Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
139 online now:
dwise1, nwr, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Tanypteryx, xongsmith (6 members, 133 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,000 Year: 6,112/6,534 Month: 305/650 Week: 75/278 Day: 23/52 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
Taq
Member
Posts: 8524
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 151 of 248 (836580)
07-19-2018 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
07-19-2018 10:21 AM


Re: Wrong again
Faith writes:

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

Where is the evidence for this claim?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 07-19-2018 10:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 07-19-2018 5:33 PM Taq has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 756 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 152 of 248 (836589)
07-19-2018 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Taq
07-19-2018 1:10 PM


Re: Wrong again
Taq YOU need evidence that those processes CAN produce something new because you merely assume it. We know a mutation to a gene for fur color can produce a different fur color, or to a gene for three or four different things can produce variations on those three or four different things. But can fish DNA come up with arms and legs or wings or fur? You'd have to prove that it could. All we really KNOW is that we'll get whatever the genetic stuff codes for, nothing else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Taq, posted 07-19-2018 1:10 PM Taq has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1379 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 153 of 248 (836601)
07-20-2018 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by RAZD
07-19-2018 12:48 PM


Re: Wrong again
RAZD writes:

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.


I already defined evolution theory, in my own words, both in the article and on this topic:

"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".

This theory teaches that at the beginning, there was only one biological function — reproduction, i.e. that life began with a simple molecule that could reproduce itself, and that no complex functions like visual or auditory perception, liquid pumping, processing sensory information or RNA splicing were present. Then its fundamental assumption kicks in - "changes in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations" or as you put it, "changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation..." caused all the complex functions of today's organisms to form.

In short, the theory assumes that changes in the DNA, coupled with the elimination process (selection), turned a simple molecule into Mozart.

My simple mathematical model, which has only two parameters — the size of an average gene and the deformation tolerance, proves this impossible.

I am waiting patiently for someone to come along and challenge this model. And yet after more than a hundred and fifty replies, not only that nobody came, but the majority of responders are incapable of even acknowledging the very fact that the model exists. Instead, they resort to straw men, red herrings, appeals to authority, and other dirty debate tactics. Your question is one such tactic — you are deliberately refusing to acknowledge that the process (evolution) differs from the human idea about its creative capabilities (the evolution theory), by asking the definition of something that is already clearly defined. But even this definition is irrelevant to the issue at hand since my model compares available and required variations, which are empirical values completely unrelated to the philosophical concepts or definitions of the theory. That said, you have two options: either you can finally address my mathematical model, on which my whole falsification is based, or you can continue to engage in dirty debate tactics. The first is something that I can respond to with an argument, the latter is something that I can only classify as logical fallacies. In that regard, your post is a complete red herring.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2018 12:48 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by ringo, posted 07-20-2018 11:52 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 166 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2018 8:13 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 180 by herebedragons, posted 07-22-2018 5:27 PM forexhr has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19729
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 154 of 248 (836609)
07-20-2018 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by forexhr
07-20-2018 4:17 AM


Re: Wrong again
forexhr writes:

I am waiting patiently for someone to come along and challenge this model.


I'm waiting patiently for you to answer my question: Why did the scientists who did the experiments fail to see the implications that you see. Why did the peer reviewers fail to see what you see? Why did the hundreds/thousands of semi-interested scientists who read the paper(s) fail to see what you see?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by forexhr, posted 07-20-2018 4:17 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 07-20-2018 5:38 PM ringo has replied
 Message 161 by forexhr, posted 07-21-2018 4:40 AM ringo has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 756 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 155 of 248 (836645)
07-20-2018 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by ringo
07-20-2018 11:52 AM


Re: Wrong again
I'm waiting patiently for you to answer my question: Why did the scientists who did the experiments fail to see the implications that you see. Why did the peer reviewers
fail to see what you see? Why did the hundreds/thousands of semi-interested scientists who read the paper(s) fail to see what you see?

They're like all of you here, they are so totally blindly committed to the ToE they won't even really entertain a challenge to it. So far I don't think anyone on this thread has fairly tried to deal with what forexhr has presented.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by ringo, posted 07-20-2018 11:52 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by ringo, posted 07-20-2018 5:43 PM Faith has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19729
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 156 of 248 (836646)
07-20-2018 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
07-20-2018 5:38 PM


Re: Wrong again
Faith writes:

They're like all of you here, they are so totally blindly committed to the ToE they won't even really entertain a challenge to it.


So it's a conspiracy? That's all you've got?

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 07-20-2018 5:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 07-20-2018 5:52 PM ringo has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 756 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 157 of 248 (836649)
07-20-2018 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by ringo
07-20-2018 5:43 PM


Re: Wrong again
I don't think it's a conspiracy, I think it's paradigm blindness, but there is a factor of their unwillingness to even consider another point of view. Just like all of you on this thread.

