Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8857 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2018 2:28 AM
201 online now:
Heathen, PaulK, Pressie, Tangle (4 members, 197 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 837,098 Year: 11,921/29,783 Month: 943/1,642 Week: 51/306 Day: 6/45 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
12131415
16
17Next
Author Topic:   The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1483
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.4


(2)
Message 226 of 248 (837173)
07-28-2018 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by forexhr
07-26-2018 4:29 AM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
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.

Why are you picking on biological features? Couldn't this be said about ALL things, even non-biological things?

For example, granite. Granite is composed of 11 chemical compounds. Considering that there are a lower limit of 10^18 possible chemical compounds in the universe, that means the chances of those specific 11 compounds coming together by random chance and forming granite are 1 / (10^18)^11 = 1 /10^198. Well that is an infinitesimally small chance of that occurring, therefore, we can be sure that granite was not created by random forces of nature.

But these ridiculously large probabilities can be generated for anything, but do they represent reality?

I failed to address several important aspects of granite formation in my calculations above, including abundance of the different compounds, processes that brought those compounds together, the fact other combinations could and have occurred (which makes the calculation of the probability of granite forming superfluous) and how these compounds interact (what are the number of compounds that could not have interacted with each other to form a substance). And finally, regardless of how small the probability of this happening is... we observe granite, granite does exist.

These are the same types of mistakes you make in your calculations. Obviously you don't see it that way, but that's how I see it. Probability calculations and all these "airplane from a junkyard" arguments are nonsense, since evolutionary theory does not predict that type of process.

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 210 by forexhr, posted 07-26-2018 4:29 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
forexhr
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 227 of 248 (837202)
07-28-2018 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by PaulK
07-28-2018 6:27 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises
PaulK writes:

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

Yes, from the very beginning of this thread I have been reading these comments that my argument was refuted. But you know what? Nobody and I mean NOBODY has even addressed its fundamental premise, which is P4: "The appearance of a biological function that is coded with only one average eukaryotic gene requires 10^405 variations.

Your brother by faith, RAZD, is for e.g., shifted his focus from P4 and is deeply engaged in copy-pasting stuff from the tutorial: "How to Argue With Creationists/IDiots", and in philosophical discussion about ad hominems.
It is the premise #4 where the crux of the whole argument lies. And people on this thread have been avoiding this premise like the plague. Here is why they behave like that.

This premise is based on one simple and obvious fact that every meaningful or functional thing has its space of meaningfulness, or space of functionality. Take for e.g this word: "Wednesday". This is obviously a meaningful word. Now, what the space of meaningfulness of this word means. Well, it simply means that this word can tolerate a certain degree of 'deformation' or random letter changes before it turns into random gibberish, or meaningless series of letters. I called this degree of 'deformation' the deformation tolerance.

Now, since the word "Wednesday" has nine letters, 10 percent deformation tolerance means that this word can have one random letter and still retain its meaning, i.e. answering or "fitting" the following question or "the environment" - "What is the third day of the week in the English language?" So let's assume the third letter is randomized, and we get this: "Weynesday". Obviously this one change didn't distort the meaning of the word and it still has meaning. Now, with 30 percent deformation tolerance, and randomization of the first and seventh letter, we end up with this: "Oeyneskay". With this percentage of change, the word has finally lost its meaning and it doesn't "fit" the "environment". Now, if we say that at the "beginning of text" this meaningful word didn't exist in the "first" sentence, that was this: "Me thinks it is like a weasel", then the only way for "Weynesday" to appear is via duplication of pre-existing sentence and then, random variations and "natural selection".

So, lets assume that this part of the "first sentence" was duplicated: "thinks it", and is ready to undergo random changes. But in order for this random changes to prevail they must fit certain environment, and the environment is this: "What is the third day of the week in the English language?"

The question we are now interested in is how many changes must "thinks it" undergo before it fits the above environment. Well, we simply must calculate how many meaningful words will fit "What is the third day of the week in the English language?" In other words, we must calculate the space of meaningfulness.

We saw that with the 30 percent deformation tolerance the word doesn't fit the environment, but let's use it anyway to reduce the number of required changes. Since a word can consist of 26 different letters, a sequence of L letters can have 26^L different words. Given the 30 percent deformation tolerance, we get that the space of meaningfulness is 26^3 or 17,576. So, this number represents all possible words that will fit "What is the third day of the week in the English language?" environment. But there are also words that won't fit that environment. We get their number by simply subtracting the space of meaningfulness (17,576) from the total number of possible 9 letter words (26^9-17,576 or 5,429,503,678,976 - 17,576 =542,503,661,400) .

As there are 17,576 words that will fit the environment and 542,503,661,400 that won’t, the principle of mathematical expectation tells us that we need 308,915,775 changes (542,503,661,400/17,576). So, this is the number of changes that "thinks it" must undergo before the word will fit the environment.

