Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
69 online now:
kjsimons, nwr, Tanypteryx (3 members, 66 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,057 Year: 5,169/6,534 Month: 12/577 Week: 80/135 Day: 11/1 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 719 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 121 of 248 (836448)
07-17-2018 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by forexhr
07-17-2018 1:53 AM


….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

I'm afraid I don't understand what any of this means and don't even know where to start to ask what it means. Can you put it into other words perhaps?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by forexhr, posted 07-17-2018 1:53 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by forexhr, posted 07-17-2018 4:32 AM Faith has taken no action

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1342 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 122 of 248 (836450)
07-17-2018 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
07-17-2018 2:04 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 07-17-2018 2:04 AM Faith has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 07-17-2018 1:08 PM forexhr has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 680 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 123 of 248 (836452)
07-17-2018 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Taq
07-16-2018 12:55 PM


does not play well with others
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.

It seems that forexhr is not interested in responding to criticism ... "does not play well with others" ... ?

Pity, it would be nice to have a conversation, even if it is like the one on-going with faith.

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 97 by Taq, posted 07-16-2018 12:55 PM Taq has taken no action

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 124 of 248 (836453)
07-17-2018 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
07-16-2018 11:32 PM


Re: No New Functions?
I keep repeating myself because nobody acknowledges this very simple obvious point.

We keep denying it because it is wrong. .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 07-16-2018 11:32 PM Faith has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19615
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 125 of 248 (836459)
07-17-2018 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Faith
07-17-2018 12:14 AM


Re: No New Functions?
Faith writes:

You are denying the obvious.


The obvious is often wrong. It's obvious that the earth is flat, and that is wrong.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Faith, posted 07-17-2018 12:14 AM Faith has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8524
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 126 of 248 (836462)
07-17-2018 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
07-16-2018 6:15 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Faith writes:

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

It isn't well known. That's the point. Just repeating your empty assertions does not make them well known.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 07-16-2018 6:15 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8524
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 127 of 248 (836463)
07-17-2018 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
07-16-2018 11:32 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Faith writes:

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.

In the example of the pocket mouse, the change in fur color for pocket mice is due to mutations in the MC1R gene:

"The melanocortin 1 receptor controls which type of melanin is produced by melanocytes. When the receptor is activated, it triggers a series of chemical reactions inside melanocytes that stimulate these cells to make eumelanin. If the receptor is not activated or is blocked, melanocytes make pheomelanin instead of eumelanin."
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/MC1R

The mutations in that gene caused the MC1R to be activated throughout hair growth causing the deposition of eumelanin throughout hair growth. This results in black fur instead of brown fur. There is nothing stopping other mutations in the MC1R gene to stimulate other pathways in the cell. At some point in the future, mc1r could be expressed in different cell types and control the production of other proteins. There is no physical law that limits mc1r to only controlling the production of melanin in skin cells.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 07-16-2018 11:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 07-17-2018 1:54 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8524
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 128 of 248 (836464)
07-17-2018 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by forexhr
07-17-2018 4:32 AM


forexhr writes:

"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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by forexhr, posted 07-17-2018 4:32 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by forexhr, posted 07-18-2018 2:57 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8524
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 129 of 248 (836465)
07-17-2018 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
07-16-2018 11:32 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Faith writes:

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.

I keep repeating myself and you refuse to acknowledge this very simple obvious point.

YOU NEED EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS CLAIM!!!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 07-16-2018 11:32 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8524
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 130 of 248 (836466)
07-17-2018 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by forexhr
07-17-2018 1:53 AM


forexhr writes:

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.

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

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.

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

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.

I don't have to disprove claims that have no evidence to back them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by forexhr, posted 07-17-2018 1:53 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by forexhr, posted 07-18-2018 4:19 AM Taq has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 719 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 131 of 248 (836467)
07-17-2018 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Taq
07-17-2018 1:03 PM


Re: No New Functions?
In the example of the pocket mouse, the change in fur color for pocket mice is due to mutations in the MC1R gene:

"The melanocortin 1 receptor controls which type of melanin is produced by melanocytes. When the receptor is activated, it triggers a series of chemical reactions inside melanocytes that stimulate these cells to make eumelanin. If the receptor is not activated or is blocked, melanocytes make pheomelanin instead of eumelanin."
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/MC1R

The mutations in that gene caused the MC1R to be activated throughout hair growth causing the deposition of eumelanin throughout hair growth. This results in black fur instead of brown fur.

You have just elaborately described HOW fur color is changed by a mutation or mutations to a gene that governs fur color. Sounds like what I've been saying. It's a gene that governs fur color and mutations changed only fur color.

