

The arrangement itself is not a new function, it causes the new function.

You do realize that DNA is composed of four (4) molecules, and that the varying pattern of these molecules is what causes the expressed functions of the organism, yes? The "pre-existing arrangement" can (and likely does) occur in many places of the entire genome, and it would have different results in expressed functionality, so this is not a valid argument against it producing a new function.

The "pre-existing arrangement" in other locations did not produce the expression of citrate metabolism in the organism, so the location is critical to the expression of the functionality, and a new location causing the expression of a new functionality IS a new arrangement.

Thus this claim of "different location of pre-existing arrangement of particles" is just your bogus way to ignore the "(fact)" that the resulting new location(s) of molecules is in "(fact)" different from the previous arrangement ... AND that this in "(fact)" affected the expression of functions in the organism causing, a new function to occur.

If this doesn't fit your "definition" for a new function, then your "definition" is wrong because it doesn't reflect the reality of DNA and function expression within organisms.

... Further, in the article, in the RNA splicing example, I assumed 90 percent deformation tolerance, and still ended up with a ridiculously enormous number of required variations: 10^16,200. So, nothing has been disputed in previous posts in this thread. “Your side” is just throwing around empty claims.

You make many assumptions, but your calculations are erroneous because you do not consider all the possible ways for mutations occur simultaneously and to interact with each other in ways that produce new functionality.

Anytime a creationist/IDologist spouts big numbers you can be pretty sure they are committing one of several false assumptions.

See the old improbable probability problem, in particular:

quote:
4. The calculation fails to account for combinations of groups of such molecules in smorgasbord fashion instead of in assembly line fashion all at once all from nothing. And further, that all those "failed" experiments are still available to be cut and reassembled into new experiments without having to go through all the preliminaries. It fails to account for actual combination process as used in natural assembly of large organic compounds. Amino acids are assembled into larger molecules like peptides and not from extending amino acids by adding atoms. This failure means that all the ways to reach the final necessary combination are not included and thus it unnecessarily excludes possible combination methods.

5. The probability of winning a lottery by any one ticket is extremely low, but the probability that the lottery will be won is extremely high. How do you reconcile these two very disparate probabilities? By knowing that any one of the millions of tickets is a valid winner if picked. To show that this is not the case for the calculations mentioned (ie -- in order to say "1 out of") you have to show that no other combination works of all the other probabilities. There are several different known forms of hemoglobin, all of which do the job of transporting oxygen in the blood, and thus the probability is high that there are other versions that will work as well. Scientists have also manipulated an organism successfully to make it produce an unnatural amino acid, one that does not occur naturally, thus demonstrating that there are other "solutions" than the ones that happen to be used in life as we know it. It could well be that 1 in a million "solutions" of the possible combinations would work, and that the probability would then reduce to 1 in 106. This calculation has not been done and is not included, unnecessarily excluding possible solutions from the probability calculation.


Also see Message 24 of that thread.

This is another series of empty, random and nonsensical claims. Take for example this one: "You assume that only one variation can occur at a time." What that even means? When and how did I assume something like that? Whose ass in hell did you pull that claim out of? P5 clearly states that literally all theoretically possible variations, from the Big Bang to the present day, i.e. 10^140 of them, were available for the origin of one average function. And you are claiming that I assumed only one. It is simply astounding to see all mental gymnastics you are doing just to deny the obvious.

Pot meet kettle (the irony, it burns ... ).

... P5 clearly states that literally all theoretically possible variations, from the Big Bang to the present day, i.e. 10^140 of them, were available for the origin of one average function. ...

I again refer you to the old improbable probability problem ... how many combinations of parallel occurrence(s) of variations have you considered? Apparently none. If I play a game of getting from A to B by throwing a single di then it will take a predictable number of throws on average to go the distance ... once that is known ... but if I use 2 or 3 di at the same time and combine their results, then the number of throws decreases dramatically. You don't know the distance or the number of di being used by the natural processes, and that is why your number is bogus.

The evolution theory holds many assumptions, hidden assumption, hypotheses, ad hoc hypotheses, predictions and falsified predictions about the observed processes of mutations and selection? So what? My argument is concerned with its fundamental, hidden assumption that mutations can result in previously non-existent functions and renders this assumption invalid. Tossing around random statements about the evolution theory doesn't make the argument invalid.

