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

I don't claim they are science, I just claim in particular cases like this one that I'm right, and so far I haven't seen any really substantial evidence that I'm not. Stands to reson doesn't it that a duplicate would do whast the original did? Do you have evidence to the contraryz?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Until it mutates, yes. After... maybe, maybe not. Maybe it doesn't do anything. Maybe it does something different.

Bare assertions lacking evidence are also not facts and not science. At least the author of the essay in the opening post attempt to gather some evidence, even if it turned out to be bad evidence in the long run. It is your claim, so it is your burden of proof. I see no reason to disprove a claim that has no evidence to back it.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

But mutation can only change the variation on the phenotype as I keep saying, not the phenotype itself. If it governs fur color it will change the fur color. That's all.

You need some evidence to back this claim.

Shouldn't need evidence, it's well known.

Is not!How’s that for a snappy response?

Yes, you do say that.Over and over and over and over again.Over and over and over and over again.No evidence, no attempt at logical argument.

I keep repeating myself because nobody acknowledges this very simple obvious point.Alleles make a protein that makes a certain fur color in a gene for fur color. A mutation changes the sequence of an allele so if it does anything at all it can only change the fur color in a gene for fur color.

Different variations
Different versions of a protein
which cause different phenotypic traitsDo I have to say that if it's a gene for fur color the different phenotypic trait won't be something other than fur color, say maybe fur texture or bushiness of the tail, it will only be a different color of fur?

quote:

---

I keep repeating myself because nobody acknowledges this very simple obvious point.

---

Nobody agrees with you because you’re wrong. You should be used to that by now. At best you are presenting a hypothetical example of one gene and assuming that all genes must work the same way.It’s hardly an argument worth the effort of writing once, let alone over and over again.

quote:

---

Alleles make a protein that makes a certain fur color in a gene for fur color.

---

I think you will find that your hypothetical case is not the normal situation - certainly not for fur colour.

quote:

---

A mutation changes the sequence of an allele so if it does anything at all it can only change the fur color in a gene for fur color.

---

So if you have a gene for fur colour that can never have any other function it can only affect fur colour. And the point is ? It’s all hypothetical, not proof of anything.Even the example of citrate utilisation in E Coli should give you pause. The relevant change caused one or more genes to be active in a case where they wouldn’t have been before. While you could argue that there was no additional use in that case, it seems fairly obvious that that is a feature of that example and not something that is necessarily true of all cases.

You are denying the obvious.The point is simple. The gene, or whatever the genetic determinant is --, only does what it does, --Doesn't matter if the gene codes for half a dozen different phenotypic traits it's still going to code for those and no others ------.so changes to it will only change how that thing it does does it, it won't cause it to do anything else. This is just one of many limitations to the change required by the ToE if the ToE actually works. It doesn't.

quote:

---

You are denying the obvious.

---

Nope.

quote:

---

The point is simple. The gene, or whatever the genetic determinant is --, only does what it does

---

And what it does - at the level you are looking at - can change. It may be able to do more things - if only it was produced at the right place and time. That is one thing you need to understand.It’s not even hypothetical. We know for a fact that the location and timing can be changed. We have evidence that genes have been recruited for new functions. Gene Co-Option in Physiological and Morphological EvolutionAnd let us not forget that a major part of forexhr’s argument is the appearance of new genes. How does that fit into your argument ?

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?

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.