There is nothing stopping other mutations in the MC1R gene to stimulate other pathways in the cell. At some point in the future, mc1r could be expressed in different cell types and control the production of other proteins. There is no physical law that limits mc1r to only controlling the production of melanin in skin cells.

First, this is purely a hypothetical, something mutations in this gene MIGHT bring about in the future, though meanwhile all you actually KNOW the mutations have done is change the fur color.

Second, if in the future mutations bring about some other effect, it would still be an effect governed by the gene, limited by the gene, within the parameters of what the gene does, also confirming my argument that this is the only kind of change you can get from mutations to a gene. In other words, the potential for this to happen is already present in the way the gene works, nothing new.

So you've confirmed my argument. Thank you.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Taq, posted 07-17-2018 1:03 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Taq, posted 07-17-2018 4:07 PM Faith has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8524
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 132 of 248 (836471)
07-17-2018 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
07-17-2018 1:54 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Faith writes:

You have just elaborately described HOW fur color is changed by a mutation or mutations to a gene that governs fur color. Sounds like what I've been saying. It's a gene that governs fur color and mutations changed only fur color.

Nowhere did I say that MC1R could only affect fur color for all time.

First, this is purely a hypothetical, something mutations in this gene MIGHT bring about in the future, though meanwhile all you actually KNOW the mutations have done is change the fur color.

Your claim that MC1R can only affect melanin production for all of time is also purely hypothetical. You don't KNOW that this is the case.

Second, if in the future mutations bring about some other effect, it would still be an effect governed by the gene, limited by the gene, within the parameters of what the gene does, also confirming my argument that this is the only kind of change you can get from mutations to a gene.

What limits are you talking about? How do you determine what those limits are?

Added in edit:

You might be interested in melanin concentrating hormone receptor 1 (MHCR1). In fish, the melanin concentrating hormone and receptor are responsible for melanin coloring patterns in fish. However, in mammals this same receptor has evolved to control feeding habits. It has evolved a new function.

"Melanin-concentrating hormone (MCH) is a cyclic 19-amino acid orexigenic hypothalamic peptide originally isolated from the pituitary gland of teleost fish, where it controls skin pigmentation.[1] In mammals it is involved in the regulation of feeding behavior, mood, sleep-wake cycle and energy balance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin-concentrating_hormone

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 07-17-2018 1:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 07-17-2018 5:33 PM Taq has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 719 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 133 of 248 (836473)
07-17-2018 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Taq
07-17-2018 4:07 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Your claim that MC1R can only affect melanin production for all of time

How on earth did I say that? What on earth does it even mean? "All of time?" All I said was that you had described how a certain gene determines fur color. That's what you did, you described how it makes a diffrerent fur color, and said nothing about how it makes anything else, except that it MIGHT in the FUTURE make something else. Well I'm not a gene prophet, are you? Why go beyond the actual facts? The actual facts being this gene changes fur color and so far nothing else tht you know of.

is also purely hypothetical. You don't KNOW that this is the case.

Of course not, I don't know the future and neither do you. I'm just going by what you actually said: this gene produces black fur color. Period.

What limits am I talking about? The limits of what a gene actually DOES. Why on earth do people say "gene for eye color, gene for this, gene for that if it isn't the gene that determines the phenotypic effect? It does what it does and in the case you gave apparently ONLY changed the fur color. That's all I know about that gene. If a gene is known to govern half a dozen different phenotypic effects then I assume those are the limits of that gene. Mutations to the gene can only create fvariations within what the gene does. Maybe this gene you are talking about has th potential to do things other than change fur color, which you are only guessing at, but if it turns out to be the case then we just have somewhat broader limits to what the gene does. It can only do what it does. You haven't suggested that the gene is going to change, just that it has the potential to do some other things. Well, WHATEVER it can do is its limits, and mutations can only brinjg about variations within those limits.

You get lost in the trees and miss the forest, Taq, probably an occupational hazard. Going on about the different functions of melanin in different contexts. But there's nothing you've said that contradicts the idea that it can only do what it does within the limits of the context in which it does it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Taq, posted 07-17-2018 4:07 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Taq, posted 07-18-2018 12:00 PM Faith has taken no action

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1342 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


(1)
Message 134 of 248 (836484)
07-18-2018 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Taq
07-17-2018 1:08 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Taq, posted 07-17-2018 1:08 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Taq, posted 07-18-2018 11:52 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 141 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2018 8:15 AM forexhr has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1342 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


(1)
Message 135 of 248 (836486)
07-18-2018 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Taq
07-17-2018 1:13 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Taq, posted 07-17-2018 1:13 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Taq, posted 07-18-2018 11:58 AM forexhr has taken no action
 Message 139 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 07-18-2018 3:47 PM forexhr 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