Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 90 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-15-2018 8:12 AM
201 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (4 members, 197 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,111 Year: 18,934/29,783 Month: 879/2,043 Week: 431/386 Day: 9/79 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213141516
17
Author Topic:   The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1559
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 241 of 248 (837339)
07-30-2018 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by forexhr
07-28-2018 1:31 PM


Re: Bad form, false premises
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.

I did. One of the many posts you ignored.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by forexhr, posted 07-28-2018 1:31 PM forexhr has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7631
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 242 of 248 (837340)
07-30-2018 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by forexhr
07-28-2018 4:28 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises
forexhr writes:

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.

The point is that you haven't presented any science that backs it.

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.

Where is your scientific evidence that a physical feature can not tolerate more than a 50% change?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by forexhr, posted 07-28-2018 4:28 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 47 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 243 of 248 (837361)
07-31-2018 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by RAZD
07-30-2018 9:45 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises, bad conclusions continued ...
@RAZD, caffeine, Taq,...

So guys, it seems you don't have emotional, physical, intellectual or mental capacity to provide your numbers for the deformation tolerance. All these appeals to "I refuted" are really funny because it is a simple fact that every man made or biological thing has this tolerance. It is just that values are different. Melting down a mechanical watch or randomizing all nucleotides that code a biological thing would constitute a 100 percent deformation of the thing. Now, do you need "science" to know that this would destroy the ability of the thing to perform its previous function? Melting down 20 percent of mechanical watch would probably also destroy its ability to function, but by randomizing the same percent of nucleotides that code for a biological thing, this would probably not happen. Meaning, the values for most (*) biological things are higher, but they are certainly not 80 percent (**). So, the deformation tolerance is real, the same as round shape of the Earth. The reason you guys are so vehemently opposed to provide values for this tolerance, is because you know that every realistic estimate would destroy your dogmatic beliefs. That is why a red herring and trolling are your only options. Replying to all these rhetorical spins is not something I am interested in anymore.

* A few biological things with low deformation tolerance are sufficient to refute the evolution theory.

** Even with the 80 percent deformation tolerance and given the all theoretically possible variations in the natural world from the Big Bang to the present day (10^140), variations are still insufficient by more than a sixty orders of magnitude.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by RAZD, posted 07-30-2018 9:45 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2018 7:54 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 247 by Taq, posted 07-31-2018 11:37 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 248 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-31-2018 8:40 PM forexhr has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19720
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


(1)
Message 244 of 248 (837364)
07-31-2018 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by forexhr
07-31-2018 6:17 AM


from the simple ridiculous to the absurd reductionism ...
Let's cut to the guts:

... but by randomizing the same percent of nucleotides that code for a biological thing, this would probably not happen. Meaning, the values for most (*) biological things are higher, but they are certainly not 80 percent (**). So, the deformation tolerance is real, the same as round shape of the Earth. The reason you guys are so vehemently opposed to provide values for this tolerance, is because you know ...

... that this is totally irrelevant to how biological systems evolve.

Yes you can take a watch apart, and at some point it doesn't function. So what.

Taking out a section of DNA here or there does not in any way model how the biological systems originally formed.

Biological systems evolve by random mutation that provides variation and sometimes affects the ability of the individuals to survive and breed -- either on their own or in combination with other sections of the DNA -- sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. Then selection filters out the least beneficial and favors the more beneficial, resulting in an increase in it's proportion within the gene pool.

You may alter the DNA enough to affect the formation of a specific biological function, but then we simply have an organism without that function, and selection working again to see it the result is better or worse for survival and reproduction.

Amusingly, this "deformation" process actually happens naturally all the time with mutations, and can be observed. Sometimes the removal or alteration of the DNA is so severely deleterious that the organism never makes it out of the womb. That would be "low deformation tolerance" to the extreme, yes? ... but it doesn't affect other organisms/species that are part of the on going evolving ecosphere of life.

So we don't need a number for deformation tolerance, we can just observe the effects of it on individuals, while the remainder of the evolving ecosphere happily carries on with evolution.

* A few biological things with low deformation tolerance are sufficient to refute the evolution theory.

Again, you are, sadly for you, obviously wrong, because evidence shows otherwise.

Individuals with deformed biological systems that don't survive to breed are a very common part of how evolution actually works. A species that as a whole doesn't survive to breed goes extinct. Happens all the time. You can say they have a "low deformation tolerance" but that doesn't alter the fact that other populations are doing well.

On the other hand, the evolution of a single new biological function destroys any hypothesis that it can't happen. This is scientific fact: falsified hypothesis are wrong.

Evolution doesn't care what you think, or how you derive the silly big numbers that you can contrive, it happily goes on ... evolving new functions as the opportunity arises.

Reality ignores you. Life ignores you.

Because you, your hypothesis, are irrelevant.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : ..

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 243 by forexhr, posted 07-31-2018 6:17 AM forexhr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by jar, posted 07-31-2018 8:00 AM RAZD has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


(1)
Message 245 of 248 (837367)
07-31-2018 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by RAZD
07-31-2018 7:54 AM


Re: from the simple ridiculous to the absurd reductionism ...
There is one other point that seems to have been forgotten in all his calculations.

Evolution (biological) begins with something already living reproducing. Regardless of the number, type or specifics of any changes between the original entity and the reproduced entity, it is only the entities that do keep working and working long enough to reproduce successfully on their own that make up the lineage.

No where in any of his absurdities has he included those facts.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2018 7:54 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2018 8:06 AM jar has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19720
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.5


(2)
Message 246 of 248 (837369)
07-31-2018 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by jar
07-31-2018 8:00 AM


Re: from the simple ridiculous to the absurd reductionism ...
Indeed, and that is because he totally ignores (and intentionally discards) the role of selection.

If you only model half of the whole vast system of evolution, then all you have is a half-vast model.

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 245 by jar, posted 07-31-2018 8:00 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7631
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 247 of 248 (837386)
07-31-2018 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by forexhr
07-31-2018 6:17 AM


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

So guys, it seems you don't have emotional, physical, intellectual or mental capacity to provide your numbers for the deformation tolerance.

We are not the ones who put a limit on the amount of change that can occur for a physical feature. You did. Therefore, it is up to you to provide the numbers. Without those numbers, your claims fall flat.

Melting down a mechanical watch or randomizing all nucleotides that code a biological thing would constitute a 100 percent deformation of the thing. Now, do you need "science" to know that this would destroy the ability of the thing to perform its previous function?

I can find two functional proteins that differ by more than 50%. So where did you get the limit of 50% from?

The reason you guys are so vehemently opposed to provide values for this tolerance, is because you know that every realistic estimate would destroy your dogmatic beliefs.

The chimp and human genomes differ by a few percent. You ignore this fact because it destroys your dogmatic beliefs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by forexhr, posted 07-31-2018 6:17 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1904
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


(3)
Message 248 of 248 (837414)
07-31-2018 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by forexhr
07-31-2018 6:17 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises, bad conclusions continued ...
Replying to all these rhetorical spins is not something I am interested in anymore.

Oh, how sad.

I guess your next step will be to publish and then on to the Nobel Prize.

Meanwhile, those of us who use the Theory of Evolution every day will continue as if you never existed. If you ever figure out how to refute the actual Theory of Evolution let us know.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

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

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

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by forexhr, posted 07-31-2018 6:17 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1213141516
17
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018