|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: TOE and the Reasons for Doubt | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4488 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
No science. Just a working understanding of maths and logic.
Done a lot of reading lately on a couple of Japanese geneticists, Kimura and Ohno. They came up with The Neutral Theory and The Nearly Neutral Theory respectively. While they held out the required olive branch to Darwinists, their research really showed what a load of cobblers positive selection of mutations is. Kimura didn't even factor "beneficial" mutations into his calculations, the obvious implication being that he considered them so rare that they weren't worth bothering with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
So in line with this thread, there are reasons to doubt evolution. If you want to start a new thread refuting such evidence then do so.
Those contentions have already been refuted. And you prove the point of my post: you should not even bother to comment on science for the reasons I gave in my previous post. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
The use of terms "correct" and "incorrect" and "backwards" show that you do not even have a basic understanding of the TOE. Those are terms that could only be used if there was a creator or a designer. You are using them to try to discredit a system that does not have a designer or a creator, therefore your whole premise is flawed.
Try again. If I were you, I would first start with learning what the TOE truly is, Your worst source for that information would be creationist websites. As we have shown Peg time and time again, creationist websites lie. Lying isn't real christian is it. Edited by Theodoric, : spelling Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4488 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
"It doesn't work this way. There aren't "correct mutations", evolution is not searching toward a single "correct" sequence of nucleotides. Because the assumptions behind your calculations are wrong, your results are meaningless."
Nice attempt at a sidestep. Evolution isn't searching for a single correct sequence- we are. Let's say the gene is for the antenna on a fruit fly. We know exactly what the sequence needs to be. The exercise is designed to see how that particular gene might have been created by random mutation and natural selection. And even given several significant leg-ups, it can't get there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Evolution isn't searching for a single correct sequence- we are. Let's say the gene is for the antenna on a fruit fly. We know exactly what the sequence needs to be. The exercise is designed to see how that particular gene might have been created by random mutation and natural selection. It needs to be for what? Are you talking about a mutation we've already discovered? Then your argument is even more broken. You can't treat the probabilities of an event that has already occured like that way; if you could no-one would ever win the lottery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined:
|
Peg writes: 2. the fossil record shows sudden appearances of fully formed creatures. Peg, I don't get it. A while ago you said that you understood my metaphor for the fossil record of a film reel with a badly damaged film, or the other one of the burned box of photographs. And now you say this. Are you sure you understand those metaphors? Let me tell you something else about the fossil record. We are actually very lucky to have fossils at all, because fossilization is a rare process. You've heard that before, no doubt. But what you should also realise is that even if there were no fossil record at all, evolution would still be true. We have so much evidence beside the fossil record that we really don't need it. So don't get too hung up on the fossil record and its gaps, because it isn't the be all and end all of evolution. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
We know exactly what the sequence needs to be. No, we know what the sequence happens to be. It does not *need* to be this sequence. Try again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jacortina Member (Idle past 5084 days) Posts: 64 Joined: |
If you are not modeling (at least some limited facet of) what happens in nature, your model cannot inform one way or the other about what nature can or cannot do.
Your model simply has no bearing on reality because reality is NOT searching far any specific goal. That you can come up with an algorithm which has trouble finding a goal has no relationship whatsoever with what goes on in nature. Edited by jacortina, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4488 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
"The use of terms "correct" and "incorrect" and "backwards" show that you do not even have a basic understanding of the TOE. Those are terms that could only be used if there was a creator or a designer. You are using them to try to discredit a system that does not have a designer or a creator, therefore your whole premise is flawed."
Another sidestep! When faced with simple maths and logic, your only defense is to nit-pick over semantics? Again, let's call it a gene relating to the antenna on a fruitfly. We know what the required sequence is. Therefore mutations are going to be "correct" or "incorrect" with regard to its construction. And last time I checked, 98% to 97% is "backwards".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
The topic is the ToE and reasons for doubting it -- not the ToC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
We know what the required sequence is. Therefore mutations are going to be "correct" or "incorrect" with regard to its construction. Wrong again You are fixated on the outcome, a classic probability mistake. You have to consider the space of all possible outcomes, of which the observed antenna is just one outcome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4488 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
"It needs to be for what?"
For the creation of a gene relating to the antenna of a fruitfly. Wasn't that clear? " Are you talking about a mutation we've already discovered?" No, I'm talking about a known gene which, according to you, must have evolved. "Then your argument is even more broken." I'd be happy if it was simply understood. "You can't treat the probabilities of an event that has already occured like that way; if you could no-one would ever win the lottery" This last statement only makes sense if you believe in evolution. It should be obvious that I don't. That's one lottery I won't take a ticket in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kaichos Man Member (Idle past 4488 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: |
"No, we know what the sequence happens to be. It does not *need* to be this sequence. Try again."
I assume you are making some oblique reference to synonymous codons. Are you aware that synonymous mutations often result in impaired protein production? I repeat- "needs" to be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
Mr Jack writes: You can't treat the probabilities of an event that has already occured like that way; if you could no-one would ever win the lottery This last statement only makes sense if you believe in evolution. Nonsense. It makes complete sense because it is true, irrespective of your take on creation or evolution. Unless you think that probability theory is also an invention of the devil and not to be trusted
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
I assume you are making some oblique reference to synonymous codons. Not in the slightest - I am talking about your confusion between an observed outcome and the entire outcome probability space. This is mathematics, not genetics.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024