The mathematics behind this simple example is what is behind the premise #4 of my argument. The only difference is the deformation tolerance and the unit of selection. In this example we have one word that is 9 letters long, and in my argument, we have one average eukaryotic gene that is 1346 base pairs long.

So, all one needs to do in order to refute my argument is to address two things: the deformation tolerance and unit of selection. If someone disagrees with 50 percent deformation tolerance he must explain why he disagrees. Is maybe 55 percent the right value, 60 percent, 75, 20...? Why would such value be correct? I think that 50 percent is extremely conservative, especially in the context of highly conserved genes and ultra-conserved genes, but I used that value anyway. The unit of selection is also extremely conservative given the fact that biological functions require many different genes interacting with each other and many of them are much longer than the average gene.

Who in this topic has properly addressed these two values? Nobody. RAZD for. e.g. has generally declared the deformation tolerance "disputed" or refuted by "reality". But how can someone refute the fact that things will stop performing their functions after we destroy or deform them? How can someone refute the fact that we need variations in order for things to fit new environments? So, the guy denies reality just like the flat-earthers do. The rest of the responders just repeat his words like mantra, you included.

So no, my argument hasn't been refuted. Now that you know what its crux is, I am waiting for your proper response.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by PaulK, posted 07-28-2018 6:27 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by PaulK, posted 07-28-2018 1:41 PM forexhr has responded
 Message 230 by herebedragons, posted 07-28-2018 3:34 PM forexhr has responded
 Message 241 by caffeine, posted 07-30-2018 1:38 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14232
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 228 of 248 (837203)
07-28-2018 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by forexhr
07-28-2018 1:31 PM


Re: Bad form, false premises
quote:

Yes, from the very beginning of this thread I have been reading these comments that my argument was refuted. But you know what? Nobody and I mean NOBODY has even addressed its fundamental premise, which is P4: "The appearance of a biological function that is coded with only one average eukaryotic gene requires 10^405 variations.

Actually I have refuted that. Even if your assumption about the limit of “deformation” is correct (and it very likely isn’t) that is still the probability of getting one specific function, not the probability of getting a new function. In fact there may even be different ways of getting the same function you have not considered.

But the logical problem, that that premise is inadequate to prove your argument is far more serious. And you have yet to adequately address that.

(I will also note that it is for you to support your premises. We do not have to accept them by default.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by forexhr, posted 07-28-2018 1:31 PM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by forexhr, posted 07-29-2018 4:27 AM PaulK has responded

    
forexhr
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 229 of 248 (837205)
07-28-2018 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by RAZD
07-28-2018 8:31 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises, bad conclusions ...
RAZD writes:

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).


Yes, you are correct. Here is the new version of the argument.

P1: Starting with the Big Bang, new things in nature can come into existence only by natural means, through variations.

P2: Biological functions are new things that appeared after the Big Bang.

P3: The appearance of a new biological function that is coded with only one average eukaryotic gene requires 10^405 variations.

P4: The varying capacity of the natural world, from the Big Bang to the present day is 10^140.

C1/P5: Therefore, biological function that is coded with only one average eukaryotic gene didn't came into existence by natural means in Universe's history.

P6: The evolution theory holds that many biological functions came into existence by natural means in Earth's history.

C2: Therefore, the evolution theory is wrong.

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.

Well, I assumed 10^405 different ways to provide the same function as gills. Btw, a thing that provides the function of gills is called.... gills. Either, simple gills or complex gills, but gills. But ok, let's assume that in some gene pool, something similar to gills can appear. In that case we again need resources, we need variations to get from 'no-similar-to-gill' to 'similar-to-gill'. Meaning we need another 10^405 variations to overcome all molecular arrangements that won't provide 'similar-to-gill function'. So, nothing changed in principle, the problem is even worse, which means that you are playing rhetorical games without addressing the issue at hand.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2018 8:31 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-29-2018 1:52 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 236 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2018 10:22 AM forexhr has responded

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


Message 230 of 248 (837219)
07-28-2018 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by forexhr
07-28-2018 1:31 PM


Re: Bad form, false premises
This kind of word-play is a terrible analogy for genetics. It shows you think that genes are a recipe or a road map for traits. They are not.

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 227 by forexhr, posted 07-28-2018 1:31 PM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by forexhr, posted 07-29-2018 4:43 AM herebedragons has responded

  
Capt Stormfield
Member
Posts: 358
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 231 of 248 (837232)
07-29-2018 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by forexhr
07-28-2018 1:46 PM


Re: Bad form, false premises, bad conclusions ...
...you are playing rhetorical games without addressing the issue at hand.

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you! I've never heard of such behavior!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by forexhr, posted 07-28-2018 1:46 PM forexhr has not yet responded

  
forexhr
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 232 of 248 (837233)
07-29-2018 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by PaulK
07-28-2018 1:41 PM


Re: Bad form, false premises
PaulK writes:

Actually I have refuted that.