Your "argument" is a purely mathematical construct and just philosophical until tested, and if it is not tested against reality, then it is just hypothetical ... and when we do test it against reality we see that it in "(fact)" fails.

That is all that is needed to falsify your argument. No numbers, just reality.

None of the premises of my argument state anything about Lenski's experiment, so what you wrote is just another useless entry in this thread. ...

Curiously, Lenski's experiment is a TEST of your argument, objective empirical evidence that your claim/argument is false.

... Further, I mentioned a dozen times already, and it is clearly stated in the papers linked in the article, that the ability to metabolize citrate in not new, since the gene that transports citrate into the bacterium (citT) already existed in 12 initial populations of E.coli. What is new is the location of this pre-existing function. And changing the location of X says nothing about the formation of X. ...

As you said, " ... It is simply astounding to see all mental gymnastics you are doing just to deny the obvious."

The expression of functionality in every organism depends on location along the DNA as much as it does the arrangement of the specific 4 molecules that construct the genome, so a new location (a) IS a change and (b) can cause different functionality. Denial of this "(fact)" does not refute it.

... So you are either deliberately intellectually dishonest or too intellectually inept to comprehend something so simple. Either way I will further ignore your posts as I simply don't have mental capacity to deal with this level of ignorance and stupidity.

And we're back to the ad hominem to "defend" a losing argument instead of dealing with the "(fact)" that the evidence of reality refutes your hypothetical mathematical model.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


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 214 by forexhr, posted 07-27-2018 5:46 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by forexhr, posted 07-27-2018 12:55 PM RAZD has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7572
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 217 of 248 (837127)
07-27-2018 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by forexhr
07-27-2018 5:49 AM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
forexhr writes:

The changes in Lenski's experiment resulted in a different location of pre-existing arrangement of particles, . . .

A different arrangement of parts that has never existed before is a new function according to your own definitions.

If you had actually read what I said in above comments then you'd know that specificity requirement means that the general arrangements of particles that result from the interaction of forces and particles, won't provide biological functions, but only specific ones.

There are many, many arrangement of particles that do provide biological function, so you are wrong.

Millions of different species are not millions of different general arrangements of particles but millions of different specific arrangements of particles.

Every single genome is a different arrangement of parts. Your thesis is just wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by forexhr, posted 07-27-2018 5:49 AM forexhr has not yet responded

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


Message 218 of 248 (837136)
07-27-2018 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by RAZD
07-27-2018 9:15 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises
Now please elucidate the difference between:
" ... many of them (biological functions) were non-existent in the first life forms."
and
" ... many biological functions are previously non-existent things."
They both refer to "previous non-existence generally" as far as I can see. Can you explain the difference?

Unbelievable, even when it is clearly written... "non-existent in the first life forms", you still cannot comprehend that this doesn't refer to non-existence generally. It is P1 that refers to non-existence generally as this general statement (the major premise) includes all things in the natural world. And it is this general statement what enables P2 (the minor premise) to justify the conclusion that biological functions are previously non-existent things. Hence, this is a simple and valid syllogism.

In other words you are agreeing that the C3 conclusion is included in the premises and that you were in fact committing the logical fallacy of begging the question. Glad you cleared that up.

P1: All living things are mortal.
P2: Men are living things.
P3/C1: All men are mortal.
P4: Socrates is a man.
C2: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

According to your "logic", the above argument contains the logical fallacy of begging the question. Nuff said.

One of the signs of a losing argument is the use of the ad hominem attack on the messengers instead of dealing with their arguments.

P1: RAZD is claiming X.
P2: RAZD is a moron.
C: Therefore, X is not true.

The above is an ad hominem attack, while saying that RAZD misrepresents obvious facts is not.

Reality refutes your numbers, because evolution of new functions has been observed. This is a "(fact)" that you are ignoring.

Sorry, but with empty appeals to "reality" and "observation" you cannot refute an argument. Also, my argument doesn't say that new function cannot evolve, but that new function that is coded with one average eukaryotic gene cannot evolve. Please, read the premise #6 again.