I can't really follow forexhr's arguments myself, though I get the basic gist that he's trying to show that it is mathematically impossible for truly new (previously nonexistent) functions to appear through the evolutionary processes of mutation, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift -- and he uses statistics from the Lenski experiment with E coli -- I haven't seen anyone here even address that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by ringo, posted 07-20-2018 5:43 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by ringo, posted 07-20-2018 6:00 PM Faith has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19729
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 158 of 248 (836652)
07-20-2018 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Faith
07-20-2018 5:52 PM


Re: Wrong again
Faith writes:

... there is a factor of their unwillingness to even consider another point of view.


They have considered forexhr's point of view and they've shown how it's wrong.

Faith writes:

I can't really follow forexhr's arguments myself....


That's so typical of you. You don't understand either side of the argument but you know which side is right.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 07-20-2018 5:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 07-20-2018 6:01 PM ringo has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 756 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 159 of 248 (836653)
07-20-2018 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by ringo
07-20-2018 6:00 PM


Re: Wrong again
Not one single person on this thread has actually addressed what the OP is arguing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by ringo, posted 07-20-2018 6:00 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by ringo, posted 07-21-2018 11:35 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 205 by Taq, posted 07-25-2018 12:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
Meddle
Member (Idle past 582 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


(1)
Message 160 of 248 (836655)
07-20-2018 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by forexhr
07-19-2018 4:11 AM


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.

The problem is you seem to imagine that within the genome are definitions for the structure and position of organs like heart, lungs, brain or even gills. In other words you imagine the genome to be a blueprint. But really, multi-cellular organisms are a colony of cells, a bit like a bacterial biofilm, just with a more diverse range of proteins to form intracellular connections, secreting extracellular matrices, or signalling neighbours to coordinate interactions with each other. This is what our genome handles, from that single-celled fertilised ovum as it multiplies and diversifies.

So for example you have hox genes who's protein products signal to cells their position in this growing colony, which trigger other signalling proteins in a cascade which is dependant on where in the growing colony the cells find themselves. Another example would be the SHH gene (sonic hedgehog) which codes for a protein that diffuses from the neural tube through the colony, affecting cells differently depending on the concentration. By this point the colony will have become a long tube with an opening running it's length that will eventually be the gut, but these networks of regulatory genes continue right through development, differentiating and refining neighbourhoods of cells into different tissues.
So for example towards one end of the embryo a series of branchial arches form. Some will go on to form the basis of jaws and in fish others will develop into gills, or be reabsorbed in terrestrial animals. In mammals a small part of the first branchial arch will split off from the developing jaw and migrate towards the ear. Can you see why talking of 'a gene' for gill formation can appear nonsensical, as these structures are the culmination of the interaction of many genes over many generations of cell division? To illustrate this, here is a video of how the face comes together during development:

I know this may appear complex, but when the first regulatory genes developed, the colonies of cells were a lot smaller and more simple to what we have in a human. But a lot of variety can develop with duplication and subsequent mutation of genes. For example, in previous posts responding to Faith's example of hair colour, the MC1R gene was brought up, which codes for a protein that is an example of a G protein-coupled receptor. The interesting thing about this is that this is a large family of proteins which perform many tasks in different tissues, including opsins in the retina as part of the visual system.

Edited by Meddle, : No reason given.

Edited by Meddle, : Fixed youtube video so it displays, removed joke about boards being up and down like Assyrian Empire.

Edited by Meddle, : Try again


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by forexhr, posted 07-19-2018 4:11 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by forexhr, posted 07-21-2018 4:48 AM Meddle has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1379 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 161 of 248 (836664)
07-21-2018 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by ringo
07-20-2018 11:52 AM


Re: Wrong again
ringo writes:

I'm waiting patiently for you to answer my question: Why did the scientists who did the experiments fail to see the implications that you see. Why did the peer reviewers fail to see what you see? Why did the hundreds/thousands of semi-interested scientists who read the paper(s) fail to see what you see?


Neither your question has something to do with the subject of this topic nor I know what scientists fail to see or fail to understand, since I cannot read their minds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by ringo, posted 07-20-2018 11:52 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Tangle, posted 07-21-2018 4:52 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 168 by ringo, posted 07-21-2018 11:41 AM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1379 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 162 of 248 (836665)
07-21-2018 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Meddle
07-20-2018 8:05 PM


Meddle writes:


The problem is you seem to imagine that within the genome are definitions for the structure and position of organs like heart, lungs, brain or even gills. In other words you imagine the genome to be a blueprint. But really, multi-cellular organisms are a colony of cells, a bit like a bacterial biofilm, just with a more diverse range of proteins to form intracellular connections, secreting extracellular matrices, or signalling neighbours to coordinate interactions with each other. This is what our genome handles, from that single-celled fertilised ovum as it multiplies and diversifies.