What did you "refute"? That deformation tolerance of 50 percent is empirically based? How did you do that? By showing that 50.5 percent is the correct value? You have refuted nothing. You just keep repeating the same old nonsense.

Even if your assumption about the limit of “deformation” is correct (and it very likely isn’t) that is still the probability of getting one specific function, not the probability of getting a new function. In fact there may even be different ways of getting the same function you have not considered.

There is no difference between specific function and new function, since in order to get from old function to new function you need "different-then-old", a.k.a. specific, arrangement of particles. In other words, "function" is simply the name for a group or groups of particles, when they fit certain environment within or outside of an organism. "Function" per se doesn't exist in nature, but only particles and forces do. Function in biology is a concept in the human mind for an arrangement of particles that fits an environment, and in that way, enable an organism to reproduce i.e. produce slightly modified version of itself. In my example we started with old function, i.e. old meaningful words — "thinks it". Now, what "thinks it" must 'achieve' in order to fit new environment in this form: "What is the third day of the week in the English language?" Well, obviously something "specific". 'Old function' in the form of "thinks it", won't fit new environment and it that sense it is not different than random gibberish, for e.g. this "djklsdjfcvn". Since the environment determines what the "function" is, in the context of the environment "What is the third day of the week in the English language?" both the old function — "thinks it" and "djklsdjfcvn" are equally useless. They are equally gibberish. So in both cases something specific must be achieved to get new function. For that reason, there is no difference between specific function and new function. Biologically speaking, nucleotides that code for function provided by sperm cell won't fit the aquatic environment i.e. provide underwater respiratory function. So to get that function, nucleotides must be changed to something specific — something that fits the aquatic environment.

But the logical problem, that that premise is inadequate to prove your argument is far more serious. And you have yet to adequately address that.
(I will also note that it is for you to support your premises. We do not have to accept them by default.)

With empty appeal to "premise is inadequate" you cannot refute an argument. You must name the premise and provide a rational explanation of why it is inadequate. Also, arguments are either valid or invalid, and have nothing to do with whether you personally accept them or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by PaulK, posted 07-28-2018 1:41 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2018 4:52 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
forexhr
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 233 of 248 (837234)
07-29-2018 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by herebedragons
07-28-2018 3:34 PM


Re: Bad form, false premises
herebedragons writes:

This kind of word-play is a terrible analogy for genetics. It shows you think that genes are a recipe or a road map for traits. They are not.
HBD

Yes I think exactly that and I am right. You are wrong, which is why you ended your response at empty assertion without providing rational explanation - as I will provide now.

Every organism starts its life as a single cell. Within that single cell there is nothing that could determine the shape, structure and size of eyes, ears, lungs, gills, joints, heart, brain... except... the DNA. Hence, the DNA is a recipe or a road map for traits. If trait is for e.g. gear of the Issus insect, then obviously specific nucleotides and their arrangement constitute a recipe for how to make that gear — they are the road map for that trait. Either if these nucleotides are organized as a single group (DNA sequence ) or many separate groups (DNA sequences), the same as the word "Wednesday", they have deformation tolerance whose violation leads to loss of function they code. So, your empty assertion of "terrible analogy" is just repeating the old nonsense by using different words. You simply don't have arguments against my refutation of the ToE, but your dogmatic belief in the theory forces you to post these useless messages.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by herebedragons, posted 07-28-2018 3:34 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by herebedragons, posted 07-29-2018 7:29 AM forexhr has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14232
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 234 of 248 (837235)
07-29-2018 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by forexhr
07-29-2018 4:27 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises
quote:

What did you "refute"? That deformation tolerance of 50 percent is empirically based? How did you do that? By showing that 50.5 percent is the correct value? You have refuted nothing. You just keep repeating the same old nonsense.

If you bothered to read on you’d have seen the refutation.

quote:

There is no difference between specific function and new function, since in order to get from old function to new function you need "different-then-old", a.k.a. specific, arrangement of particles. In other words, "function" is simply the name for a group or groups of particles, when they fit certain environment within or outside of an organism.

Now you are just babbling nonsense. Obviously there must be more arrangements that will perform some useful function than there are that will perform one specific function. Different functions will generally require different arrangements.

quote:

With empty appeal to "premise is inadequate" you cannot refute an argument.

Again this refers to an already established fact. Your argument is logically invalid. And obviously so. The fact that you refuse to see it is your problem.

quote:

Also, arguments are either valid or invalid, and have nothing to do with whether you personally accept them or not.

And your argument is obviously invalid, as I already pointed out.

