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

forexhr writes: 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?

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.

On top of that, your entire argument is based on an empty assertion that these genetic mutations are impossible, but you have yet to supply a shred of evidence to back this up.

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.

You didn't supply any math nor empirical observations. All you have is empty assertions.

forexhr writes: 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.

Lenski didn't study the human genome, so his findings are irrelevant to the human genome. E. coli aren't humans, in case you were wondering. The two genomes are very, very different so it is meaningless to use one as a model for the other.

On top of that, you made claims about the Lenski experiment that you didn't support. For example, you claimed that there were no new functions that evolved in these E. coli strains, yet you supplied zero evidence from these experiments to back this claim. You also claimed that there were no de novo genes that evolved in the E. coli strains, yet you supplied zero evidence to back this claim.

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?

Yes. Among the millions of mutations that separate chimps and humans are the genetic rearrangements that are specifically useful to humans. Do you deny this?

Faith writes: How on earth did I say that? What on earth does it even mean? "All of time?"

You said that a mutations in a gene can only affect the function that it currently serves which means that no new functions can ever evolve in the entire future of the universe.

What limits am I talking about? The limits of what a gene actually DOES.

How can you predict what functions a gene will have in the future as it acquires more and more mutations?

forexhr writes: 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?

rain

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.

... 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. ...

Message 140: ... I argue that in order for new a function to form, variations are required, and have provided simple mathematical explanation why they are insufficient. ...

Wrong. Again. A mathematical model can never prove evolution couldn't have happened, because the evidence shows evolution has and continues to happen. All it proves is that your mathematical model is wrong.

Evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:

Like walking on first one foot and then the next.

Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.

Different mixing of existing hereditary traits (ie Mendelian inheritance patterns) have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.

Natural selection has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis

Neutral drift has been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

Thus many processes of evolution are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypotheses.

Message 140: ... given the evolutionary model, molecules must change positions(vary) in order to adapt biologically functional states. ...

As noted above, mutations have been observed, it is a fact that "molecules ... change positions(vary)" happens. You have DNA that differs from your parents because of this.

You can't disprove something that happens with a mathematical model: the fact that it actually happens means the model must be wrong, and you need to check your assumptions.

Previously I've asked you to define what you think the "Theory of Evolution" is ... because I don't think you know, and that is part of the problem with your model. Maybe you are familiar with the phrase "Garbage in, garbage out" (GIGO).

I already know what evolution theory holds ...

So again I ask: how do you define the "Theory of Evolution" ... Tell us. Curious people want to know.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added

Thus many processes of evolution are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypotheses.

Forexhr started out saying all that for all those processes, how did you miss it? those processes are given by many sources as THE Processes of Evolution, as processes that bring about evolution. They do occur, as he acknowledged. But they can't produce anything new, which is necessary if the ToE is correct. But I still don't completely understand his argument so I won't go beyond this. I just know you are obviously misunderstanding him if you think he didn't already know what you said in this post.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

@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.

Thanks Faith

... But they can't produce anything new, which is necessary if the ToE is correct. ...

Except that this has been observed, the question is what is "new" ... and this is an old canard.

A mutated DNA gene is "new" and this has been observed. A mutated gene that produces a "new" fur color in pocket mice has been observed in two different populations with two different mutations.

... They do occur, as he acknowledged. But they can't produce anything new, ...

In other words, you think he is saying microevolution occurs but {his/creationist/IDologist} macroevolution doesn't.

This is why I've asked Forexhr for his definition of the Theory of Evolution.

... I just know you are obviously misunderstanding him ...

No, because he doesn't clarify when one stops and the other begins, hence the repeated requests for his definition of the theory of evolution.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

forexhr writes: Showing mathematicaly that such human idea is false, in no way means that the process of erosion does not occur.

That's what people are trying to tell you. Mathematics is a human idea that can not disprove what actually happens.

And I keep telling them back, in plain language, that I am not disproving what actually happens. So, you are just one of many in this topic who is inept of comprehending the simplest statements.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

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

Because you haven't answered the basic question I ask.

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. ...

Agreed, but then you jump off the deep end:

... 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.

So the basic question I have for you is ... what is this "evolution theory " that you think you have proven false? Please give me a definition in your words:

in future post forexhr writes: In my opinion, the theory of evolution is: _______________________________________________ (fills in the blank)

You must differentiate between process(evolution) and human idea(theory of evolution) ...

The theory -- any and every scientific theory -- is a tested and validated hypothesis, more than just an idea, because that testing involves objective empirical evidence. A theory makes predictions that then test the theory -- whether those predictions occur or something else occurs, something that should not occur if the theory is valid.

So here is my problem: the theory of evolution predicts that evolution occurs constantly, will continue to occur and that evidence that it has occurred in the past will be found. These predictions continue to be validated as more and more information is found. No test of the (scientific) Theory of Evolution has yet failed.

This is obviously a problem for you when you claim to have proven the theory false. So I think we are talking about rather different concepts of the Theory of Evolution, one scientific, and the other one yours (and your alone?).

So the basic question I have for you is ... what is this "evolution theory " that you think you have disproved? Please give me a definition in your words.

Let me help start you out by providing you with my definition of the process evolution:

The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

So I think you will agree, per your comments, that this process occurs, that it is indeed a fact that this occurs.

So the question is: what is your concept for the Theory of Evolution?

Curious people want to know.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : .

forexhr writes: So, you are just one of many in this topic who is inept of comprehending the simplest statements.

If everybody fails to understand your statements, maybe you should consider the possibility that you're not stating it clearly enough.

I would also appreciate an answer to my question: Why is it that you understand the implications of the experiment but the people who did the experiment do not?

... So, you are just one of many in this topic who is inept of comprehending the simplest statements.

Simplest statements or simply wrong statements? Maybe simply incomplete:

You have yet to define in a simple statement what you think the theory of evolution says.

How can we understand something that is based on or involves an unstated assumption?

Enjoy

forexhr writes: I argue that in order for new a function to form, variations are required, and have provided simple mathematical explanation why they are insufficient.

Those explanations are wrong and are not supported by evidence, as I already discussed.

Why don't you look at all of the mutations that separate humans and chimps and show us which of those differences evolution could not produce. Until you do so, you are just making stuff up.

Nothing, variations are still required in order to get from non-function to function.

What you are ignoring is all of the pathways from function to new 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.

Nowhere did I make that claim. Obviously, the ancestors of fish already had the ability to exchange gases with their environment before evolving gills. Gills are just a change in how the circulatory system is organized.