Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9072 total)
77 online now:
AZPaul3, juliajohnson, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (4 members, 73 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,114 Year: 4,226/6,534 Month: 440/900 Week: 146/150 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 283 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 22 of 248 (836089)
07-09-2018 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by forexhr
07-08-2018 9:47 AM


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.

But in fact it is exactly the people with the most scientific knowledge, (i.e. scientists) who say that evolution is good science and that creationism is a crock of shit. Which means that it is creationism that resembles flat-earthism in this respect.

Your "math" is of course crap, which may go some way to explaining why scientists don't take you people seriously.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by forexhr, posted 07-08-2018 9:47 AM forexhr has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 283 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 28 of 248 (836160)
07-11-2018 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
07-11-2018 1:12 PM


Re: Blogging From the Beyond
He said something really very simple: that in a population or its gene pool that lacks the flying function, there is no way the molecular reconbinations can ever produce that function.

Well of course recombination can't do that.

Mutation and selection, on the other hand ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 07-11-2018 1:12 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 283 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 29 of 248 (836161)
07-11-2018 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Faith
07-11-2018 12:49 PM


Re: I think it's a good start
they do work, they do bring about change, but only within the range of possibilities already present, they cannot produce anything new

Did you just claim that mutation can't produce anything new?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Faith, posted 07-11-2018 12:49 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 283 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 36 of 248 (836196)
07-12-2018 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
07-11-2018 4:05 PM


Re: Blogging From the Beyond
However, I also think there are plenty of creationists who have proved the ToE false.

Yeah, you think a lot of stuff.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 07-11-2018 4:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 07-12-2018 12:46 PM Dr Adequate has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 283 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 48 of 248 (836244)
07-12-2018 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Faith
07-12-2018 8:31 PM


Re: No New Functions?
I was just reading up on orphan genes. Formed from junk DNA I gather.; Vast majority are useless. Tiny proportion are said to produce novel phenotypes. Funny how it's always the most obscure elements that do such things as produce new phenotypes. Why not normal genes?

Normal genes form new phenotypes; you have been given numerous examples.

That article also shows how much habitual speculation about evolutionary history goes on in trying to explain various genetic occurrences. Makes me wonder what you'd all come up with if you didn't allow yourselves all that speculation, just stick to the facts within the genome you are studying.

... says the woman who just makes shit up all the time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 07-12-2018 8:31 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 07-12-2018 10:05 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 283 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 51 of 248 (836292)
07-14-2018 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
07-12-2018 10:05 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Have you bothered to follow what I said? Show me a phenotype produced by a mutation to a gene that is not normally what that gene does. If it is normally a gene for fur color, show me a mutation that makes something other than fur color out of that gene.

Yes, I did follow what you said. You did not say that. Why are you saying that now?

One example of what you describe would be those mutations that cause antibiotic resistance. These of course do not merely change the function of a generic antibiotic-resistance gene from resisting penicillin to resisting erythromycin (for example); they alter the function of an existing gene having nothing to do with antibiotic resistance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 07-12-2018 10:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 07-14-2018 12:45 PM Dr Adequate has taken no action

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 283 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 93 of 248 (836397)
07-16-2018 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by forexhr
07-15-2018 6:08 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by forexhr, posted 07-15-2018 6:08 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by forexhr, posted 07-17-2018 1:48 AM Dr Adequate has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022