You cannot fix the problems in your argument with arrogant and irrational bluster.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by forexhr, posted 07-29-2018 4:27 AM forexhr has not yet responded

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


(2)
Message 235 of 248 (837239)
07-29-2018 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by forexhr
07-29-2018 4:43 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises
Hence, the DNA is a recipe or a road map for traits.

I said genes are not a road map for traits. Genes code for a protein, not a trait.

Words are a bad analogy for genes. For example, you can often substitute any polar amino acid for any other polar amino acid and not affect the function. That does not apply to words, ever letter is distinct. Typically there is a functional motif in a gene that does the "work" of the gene - the rest of the chain determines how that motif is presented to the cellular environment. This is not how words work.

So, word play is bad analogy for genes. Genes are what you are discussing.

You simply don't have arguments against my refutation of the ToE, but your dogmatic belief in the theory forces you to post these useless messages.

Message 180 - you only replied to one paragraph out of a long message

Message 181 - a critique of your paper to which you did not reply

Message 225 - no reply

Message 226 - no reply

ABE: In fact you have not replied to even one of my points that I would consider substantive. /ABE

You are just name calling and posturing. I have given valid and informed reasons why I don't accept your argument in its current form. That is hardly dogmatic belief.

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.


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 233 by forexhr, posted 07-29-2018 4:43 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by forexhr, posted 07-29-2018 12:03 PM herebedragons has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 236 of 248 (837242)
07-29-2018 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by forexhr
07-28-2018 1:46 PM


Re: Bad form, false premises, bad conclusions continued ...
Yes, you are correct. Here is the new version of the argument.

Thanks, but you are still ignoring the logical conclusion of the first two premises:

P1: Starting with the Big Bang, new things in nature can come into existence only by natural means, through variations.

P2: Biological functions are new things that appeared after the Big Bang.

C1: Therefore Biological Functions came into existence by natural means, through variation.

Note that this actually describes the beginning of life (abiogenesis), and that after this point we are dealing with variation and selection in the process of developing new Biological Functions. Ignoring the role of selection is a rather massive oversight -- and a typical mistake of creationists/IDologists:

If I take 10 di and throw them, the probability of getting all 6's is extremely small, but if I select the 6's that appear with each throw and save them, then restock the throwing number of di to 10 and repeat, it does not take long at all to get 10 di with all 6's in the saved/selected pile.

P3: The appearance of a new biological function that is coded with only one average eukaryotic gene requires 10^405 variations.

You are trying to get all 6's with one throw and ignoring the role of selection in biological systems. This has been criticized before (Message 216) and you still have not shown that you are not making one of the common mistakes listed in the old improbable probability problem.

C1/P5: Therefore, biological function that is coded with only one average eukaryotic gene didn't came into existence by natural means in Universe's history.

Let's add a new premise here and see what conclusion we reach:

P5a: New biological functions have been observed evolving ("(fact)").

C1a/P5b: Therefore these observed new biological functions didn't come into existence via variation creating one eukaryotic gene and

C1b/P5c: Therefore premise P5 does not adequately describe how new biological functions occur.

Again, selection has not been included, and this is one obvious way that P5 is inadequate in describing how new biological functions evolve.

P6: The evolution theory holds that many biological functions came into existence by natural means in Earth's history.

C2: Therefore, the evolution theory is wrong.

Correction:

C2: Therefore, the evolution theory is wrong ... OR one of the premises of this argument is wrong.

Now I've already shown that C1/P5 does not adequately describe how new functions evolve, but we also need to carry on and add, using the corrected C2 as P7 to reach the logical conclusion:

P5a/P8: New biological functions have been observed evolving (again, "(fact)").

C3/P9: Therefore this argument does not show that evolution theory is wrong, and

C4: Therefore one of the premises (C1/P5) of your argument must be wrong.

Well, I assumed 10^405 different ways to provide the same function as gills. Btw, a thing that provides the function of gills is called.... gills. ...

Frogs (and many other critters) breath oxygen underwater through their skin. Are you now saying that frog skin (a) is a gill and (b) is included in your "deconstruction" of gill functions?

quote:
What Is It Called When Frogs Breathe Through Their Skin?

What It's Called

When a frog breathes through his skin, it's called cutaneous gas exchange. This means he's exchanging oxygen for carbon dioxide, similar to the way your lungs exchange the gases. The gases pass through the skin by diffusion.

How It Works

A frog's skin can absorb oxygen, which is captured by capillaries lying just beneath the skin's surface. These capillaries transport the oxygen throughout the frog's circulatory system, carried by the blood. Blood cells not carrying oxygen pick up carbon dioxide and carry it back through the circulatory system to the skin, where it diffuses out of the frog. When frogs hibernate in cold weather, they breathe through their skin almost exclusively.


Curiously, I don't see them saying that the frog skin is gills ... same function, different structure.