You make many assumptions, but your calculations are erroneous because you do not consider all the possible ways for mutations occur simultaneously and to interact with each other in ways that produce new functionality.

I have only one assumption, that of 50 percent deformation tolerance, which is both empirically founded and way too generous for the evolution theory.

Anytime a creationist/IDologist spouts big numbers you can be pretty sure they are committing one of several false assumptions.

See the old improbable probability problem, in particular:

quote:
4. The calculation fails to account for combinations of groups of such molecules in smorgasbord fashion instead of in assembly line fashion all at once all from nothing. And further, that all those "failed" experiments are still available to be cut and reassembled into new experiments without having to go through all the preliminaries. It fails to account for actual combination process as used in natural assembly of large organic compounds. Amino acids are assembled into larger molecules like peptides and not from extending amino acids by adding atoms. This failure means that all the ways to reach the final necessary combination are not included and thus it unnecessarily excludes possible combination methods.

5. The probability of winning a lottery by any one ticket is extremely low, but the probability that the lottery will be won is extremely high. How do you reconcile these two very disparate probabilities? By knowing that any one of the millions of tickets is a valid winner if picked. To show that this is not the case for the calculations mentioned (ie -- in order to say "1 out of") you have to show that no other combination works of all the other probabilities. There are several different known forms of hemoglobin, all of which do the job of transporting oxygen in the blood, and thus the probability is high that there are other versions that will work as well. Scientists have also manipulated an organism successfully to make it produce an unnatural amino acid, one that does not occur naturally, thus demonstrating that there are other "solutions" than the ones that happen to be used in life as we know it. It could well be that 1 in a million "solutions" of the possible combinations would work, and that the probability would then reduce to 1 in 106. This calculation has not been done and is not included, unnecessarily excluding possible solutions from the probability calculation.


Also see Message 24 of that thread.

Now all you have to do is prove that I committed one these false assumptions. Copy-pasting something from the tutorial: "How to Argue With Creationists/IDiots" is not the way to refute an argument.

I again refer you to the old improbable probability problem ... how many combinations of parallel occurrence(s) of variations have you considered? Apparently none. If I play a game of getting from A to B by throwing a single di then it will take a predictable number of throws on average to go the distance ... once that is known ... but if I use 2 or 3 di at the same time and combine their results, then the number of throws decreases dramatically. You don't know the distance or the number of di being used by the natural processes, and that is why your number is bogus.

How many? 10^405. Here is the quote from the article.

"The next thing we need to know is the functional space size of gills. This size represents the number of all possible molecular arrangements (gene variants) that will provide underwater respiratory function. We can get this number through the parameter that we will call the deformation tolerance. What does that mean? Well, if we presuppose the existence of fully functional primitive gills, and we start to deform them by randomly rearranging their molecules, then obviously, at some point, we will destroy their ability to provide underwater respiratory function. In other words, gills, just like all other biological structures, have some deformation tolerance. Let’s be very conservative and assume the deformation tolerance of 50 percent. In terms of genes, such deformation tolerance means that 50 percent of base pairs in a gene that codes for primitive gills can be random, and this will still retain the ability of this structure to provide underwater respiratory function. Although biological structures can tolerate a lot of variance or deformation without affecting their functional roles, the deformation tolerance of 50 percent is way too big, but the aim is to give every possible advantage to the evolution theory.

Since a gene consists of four different bases, and any base can assume one of four values (ATCG), a sequence of L basis can assume one out of 4^L values. Given the 50 percent deformation tolerance and with the average eukaryotic gene size of 1346 base pairs, the functional space size of gills is 4^673 or 1.54×10^405. So, this number represents all possible gene variants that will code for functional gills."

Your "argument" is a purely mathematical construct and just philosophical until tested, and if it is not tested against reality, then it is just hypothetical ... and when we do test it against reality we see that it in "(fact)" fails.
That is all that is needed to falsify your argument. No numbers, just reality.

Again, with empty appeal to "reality" you cannot refute an argument.

Curiously, Lenski's experiment is a TEST of your argument, objective empirical evidence that your claim/argument is false.

With empty appeals to "TEST" you cannot refute an argument.

