The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory

Although the public acceptance of the evolution theory and the flat Earth theory is quite different, both of these theories are in stark contradiction with empirical facts, which makes them equally mythical. The reason for the difference in public acceptance lies in the level of scientific knowledge required for the understanding of their mythical nature. Namely, in the case of the flat Earth theory, images from space provided the public with simple observational proof that Earth is not flat but spherical, which made the flat Earth theory very difficult to take seriously. However, in the case of evolution theory, things are not so simple since the general public is not familiar with the empirical or mathematical knowledge about the actual capabilities and constraints of the evolutionary processes. But once this knowledge is revealed, the mythical nature of the evolution theory becomes obvious, just as in the case of the flat Earth theory.

In its most essential form, the evolution theory is an idea according to which the evolutionary processes of mutations, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift can produce previously non-existent biological functions, like visual or auditory perception, respiration, locomotion, liquid pumping, processing sensory information, inserting, deleting, or replacing DNA sequences, etc. In other words, this idea holds that starting from the first self-replicating organism, which lacked structures like eyes, ears, lungs, gills, joints, heart, brain, RNA splicing machine, etc., these structures came into existence just because mutations, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift were happening. Since these four processes are factual, i.e. they are known by actual experience or observation, we can use the scientific method to test whether they really can do what the evolutionary idea holds they can do, and in that way determine whether the evolution theory is a valid scientific theory or a pseudoscientific myth equivalent to the flat Earth theory. For that purpose, first we are going to take a look at the longest empirical observation of evolutionary processes in action, which is the E.coli long-term evolution experiment. After that we will determine mathematically whether the evolutionary processes are capable of producing a primitive biological function.

The rest you can read here: https://darwinmyth.wordpress.com/

The truth is not dependent on what I personally believe, or on whether I copy/pasted and/or restated it. The truth is that the evolution theory is a myth, which is proved with the linked article. As an administrator, it is up to you to decide whether you want to promote or suppress this.

I stated in the article why I personally see the evolutionary theory as a myth - it ignores the fact of insufficient variations, just as the Flat Earth theory ignores the fact of spherical shape of the Earth. It's pretty simple.

What in the name of god makes you think that the public's level of understanding has anything to do with the truth or falsity of a theory?

I neither think nor have I said anything of the sort. Instead, I suggested that public's level of understanding has everything to do with believing in something. Since the public is not familiar with the empirical or mathematical knowledge about the actual capabilities of the evolutionary processes, it believes that evolution theory is true.

How do you know that?

It is explained extensively in the article.

If it is so simple, why is the idea not more widespread among the researchers? What keeps them from seeing the obvious?

"All truths are simple to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." ~Galileo

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

... Or at least we would be if your analysis had any validity since the process that you determine to be impossible is exactly the process that our adaptive immune cells use to produce antibodies, those pesky little molecular combinations that protect us from invasive pathogens...

I never said that the process of molecular recombination is impossible. It is not only possible but factual, just like molecular recombinations in the process of raining or erosion are possible and factual. What I have said (and proved) is that it is impossible for this process to result in "previously non-existent biological functions, like visual or auditory perception, respiration, locomotion, liquid pumping, processing sensory information, inserting, deleting, or replacing DNA sequences, etc." Hence, you committed a logical fallacy, since from the premise: "molecular recombinations are possible or factual", it does not follow "molecular recombinations can result in previously non-existent biological functions". Your argument is like saing: "it is factual that humans can jump - therefore, humans can jump from Earth to the moon."

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

I wasn't showing mathematically that the bee can't fly, but instead, that the flying function of the bee cannot result from the molecular recombinations in a gene pool of the population which lacks this function. You should read the article again.

The level of straw man arguments in this topic is staggering.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

The responses in this topic are a textbook confirmation of the title of the article at hand, which states that "The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory". In other words, we have two simple facts that are easy to prove. The first is that the Earth is round and the second is that there has been a lack of variations for new biological functions to form. But, just as the Flat Earthers deny the first fact through a complex network of rationalizations, explanations and logical fallacies, people in this topic deny the second fact by using the same modus operandi. The crucial point of the article is this: "previously non-existent biological functions cannot be formed by the evolutionary processes..." because ... "the possible number of biologically nonfunctional structures, and the functional space size of pre-existing structures, are so big, that it is physically impossible to overcome them with the available molecular rearrangements." Now, has anyone here even tried to address this crucial point? No, of course no one has. So, this point is ignored in the same way as the Flat Earthers ignore the spherical shape of the Earth when they try to rationalize their theory. And ignorance of the facts make people do all sorts of irrational things, like putting words in mouths that have never spoken or misquoting in a twisted manner, and using unconscious psychological mechanisms, like rationalization, where ignorance is masked as rational or logical explanation. I didn't open this topic to discuss someone's psychological defense mechanisms or to address all potential logical fallacies that fact deniers can come up with, but to discuss the insufficient variations. All those who are not interested in this issue are free to rationalize their personal beliefs somewhere else.