... But ok, let's assume that in some gene pool, something similar to gills can appear. In that case we again need resources, we need variations to get from 'no-similar-to-gill' to 'similar-to-gill'. Meaning we need another 10^405 variations to overcome all molecular arrangements that won't provide 'similar-to-gill function'. So, nothing changed in principle, the problem is even worse, which means that you are playing rhetorical games without addressing the issue at hand.

Except that, once again, you are ignoring the role of selection in the accumulation of variations that are beneficial to the organism/s, and your assumed need of 10^405 variations is bogus -- you are once again trying to get 10 di all 6's in one throw instead of through selection of 6's from each throw.

The ("(fact)") of the evolution of new biological function being observed proves that your C1/P5 is wrong.

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 229 by forexhr, posted 07-28-2018 1:46 PM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by forexhr, posted 07-30-2018 5:36 AM RAZD has responded

  
forexhr
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 237 of 248 (837251)
07-29-2018 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by herebedragons
07-29-2018 7:29 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises
herebedragons writes:

I said genes are not a road map for traits. Genes code for a protein, not a trait.

And I said "specific nucleotides and their arrangement constitute a recipe", which is correct, you cannot deny that. With the last response I have stopped using the word "gene", because this concept of biology is not needed for disproving the evolution theory, and because by misusing this concept, "your side" misrepresents my arguments, which you have done now so many times already.

Words are a bad analogy for genes. For example, you can often substitute any polar amino acid for any other polar amino acid and not affect the function. That does not apply to words, ever letter is distinct. Typically there is a functional motif in a gene that does the "work" of the gene - the rest of the chain determines how that motif is presented to the cellular environment. This is not how words work.

So, word play is bad analogy for genes. Genes are what you are discussing.

I have used "words" to describe the concept of deformation tolerance and not to compare words and genes. Genes can tolerate a certain degree of random rearrangements before they lose their "meaning" or "function". Words also. So I did nothing wrong. You are just a red herring to divert the attention from the crux of my argument.

Message 180 - you only replied to one paragraph out of a long message

Message 181 - a critique of your paper to which you did not reply

Message 225 - no reply

Message 226 - no reply

ABE: In fact you have not replied to even one of my points that I would consider substantive. /ABE

You are just name calling and posturing. I have given valid and informed reasons why I don't accept your argument in its current form. That is hardly dogmatic belief.

From the beginning of this thread "your side" has posted hundreds of non-sequitur comments that have nothing to do with my argument. Do you really think I will reply to all these non-sequiturs? Your posts - Message 225 and Message 226 are for e.g. useless and absurd. The first is useless because it focuses on 10^43 variations in the gene pools, while in the standard form of my argument I explicitly used all theoretically possible variations in the natural world from the Big Bang to the present day (10^140). The second is absurd because it boils down to this — "evolving biological functions is not a problem because granite was formed". Why would I respond to something like that? It is a complete waste of time. Hence, like I have said, you are just a red herring to divert the attention from the crux of my argument that you cannot refute.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by herebedragons, posted 07-29-2018 7:29 AM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by herebedragons, posted 07-29-2018 9:55 PM forexhr has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 238 of 248 (837286)
07-29-2018 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by forexhr
07-29-2018 12:03 PM


Re: Bad form, false premises
The second is absurd because it boils down to this — "evolving biological functions is not a problem because granite was formed". Why would I respond to something like that?

Because that is not what I said, idiot.

Hence, like I have said, you are just a red herring to divert the attention from the crux of my argument that you cannot refute.

nahuh. you're a red herring.


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 237 by forexhr, posted 07-29-2018 12:03 PM forexhr has not yet responded

  
forexhr
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 239 of 248 (837294)
07-30-2018 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by RAZD
07-29-2018 10:22 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises, bad conclusions continued ...
RAZD writes:

Yes, you are correct. Here is the new version of the argument.

Thanks, but you are still ignoring the logical conclusion of the first two premises:

P1: Starting with the Big Bang, new things in nature can come into existence only by natural means, through variations.

P2: Biological functions are new things that appeared after the Big Bang.

C1: Therefore Biological Functions came into existence by natural means, through variation.

Note that this actually describes the beginning of life (abiogenesis), and that after this point we are dealing with variation and selection in the process of developing new Biological Functions. Ignoring the role of selection is a rather massive oversight -- and a typical mistake of creationists/IDologists:

If I take 10 di and throw them, the probability of getting all 6's is extremely small, but if I select the 6's that appear with each throw and save them, then restock the throwing number of di to 10 and repeat, it does not take long at all to get 10 di with all 6's in the saved/selected pile.

P3: The appearance of a new biological function that is coded with only one average eukaryotic gene requires 10^405 variations.

You are trying to get all 6's with one throw and ignoring the role of selection in biological systems. This has been criticized before (Message 216) and you still have not shown that you are not making one of the common mistakes listed in the old improbable probability problem.