As you said, " ... It is simply astounding to see all mental gymnastics you are doing just to deny the obvious."
The expression of functionality in every organism depends on location along the DNA as much as it does the arrangement of the specific 4 molecules that construct the genome, so a new location (a) IS a change and (b) can cause different functionality. Denial of this "(fact)" does not refute it.

My argument is about origin of a new biological function that is coded with one average eukaryotic gene, and it cannot be refuted with your empty and arbitrary definitions of "change" and "functionality".

And we're back to the ad hominem to "defend" a losing argument instead of dealing with the "(fact)" that the evidence of reality refutes your hypothetical mathematical model.
Enjoy

"Attacking the person" is not ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem fallacy is attack against person that is used as a premise within an argument. For e.g.: argument 1 (P implies Q , P therefore Q), also you (my opponent) is an idiot. Therefore, my opponent is wrong. If the argument is a conjunction of Argument 1 and my insult, then it is a fallacy, because my insult is a premise. However, argument 1, therefore my opponent is wrong, also, btw, you are an idiot. This is not an ad hominem fallacy because "attacking the person" is not being used to support an argument as a premise.

Please educate yourself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by RAZD, posted 07-27-2018 9:15 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Taq, posted 07-27-2018 1:02 PM forexhr has responded
 Message 220 by PaulK, posted 07-27-2018 1:11 PM forexhr has responded
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2018 8:31 AM forexhr has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7572
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 219 of 248 (837137)
07-27-2018 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by forexhr
07-27-2018 12:55 PM


Re: Bad form, false premises
forexhr writes:

Also, my argument doesn't say that new function cannot evolve, but that new function that is coded with one average eukaryotic gene cannot evolve.

This claim isn't supported by any science and is just a bare assertion.

I have only one assumption, that of 50 percent deformation tolerance, which is both empirically founded and way too generous for the evolution theory.

What empirical measurements back this claim?

We can see that the bat wing is ultimately derived from the fins of bony fish, and there is way more than a 50% change in that limb. Your claims just don't hold up to reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by forexhr, posted 07-27-2018 12:55 PM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by forexhr, posted 07-28-2018 4:28 AM Taq has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14415
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 220 of 248 (837139)
07-27-2018 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by forexhr
07-27-2018 12:55 PM


Re: Bad form, false premises
quote:

Also, my argument doesn't say that new function cannot evolve, but that new function that is coded with one average eukaryotic gene cannot evolve. Please, read the premise #6 again.

And you’ve failed to prove even that. Do you actually intend to properly address the fatal faults in your argument - which would require quite a lot of research and work to do properly - or can we call a halt to this failure ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by forexhr, posted 07-27-2018 12:55 PM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by forexhr, posted 07-28-2018 4:28 AM PaulK has responded

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


Message 221 of 248 (837156)
07-28-2018 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Taq
07-27-2018 1:02 PM


Re: Bad form, false premises
Taq writes:

This claim isn't supported by any science and is just a bare assertion.

Well, you can keep repeating that if it makes you happy. But you cannot refute an argument by repeating like a mantra that it is not based on science.

What empirical measurements back this claim? We can see that the bat wing is ultimately derived from the fins of bony fish, and there is way more than a 50% change in that limb. Your claims just don't hold up to reality.

So, we observe two biological things, the same as we observe man made things, for e.g. Ferrari 458 and Lamborghini Aventador. And these things have similarities. Now, what these observations have to do with the deformation tolerance? Or in other words, what a certain degree of similarity between things have to do with the fact that a certain degree of structural deformation of these things will destroy their ability to perform functions? Well, obviously nothing. The fact that Ferrari 458 and Lamborghini Aventador are similar won't magically make them resistant to damages.

So, what are you trying to say with this kind of statements? They don't make any sense. You can't just throw random sentences here and think that this somehow challenges my arguments. It doesn't. It just demonstrates your inability to engage in meaningful discourse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Taq, posted 07-27-2018 1:02 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Taq, posted 07-30-2018 1:40 PM forexhr has not yet responded

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


Message 222 of 248 (837157)
07-28-2018 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by PaulK
07-27-2018 1:11 PM


Re: Bad form, false premises
PaulK writes:

And you’ve failed to prove even that. Do you actually intend to properly address the fatal faults in your argument - which would require quite a lot of research and work to do properly - or can we call a halt to this failure?