So, evolution has demonstrably occurred, but you have a theoretical argument proving that it can't, and you're not going to let mere facts stand in the way of your theory. And you're comparing who to flat-Earthers? People other than yourself?

Of course, evolution has occurred and it occurs everyday, every hour and every minute all around us. This is because "evolution" is defined by mutations, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift, which are processes that demonstrably occure in nature. And this is something I stated explicitly in the article: "Since these four processes are factual, i.e. they are known by actual experience or observation, we can use the scientific method to test whether they really can do what the evolutionary idea holds they can do..."

So, my argument says nothing contrary to the fact of evolution. What it says is that evolution cannot produce previously non-existent biological functions due to insufficient molecular rearrangements in the gene pools of populations. Nothing more and nothing less. And this is something you completely ignored with your "putting words into someone's mouth" logical fallacy.

I must admit, you people are real masters of distraction, ignorance and logical fallacies, just like all fact-deniers are. I am curious, how do you deal with all the cognitive dissonances that result from such irrational behavior?

I already disproved your claims in previous posts. Perhaps you should check them out. Given your refusal to address posts disproving your claims, it would seem that you have more in common with the flat earthers than we do.

You disproved precisely and absolutely nothing. You just did what all fact-deniers do: deliberately introduced irrelevant subject into the discussion in order to divert from the issue at hand. Genotype-phenotype relationship has nothing to do with the fact that previously non-existent functions can come into existence only through molecular rearrangements, and with the fact that these rearrangements are greatly insufficient since they must overcome both the functional space size of pre-existing structures and all possible junk structures that do not provide biological functions. So, regardless if a particular phenotype is coded with one gene or with dozens of genes, its emergence still depends on available variations. In other words, you haven’t disproved my claims. Instead, you’ve thrown up an utterly irrelevant subject to distract from my claims, and in that way committed a non sequitur logical fallacy in your reasoning. Better luck next time.

In the article I already explained the meaning of those terms, via the example of underwater respiratory function.

"Previously non-existent function" is obviously some function that an organism doesn't have but the evolution theory claims it formed. For e.g. the first self-replicating organism didn't have genes to make structures for underwater respiratory function.

"Molecular rearrangements" are mutations and other changes that rearrange the nucleotides or the groups of nucleotides.

"Functional space size of pre-existing structures" is a fitness landscape of these structures or in other words, all molecular variants that will provide the same types of function. For e.g. a mutation in a gene that codes for some joint in your body will by definition produce different gene or may result in a different 3D shape of a joint (either visible or invisible), but will still retain a joint's function, i.e. its ability to move throughout its range of motion, bear weight and perform work. In other words, you can introduce trillions upon trillions of variations into a gene pool of some population and still have same functions as before. Meaning, you can spent an enormous number of limited evolutionary resources only to end up with something that is already there.

If enough variations are introduced into the gene pool, that doesn't mean a new function will magically appear. This is because the number of all potential "junk" molecular variants that do not provide biological functions, greatly exceeds the number of those that do. Hence, again, an enormous number of limited evolutionary resources must be spent for nothing.

That is why "molecular rearrangements" must "overcome" both, the functional space size of pre-existing structures and all possible junk structures. Which they obviously can't, as demonstrated in the article.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Taq writes: Even the earliest single celled eukaryotes would have had the ability to exchange gases across their cell membraines without the need for gills. Therefore, gills would not be a new function.

So, how does the hypothetical gas exchanging function of the earliest single celled eukaryotes negates what I am saying about required and available molecular rearrangements for the emergence of previously non-existent functions? With this statement of yours you just presupposed that the function already existed. If I now ask you how this function came into existence in the earliest eukaryotes, what would you say? That it didn't but was already present at the Big Bang and no molecular rearrangements were needed to produce it? Your statements are basically just rhetorical fluff, sophistry. It's just a tossing out of meaningless, empty phrases.

A panda's thumb might be something for you to look at. In this case, a wrist bone evolved to serve as a thumb for holding bamboo. It evolved a new function through mutations. https://daily.jstor.org/why-do-pandas-have-thumbs/

I already know what evolution theory holds and what you believe - that new functions can evolve through mutations and selection form pre-existing functions. So, you obviously believe that locomotor or grasping function of panda's thumb also evolved through mutations and selection from some other, non-locomotor or non-grasping, functions. But this idea, hypothesis or belief is exactly what I have disproved in the article by showing empirically and mathematically that this couldn't have happened. Simply restating your belief does nothing to refute what I have shown.