C1/P5: Therefore, biological function that is coded with only one average eukaryotic gene didn't came into existence by natural means in Universe's history.

Let's add a new premise here and see what conclusion we reach:

P5a: New biological functions have been observed evolving ("(fact)").

C1a/P5b: Therefore these observed new biological functions didn't come into existence via variation creating one eukaryotic gene and

C1b/P5c: Therefore premise P5 does not adequately describe how new biological functions occur.

Again, selection has not been included, and this is one obvious way that P5 is inadequate in describing how new biological functions evolve.

P6: The evolution theory holds that many biological functions came into existence by natural means in Earth's history.

C2: Therefore, the evolution theory is wrong.

Correction:

C2: Therefore, the evolution theory is wrong ... OR one of the premises of this argument is wrong.

Now I've already shown that C1/P5 does not adequately describe how new functions evolve, but we also need to carry on and add, using the corrected C2 as P7 to reach the logical conclusion:

P5a/P8: New biological functions have been observed evolving (again, "(fact)").

C3/P9: Therefore this argument does not show that evolution theory is wrong, and

C4: Therefore one of the premises (C1/P5) of your argument must be wrong.

Well, I assumed 10^405 different ways to provide the same function as gills. Btw, a thing that provides the function of gills is called.... gills. ...

Frogs (and many other critters) breath oxygen underwater through their skin. Are you now saying that frog skin (a) is a gill and (b) is included in your "deconstruction" of gill functions?

quote:
What Is It Called When Frogs Breathe Through Their Skin?

What It's Called

When a frog breathes through his skin, it's called cutaneous gas exchange. This means he's exchanging oxygen for carbon dioxide, similar to the way your lungs exchange the gases. The gases pass through the skin by diffusion.

How It Works

A frog's skin can absorb oxygen, which is captured by capillaries lying just beneath the skin's surface. These capillaries transport the oxygen throughout the frog's circulatory system, carried by the blood. Blood cells not carrying oxygen pick up carbon dioxide and carry it back through the circulatory system to the skin, where it diffuses out of the frog. When frogs hibernate in cold weather, they breathe through their skin almost exclusively.


Curiously, I don't see them saying that the frog skin is gills ... same function, different structure.

... But ok, let's assume that in some gene pool, something similar to gills can appear. In that case we again need resources, we need variations to get from 'no-similar-to-gill' to 'similar-to-gill'. Meaning we need another 10^405 variations to overcome all molecular arrangements that won't provide 'similar-to-gill function'. So, nothing changed in principle, the problem is even worse, which means that you are playing rhetorical games without addressing the issue at hand.

Except that, once again, you are ignoring the role of selection in the accumulation of variations that are beneficial to the organism/s, and your assumed need of 10^405 variations is bogus -- you are once again trying to get 10 di all 6's in one throw instead of through selection of 6's from each throw.

The ("(fact)") of the evolution of new biological function being observed proves that your C1/P5 is wrong.

Enjoy

You overcomplicated things more than necessary. And you did that just to hide another series of appeal fallacies and false statements.

First, the appeal to selection. Selection cannot create things, only interaction of forces and particles can. Selection is just the name for a human concept according to which the frequency of specific nucleotides in the gene pool will increase, because these nucleotides code for a thing which fits specific environment and in that way retain the ability of an organism to produce 'slightly modified version of itself'. In other words, first there is the thing that fits the environment(functional thing), and then selection kicks in to increase the frequency of this functional thing. Hence, selection is not creative mechanism, but only selective one. Functional things in biology can be created only through interaction of forces and particles or in other words, through variations of pre-existing arrangements of particles (pre-existing functional or non-functional things). And my argument simply states that these variations are insufficient for this to happen. Thus, my argument cannot be refuted by an empty appeal to selection. I explained this simple distinction between the origin of a thing and its selection a dozen times already in this thread, but you people just keep ignoring this simple concept, the same as the flat-earthers ignore the round shape of the Earth.

Second, the appeal to Frogs. If taking in oxygen from the surroundings and letting out carbon dioxide is a function, let's call it A, which evolved independently several times, then it follows that several different gene pools required 10^405 variation to get from 'non-A' to A. If A evolved only once, then only one gene pool - that of all organisms in evolution's history, required 10^405 variations. Now, why in the hell would you make an appeal to something that is even worse for your position, where you need to spend 10^405 variations multiple times, instead of just once. Well, it is because you must post something, no matter how absurd and useless it is, just to create the illusion that this somehow challenges my argument. In reality, you are just repeating the same old stuff that I already addresses and disproved.

Your third appeal fallacy, to "the improbable probability problem", is no different. I already responded to your copy/paste material here: Message 218. I gave you the quote from article which shows that I considered 10^405 "combinations of parallel occurrences of variations", and not only one, as your improbable probability problem postulates and as you have claimed. You know how you responded to this? With the appeal to multiple functions, which ended up with the appeal to Frogs. So your behavior on this thread is completely irrational. You just recycle and repeat the same false statements.