With empty appeals to "you’ve failed" and "fatal faults" you cannot refute an argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by PaulK, posted 07-27-2018 1:11 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by PaulK, posted 07-28-2018 6:27 AM forexhr has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14415
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 223 of 248 (837158)
07-28-2018 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by forexhr
07-28-2018 4:28 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises
quote:

With empty appeals to "you’ve failed" and "fatal faults" you cannot refute an argument.

I was simply repeating established facts. Your argument has already been refuted. I don’t need to do it again.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by forexhr, posted 07-28-2018 4:28 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by forexhr, posted 07-28-2018 1:31 PM PaulK has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19567
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 224 of 248 (837161)
07-28-2018 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by forexhr
07-27-2018 12:55 PM


Re: Bad form, false premises, bad conclusions ...
Unbelievable, even when it is clearly written... "non-existent in the first life forms", you still cannot comprehend that this doesn't refer to non-existence generally. It is P1 that refers to non-existence generally as this general statement (the major premise) includes all things in the natural world. And it is this general statement what enables P2 (the minor premise) to justify the conclusion that biological functions are previously non-existent things. Hence, this is a simple and valid syllogism.

P1: All living things are mortal.
P2: Men are living things.
P3/C1: All men are mortal.
P4: Socrates is a man.
C2: Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

According to your "logic", the above argument contains the logical fallacy of begging the question. Nuff said.

Except that is not the form of your argument. Your arguent was:

forexhr wrote Message 200:

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.

or, to put it in simple terms

P1: X only occurs by Y
P2: Z exists now and did not before
C1/P3: Therefore Z now exists (and previously did not)

This "conclusion" makes no reference to P1 and just rewords P2 (which clearly shows the begging the question fallacy).

A more proper construction would be:

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

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 came into existence by natural means, through variations (and selection).

Which sort of ruins your argument, because you started with an improper conclusion, while the valid conclusion is at odds with your argument.

It is also instructive to note that creationists/IDologists frequently make the logical fallacy of the part for the whole when they refer to one part (variation) of basic evolutionary theory and ignore the other part (selection)

One of the signs of a losing argument is the use of the ad hominem attack on the messengers instead of dealing with their arguments.

P1: RAZD is claiming X.
P2: RAZD is a moron.
C: Therefore, X is not true.

The above is an ad hominem attack, while saying that RAZD misrepresents obvious facts is not.

And we're back to the ad hominem to "defend" a losing argument instead of dealing with the "(fact)" that the evidence of reality refutes your hypothetical mathematical model.
Enjoy

"Attacking the person" is not ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem fallacy is attack against person that is used as a premise within an argument. For e.g.: argument 1 (P implies Q , P therefore Q), also you (my opponent) is an idiot. Therefore, my opponent is wrong. If the argument is a conjunction of Argument 1 and my insult, then it is a fallacy, because my insult is a premise. However, argument 1, therefore my opponent is wrong, also, btw, you are an idiot. This is not an ad hominem fallacy because "attacking the person" is not being used to support an argument as a premise.

Not quite.

quote:
Ad hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] ...

Paul Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement lists ad hominem as the second lowest type of argument in a disagreement.


Of course the implication of the ad hominem is that the argument (message) of the person (messenger) can be ignored.

P2: RAZD is a moron.

And that is the lowest type of argument in a disagreement.

Please educate yourself.

Again with the irony. The point remains that you attack the people criticising your argument instead of their arguments and the content of those arguments that show serious problems with your mathematical concept/fantasy.

This type of argument is typical in cases of where the person experiencing dissonance (the real world not matching his fantasies) tries to ignore, deny, or diminish the conflicting information by pretending the messenger is not honest/knowledgeable etc.

Now all you have to do is prove that I committed one these false assumptions. Copy-pasting something from the tutorial: "How to Argue With Creationists/IDiots" is not the way to refute an argument.

No, you have to demonstrate that you haven't: you're the one making the claim, it is yours to defend, but just for kicks, grins and giggles, you claim:

How many? 10^405. Here is the quote from the article.