Of the genetic differences between humans and chimps, which are you saying could not have evolved?

All which are expressed into functional morphological, biochemical, physiological, structural, or behavioral traits.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Taq writes: You just described your own essay. The Lenski long term evolution experiment is completely irrelevant to human evolution. It is nothing but a diversion.

Lenski's experiment generates genetic changes in the E.coli gene pool. The evolution theory holds that new functions, either in humans or in other species, arise through genetic changes in the gene pools. So, given your statement only two options are possible—either you deny that new functions arise through genetic changes or you deny that such changes are generated by Lenski's experiment. Either way you are denying the fundamental premises of your own theory. Interesting, isn't it?

You need to present evidence that these rearrangements are greatly insufficient. All we have thus far is your empty assertions.

You are again demonstrating a denial of reality. In reality, the evidences are all around you, it is just that you are blinded by your evolutionary ideas. For example, the are trillions upon trillions of molecular rearrangements in non-living nature every second. But, have they resulted in arrangements that are for e.g. meaningful in the context of human needs? In other words, have they resulted in bolts, nuts, cars, microprocessors, phones, clothes, books...? Although all these things are just different arrangements of atoms and molecules, not a single one resulted from mere rearrangements of matter from the time of Big Bang. Have you ever wonder why?

Meaningful arrangements in the context of human needs are equivalent to functional arrangements in the context of biology. And functional in biology is what is beneficial in the context of some environment. In the context of cellular intron-exon environment, RNA splicing machine is beneficial. But, the same as the arrangement of matter in the form of bolts, nuts, cars, microprocessors, phones, clothes, or books is deeply isolated in a space of all possible arrangements that are not meaningful in the context of human needs, the arrangement in the form of RNA splicing machine is deeply isolated in a space of all possible arrangements that are not beneficial in the context of intron-exon environment. Hence, the same as the things mentioned above, the RNA splicing machine cannot arise via rearrangements of matter. Mathematical expression of that is in the article. So, the evidence exists. It is just conveniently ignored by you through the complex rationalization in the form of the evolution theory. No evolutionary explanation can change the fact that the only way for new functional things to come into existence is through rearrangements of atoms or molecules. Since these rearrangements are insufficient this renders your whole theory a mere fantasy, a fairytale for adults.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Taq writes: What is hypothetical about it single celled organisms exchanging gases across their cell membranes? All modern single celled organisms do this now. In fact, it is nearly impossible to stop it from happening. Also, gills are nothing more than capillaries that run close to the surface of the skin. Mutations that increase the surface area of that skin would increase the efficiency of gas exchange. Gills really aren't a new function, they are simply a modification of already existing systems.

I am not really sure what are you trying to achieve. I argue that in order for new a function to form, variations are required, and have provided simple mathematical explanation why they are insufficient. On the other hand, you are insisting on "function already existed" assumption. OK, let's assume that function already existed in the first organisms. What has changed as a result? Nothing, variations are still required in order to get from non-function to function. Alternatively, the only thing you are left with is the absurd assumption of function already being present at the time of the Early earth or at the Big Bang, so in that case no variations would have been required for it to form.

In other words, I am saying that, given the evolutionary model, molecules must change positions(vary) in order to adapt biologically functional states. You are saying they don't have to because they were already in such states. Or to put in simply, eyes, ears, lungs, gills, joints, heart, brain, RNA splicing machine... didn't have to evolve, but only change, because they were present from the very beginning. Well, there is only one thing I can say right now: WELCOME to the world of creationism and intelligent design! That what you have assumed is exactly what the creation model is saying - that organs, organ systems, molecular machines, body plans... didn't evolve but were only adapting(changing) within a given functional landscape that was established at the time of creation. It's nice to see that another lost sheep has returned to the flock.

@RAZD

Why are you responding to my posts only to repeat what I have already said?

I have mentioned a few times already in this topic, and it is clearly stated in the article that evolution is factual, that it has occurred and it occurs everyday, since "evolution" is defined by mutations, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift, which are processes that demonstrably occure in nature. So what my mathematical model proves is NOT that evolution couldn't have happened or does not happen, but that the evolution theory is FALSE.

You must differentiate between process(evolution) and human idea(theory of evolution) about what that process can or cannot do. Erosion is a process. A thought or suggestion that this process can produce a sculpture of Elvis Presley is a human idea. Showing mathematicaly that such human idea is false, in no way means that the process of erosion does not occur.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.