Finaly, we are at this statement of yours:

The ("(fact)") of the evolution of new biological function being observed proves that your C1/P5 is wrong.

This is as stupid as saying: The fact of human jumping ability being observed, proves that your statement that humans can't jump from the Earth to the edge of the Milky Way galaxy, is wrong.

P3 explicitly says:

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

It doesn't say function that is coded with couple of dozen of nucleotides nor it says function that already existed. It says "new biological function" that is coded with "one average eukaryotic gene". So your appeal to "observation" is just one of appeal fallacies you produced in your final post.

Can you now finally focus yourself on the crux of the argument and provide your empirical value for the deformation tolerance and unit of selection: Message 227 ?

If not, I have only one request: PLEASE STOP TROLLING.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2018 10:22 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by RAZD, posted 07-30-2018 9:45 AM forexhr has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19544
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 240 of 248 (837300)
07-30-2018 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by forexhr
07-30-2018 5:36 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises, bad conclusions continued ...
Still dodging the facts I see.

You overcomplicated things more than necessary. And you did that just to hide another series of appeal fallacies and false statements.

This does not refute the logical development I showed you, one that corrects your mistakes.

First, the appeal to selection. ...

That is not a logical fallacy, you're making stuff up now, a sign of desperation?

... Selection cannot create things, only interaction of forces and particles can. Selection is just the name for a human concept according to which the frequency of specific nucleotides in the gene pool will increase, because these nucleotides code for a thing which fits specific environment and in that way retain the ability of an organism to produce 'slightly modified version of itself'. In other words, first there is the thing that fits the environment (functional thing), and then selection kicks in to increase the frequency of this functional thing. ...

Increasing the frequency of a beneficial mutation in a breeding population means that it is more likely to be combined with another mutation that also provides benefits than just random mutation alone -- which is what you claim to model. That is why your model is wrong, your number is wrong, and your conclusion is wrong. As I said:

RAZD Message 236: If I take 10 di and throw them, the probability of getting all 6's is extremely small, but if I select the 6's that appear with each throw and save them, then restock the throwing number of di to 10 and repeat, it does not take long at all to get 10 di with all 6's in the saved/selected pile.

You have not addressed that issue, just falsely claimed a non-existent fallacy. Sadly, for you, that does not refute my argument.

Now we let 10 di with all 6's represent a new biological function, your model ignores selection and thus ends up with a false result, a misleadingly large number, instead of the much much smaller number that represents how evolution actually works.

... Hence, selection is not creative mechanism, but only selective one. ...

Indeed, but that selection improves the probability of further beneficial variation, to work in combination with another existing mutation or one that comes along later. Failure to model this means your model inadequately describes what happens with evolution. With selection you get ten sixes a lot faster than you do without.

If you don't model evolution properly then you can't logically demonstrate that it is wrong.

... Functional things in biology can be created only through interaction of forces and particles or in other words, through variations of pre-existing arrangements of particles (pre-existing functional or non-functional things). And my argument simply states that these variations are insufficient for this to happen. ...

And yet it is still a "(fact)" that they do happen, have been observed to happen, and this demonstrates unequivocally that your model is inadequate to actually model the evolutionary process.

You're continues argument is curiously incapable of changing that reality.

Because you ignore selection.

This is the logical fallacy of the part for the whole, if you want to enumerate logical fallacies.

... Thus, my argument cannot be refuted by an empty appeal to selection. ...

Again, appeal to selection is not a logical fallacy. This is just you trying desperately to ignore reality.

... I explained this simple distinction between the origin of a thing and its selection a dozen times already in this thread, ...

Amusingly, evolution theory already recognizes the "simple distinction between the origin of a thing and its selection" in the process of evolution. As noted in my 4th post, Message 141, on this thread:

Evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:

Like walking on first one foot and then the next.

Without selection you have no means to accumulate beneficial mutations in a breeding population and increase the probability of combination with other mutations to provide new function.

Failure to account for this beneficial bias of the gene pool in a population is why your numbers are irrelevant and your conclusions are wrong. As I have repeatedly demonstrated.

... but you people just keep ignoring this simple concept, the same as the flat-earthers ignore the round shape of the Earth.

Again with the irony.

The theory of evolution is indeed a simple concept, but to prove it wrong you need to model the actual theory, not a straw man fallacy based on the fallacy of exclusion.

Second, the appeal to Frogs. ...

Again, this is not a logical fallacy, so you're still making stuff up ro avoid the issues raised. Calling it a fallacy does not make the evidence go away.