"The next thing we need to know is the functional space size of gills. This size represents the number of all possible molecular arrangements (gene variants) that will provide underwater respiratory function. We can get this number through the parameter that we will call the deformation tolerance. What does that mean? Well, if we presuppose the existence of fully functional primitive gills, and we start to deform them by randomly rearranging their molecules, then obviously, at some point, we will destroy their ability to provide underwater respiratory function. In other words, gills, just like all other biological structures, have some deformation tolerance. Let’s be very conservative and assume the deformation tolerance of 50 percent. In terms of genes, such deformation tolerance means that 50 percent of base pairs in a gene that codes for primitive gills can be random, and this will still retain the ability of this structure to provide underwater respiratory function. Although biological structures can tolerate a lot of variance or deformation without affecting their functional roles, the deformation tolerance of 50 percent is way too big, but the aim is to give every possible advantage to the evolution theory.

In other words you only take one functional "gill" and reduce it until it doesn't work, what you don't do is cover all other ways to provide the same function as gills.

If you did the same "analysis" with a single hemoglobin molecule you would end up with similar results, but you would be ignoring the other forms that work just as well, ... as well as any other means of transporting oxygen with organisms.

This is the basic problem of working backwards from an existing system to evaluate the possibility of that system evolving -- you are taking a "winning ticket" and then you pretend that it is the only one that could win the lottery when there were a number of other possible winners.

You can also look at the number of different ways eyes work, for instance: nature has provided several different types of eyes, each functional for the organisms that have them.

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 218 by forexhr, posted 07-27-2018 12:55 PM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by forexhr, posted 07-28-2018 1:46 PM RAZD has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1483
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


Message 225 of 248 (837168)
07-28-2018 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by forexhr
07-25-2018 4:22 AM


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

Thanks, but I don't need you to make your argument easier for me to understand, I need you to address the rebuttals I already offered. You simply made a broad, sweeping generalization that my response was a logical fallacy without addressing my specific points.

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

And you can't wave your magic wand of logical fallacy and make my rebuttals invalid.

the above argument doesn't care about what the ToE is or is not,

But... if your assumptions and premises don't agree with the the premises of the theory you are not modeling or arguing against evolutionary theory, you are arguing against something else. So, yes, your argument does depend on what the ToE is or is not - that is what you are arguing against.

For example, your calculations require that biological functions, such as gills, are formed by a single gene that codes for that specific function or feature and that that gene appears out of nothing, with no pre-existing genetic material. Those assumptions and premises look nothing like evolutionary theory. So you are not actually arguing against the ToE, you are arguing against something else. If your point is that genes don't pop into existence out of nothing... well, OK. We can agree on that.

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.

I am not disputing your definition of deformation tolerance, I am saying your value of 50% is arbitrary and completely made up. You claim that it "favors evolutionary theory" and therefore it is OK to just pull the number out of the air. That is not empirically derived.

Your value for the number of variations in the history of earth 10^43 is taken out of context and you did not address the authors conclusions regarding that value. It is scientifically dishonest to lift someone's data out of context and come to the opposite conclusion without addressing why their arguments were wrong. This doesn't invalidate the number itself, but if you want your argument to be a strong scientific argument, you would need to address this issue.

Your value of 4^1346 = 10^810 is the number of possible combinations of nucleotides in a gene of 1346 base pairs. Since there is degeneracy in the genetic code, not all those combinations are functionally different. For example, valine, alanine, glycine and proline only require the first two nucleotides to be specific; the third position nucleotide can be any base. This reduces the number of functional combinations for these amino acids by a third. Your number doesn't take this into account.

A better way to approach it would be by determining amino acid sequences. Therefore the number of possible combinations in a peptide that is coded by a 1346bp gene is 20^(1346/3) = 5 x 10^583; significantly less than your number of 10^810.

Your number of 10^43 maximum number of variations is based on amino acid sequences and you are comparing it to numbers based on base pair sequences. Different units and can't be directly compared.

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.

But you don't really show that, you show that biological functions can't appear out of nowhere, they can't just but into existence. What is the probability that gene A will change into gene B that has a different biological function?

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 200 by forexhr, posted 07-25-2018 4:22 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
121314
15
1617Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018