So for example you have hox genes who's protein products signal to cells their position in this growing colony, which trigger other signalling proteins in a cascade which is dependant on where in the growing colony the cells find themselves. Another example would be the SHH gene (sonic hedgehog) which codes for a protein that diffuses from the neural tube through the colony, affecting cells differently depending on the concentration. By this point the colony will have become a long tube with an opening running it's length that will eventually be the gut, but these networks of regulatory genes continue right through development, differentiating and refining neighbourhoods of cells into different tissues.
So for example towards one end of the embryo a series of branchial arches form. Some will go on to form the basis of jaws and in fish others will develop into gills, or be reabsorbed in terrestrial animals. In mammals a small part of the first branchial arch will split off from the developing jaw and migrate towards the ear. Can you see why talking of 'a gene' for gill formation can appear nonsensical, as these structures are the culmination of the interaction of many genes over many generations of cell division? To illustrate this, here is a video of how the face comes together during development:

I know this may appear complex, but when the first regulatory genes developed, the colonies of cells were a lot smaller and more simple to what we have in a human. But a lot of variety can develop with duplication and subsequent mutation of genes. For example, in previous posts responding to Faith's example of hair colour, the MC1R gene was brought up, which codes for a protein that is an example of a G protein-coupled receptor. The interesting thing about this is that this is a large family of proteins which perform many tasks in different tissues, including opsins in the retina as part of the visual system.

The only reason I created a model with only one gene is to accommodate evolutionists. I've been in these 'cro-evo' debates for more than a decade now, and whenever I would say that biological functions are hard to evolve because they involve the interaction of many regulatory and signaling genes, evolutionists were on me like piranhas, attacking me with accusations of ignorance, intellectual dishonesty, misrepresentation of the evolution theory, etc. And all that because the evolution theory teaches that all functions start as simple, single molecules or structures that progress to more complicated molecules, structures or groups of structures. And although I knew this is just theoretical oversimplification and something that doesn't fit biological reality, I accepted their rules of the game and created model which assumes that every complex function start as a simple and independent structure. In that way I gave the advantage to the theory because the more genes a function has the more variations are required for genes to adopt functionally interdependent states.

And now when I adapted my model to fit evolutionary assumptions, the same group of people who were accusing me of ignorance, intellectual dishonesty and misrepresentation, are saying that my model is nonsensical because "structures are the culmination of the interaction of many genes.". Or as Taq puts it "All anatomical structures are the result of many different genes interacting with each other." So, no matter what the model assumptions are, if the model challenges the evolution theory it is by definition nonsensical and wrong, even if it uses the basic assumptions of the theory itself and even if it accommodates all of the things that evolutionists believe in.

That just shows that the belief in the evolution theory is not based on scientific or logical grounds but rather on dogmatic, and cannot be rationally justified, the same as the belief in the flat Earth.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Meddle, posted 07-20-2018 8:05 PM Meddle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8576
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 163 of 248 (836666)
07-21-2018 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by forexhr
07-21-2018 4:40 AM


Re: Wrong again
forexhr writes:

Neither your question has something to do with the subject of this topic nor I know what scientists fail to see or fail to understand, since I cannot read their minds.

You don't need to read their minds, read their papers.

Your problem is that you're here on an amateur forum explaining why one of the most famous and long-standing theories in all of science is wrong. And that you have a mathematical proof of it. Outstanding work.

Why are you not opening this to peer review and publishing it in Nature? Why aren't you debating this at the Royal Society? This is Nobel Prize territory.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by forexhr, posted 07-21-2018 4:40 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by forexhr, posted 07-21-2018 5:01 AM Tangle has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1379 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 164 of 248 (836667)
07-21-2018 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Tangle
07-21-2018 4:52 AM


Re: Wrong again
@Tangle
Ha, ha, ha,... That would be like Nobel Prize for showing that the Earth is not flat, or that the Earth is bigger than the Moon.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Tangle, posted 07-21-2018 4:52 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Tangle, posted 07-21-2018 7:19 AM forexhr has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8576
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 165 of 248 (836674)
07-21-2018 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by forexhr
07-21-2018 5:01 AM


Re: Wrong again
Forexhr writes:

Ha, ha, ha,... That would be like Nobel Prize for showing that the Earth is not flat, or that the Earth is bigger than the Moon.

Proving the earth is not flat when most people thought it was is actually a very useful thing to have done. But it seems you just want to mess around with words, not facts.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by forexhr, posted 07-21-2018 5:01 AM forexhr has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022