... If taking in oxygen from the surroundings and letting out carbon dioxide is a function, let's call it A, which evolved independently several times, then it follows that several different gene pools required 10^405 variation to get from 'non-A' to A. If A evolved only once, then only one gene pool - that of all organisms in evolution's history, required 10^405 variations. Now, why in the hell would you make an appeal to something that is even worse for your position, where you need to spend 10^405 variations multiple times, instead of just once. ...

You're not seeing the obvious error in your thinking here, and it is because you are committing the "Texas sharpshooter" logical fallacy:

The name comes from a joke about a Texan who fires some gunshots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the tightest cluster of hits and claims to be a sharpshooter.

You're thinking of A as the must hit target and that evolution has to hit the bull's eye.

This is another reason why your number is bogus. There is no goal in evolution, no need to end up with function A. That function A evolves is because it's development proved beneficial and was selected.

If I shuffle a bunch of cards and then lay them out one after the other, you can calculate the probability of ending up with that exact pattern and then claim that it is highly improbable to achieve it. The reality is that it was just the pattern dealt and not the goal of the dealing.

The probability of dealing out a pattern, any pattern, is 1.

The probability of winning a lottery with a single specific ticket is very low, butthe probability that a ticket will win the lottery is very high.

... In reality, you are just repeating the same old stuff that I already addresses and disproved.

You have yet to actually disprove a single argument against you. All you have is denial and the repetition of bad arguments, which are curiously incapable of changing or affecting reality in any way.

Your third appeal fallacy, to "the improbable probability problem", is no different. ...

And we have another made up fallacy ... making up stuff like this is not a refutation of the argument, it's an avoiance mechanism.

... I already responded to your copy/paste material here: Message 218. I gave you the quote from article which shows that I considered 10^405 "combinations of parallel occurrences of variations", and not only one, as your improbable probability problem postulates and as you have claimed. ...

Responded, yes, answered, no. In Message 224 I showed how you failed to refute it, to which you make up a fallacy argument ...

... You know how you responded to this? With the appeal to multiple functions, which ended up with the appeal to Frogs. So your behavior on this thread is completely irrational. You just recycle and repeat the same false statements.

Except calling them a fake made up fallacy does not show the statements to be false.

All evolution needs is A way to breath underwater (which is what my argument showed), a specific way to breath underwater (which is what your number calculates, because it works backwards from an existing system -- it draws the target around the bullet hole).

Message 218: Now all you have to do is prove that I committed one these false assumptions. ...

Message 216: 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. ...

Frog skin ≠ gills but provides the same function, it is another winning ticket, one you did not include in your number calculations for gills. You're response? Making up a fake "appeal to frogs" fallacy ... and then you proceed to make the same error on frog skin that you already made with gills ... amusing, but inadequate, and certainly not any refutation of my argument.

Finaly, we are at this statement of yours:

The ("(fact)") of the evolution of new biological function being observed proves that your C1/P5 is wrong.

This is as stupid as saying: The fact of human jumping ability being observed, proves that your statement that humans can't jump from the Earth to the edge of the Milky Way galaxy, is wrong.

Except that is not the actual argument; a better restatement would be:

The fact of human jumping ability being observed, proves that your statement that humans can't aquire the ability to jump, is wrong.

P3 explicitly says:

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

And, once again ("with feeling" (Arlo Guthrie)), the actual appearance of actual new biological function, confirmed and documented in actual scientific experiment (ie "(fact)") proves that your modeled way is not the only way for new biological functions to evolve -- it is inadequate and does not model reality or how evolution actually works.

It doesn't say function that is coded with couple of dozen of nucleotides nor it says function that already existed. It says "new biological function" that is coded with "one average eukaryotic gene". So your appeal to "observation" is just one of appeal fallacies you produced in your final post.

And here we have your latest made up fallacy. The appeal to facts ... LOL. as if that makes the facts go away.

Can you now finally focus yourself on the crux of the argument and provide your empirical value for the deformation tolerance and unit of selection: Message 227 ?

Why waste my time making up a bogus calculation when I have demonstrated that it is an inadequate way to actually model evolution, that it uses the "sharpshooter" fallacy, and that it ignores the role of selection in evolution -- things that you ignore in your post.

If not, I have only one request: PLEASE STOP TROLLING.

Another false accusation: you keep saying that, but I don't think you understand what it means ...

quote:
Internet troll

In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.


One could argue that you are trolling this forum, but you can't argue that fact based logical responses to your model, ones that actually demonstrate it's failing, is trolling: it is instead rational debate and discussion.

When you stop (repeated) posting of (demonstrated) false information, making up fake logical fallacies, and actual deal with reality, then I will stop delineating your errors and misleading information.

You could start by admitting that you are wrong, that your model is -- in "(fact)" -- wrong and that it is an inadequate representation of actual evolution.

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 239 by forexhr, posted 07-30-2018 5:36 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by forexhr, posted 07-31-2018 6:17 AM RAZD has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
12131415
16
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