Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
586 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, vimesey (5 members, 581 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,144 Year: 6,256/6,534 Month: 449/650 Week: 219/278 Day: 15/44 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1384 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 146 of 248 (836572)
07-19-2018 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by ringo
07-19-2018 12:06 PM


Re: Wrong again
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by ringo, posted 07-19-2018 12:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by ringo, posted 07-19-2018 12:48 PM forexhr has not replied
 Message 149 by RAZD, posted 07-19-2018 12:53 PM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1384 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

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1384 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 1384 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

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1384 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

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1384 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 169 of 248 (836713)
07-21-2018 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by RAZD
07-21-2018 8:13 AM


Re: getting petty
@RAZD

I am not interested to discuss your personal rationalizations to keep the faith in the theory of evolution. The subject of this topic is pretty clear - molecular rearrangements(variations/DNA changes) that are required for genes to adopt biologically functional states and model which proves their insufficiency. You cannot disprove numbers provided in this model with philosophical concepts, abstractions, colorful graphs, and fancy terms that nobody understands. These are just distractions, your personal way to avoid what you cannot disprove. At the end of the day everything is pretty simple - if you don't want to address the subject at hand, you might be happier somewhere else. But please, please... stop trolling my thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by RAZD, posted 07-21-2018 8:13 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-21-2018 1:15 PM forexhr has replied
 Message 171 by Faith, posted 07-21-2018 2:34 PM forexhr has not replied
 Message 177 by RAZD, posted 07-22-2018 7:13 AM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1384 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 175 of 248 (836765)
07-22-2018 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Tanypteryx
07-21-2018 1:15 PM


Re: getting petty
Tanypteryx writes:

There are only 2 people in this thread that don't understand the "fancy terms."
Your model is total bullshit.

There is no need to "understand" fancy terms as they are just abstract instances of human mind that have nothing to do with the cause and effect structure of the natural world. Natural world is composed of atoms that change their positions in space and time according to four fundamental forces, which results in arrangements of various 3D shapes and sizes. All functions in biology are just one type of such arrangements. Starting with the premise that biological arrangements din't exist on the early Earth or at our Universe's Birth, there is only one way for them to come into existence - atoms must change their positions - regardless if this happens in a 'warm little pond' or on the DNA strands. This is the first simple truth upon which my model is based.

The second simple truth is the quantitative relation between two mathematical values. One quantifies all possible arrangements that can provide biological functions and the other those arrangements that can't. This quantitative relation coupled with the principle of mathematical expectation determines the number of changes that are required for new biological functions to emerge. Now, given the second truth, all that one needs to do to challenge my model is to explain which of the two values is wrong and why it is wrong. Nothing more and nothing less.

Has anyone on this thread even tried to do that? No. Instead, majority of responders resort to rhetorical gymnastics with fancy terms and useless abstractions in order to maintain their faith in the theory. And this behaviour is how true dogmatic believers operate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-21-2018 1:15 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-22-2018 1:46 PM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1384 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 176 of 248 (836767)
07-22-2018 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Faith
07-21-2018 6:09 PM


Faith writes:

My guess is he would like to have some reasonable discussion with reasonable knowledgeable people in order to sharpen up his argument before trying it out at the professional level. Unfortunately he came to the wrong place. As of course did I. But if this is the wrong place there is no right place these days, sad to say.

You are right. Now I realize that I came to the wrong place, which is why this is my last response here. But before I leave, I would like to ask you a questions, if you don't mind. You said that you can't follow my arguments, so can you please tell me what exactly you can't follow so that I can articulate and frame my arguments more clearly in the article. Thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 07-21-2018 6:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 07-22-2018 5:54 PM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1384 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 187 of 248 (836834)
07-23-2018 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by herebedragons
07-22-2018 5:27 PM


Re: Wrong again
herebedragons writes:

I would call this characterization of evolution to be somewhat misleading because it represents your biased spin on the subject rather than the scientific view.

First, “can produce previously non-existent biological functions”. Granted this is kind of the implication of the theory, but to me, the way you put this statement makes it sound as if the theory predicts that new biological functions will just pop into existence with no predecessor. A more accurate representation of the scientific view is:

The evolution theory is an idea according to which new phenotypes are produced through the evolutionary processes of mutations, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift in a process often referred to as descent with modification.

Unfortunately your definition of the evolution theory(ToE) is not "more accurate representation of the scientific view because "phenotype" is an instance of human language and not an instance of science.

Science is defined as ..." intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the natural world through observation and experiment.", while the phrase "structure and behaviour of the natural world" boils down to two things - forces and clusters of particles. These two things are essentially all that exists in the natural world. Everything else are abstractions - objects created in the human mind that do not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as ideas and abstractions and are expresed through human language.

That said, your definition of the ToE, rather than being "more accurate", is actually tautological. It asserts that the ToE is true in every possible interpretation. Let's return to the "structure and behaviour of the natural world" to find out why.

Outside the world of human mind there are no such things as phenotype, genotype, natural selection, life.... but only the interaction of forces and clusters of particles. In that sense, the ToE takes over once a cluster of particles, lets call it A, has one specific property that no other cluster of particles has, and that is the ability to produce cluster of particles nearly identical to itself. Let's call the product of this ability A'. IOWs, A' is an offspring of A. Given the instance of human abstractions, A' is the result of a process called 'descent with modifications'.

Now, at this stage the environment (natural selection) is not important, all that is important is the ability of A to produce slightly modified version of itself (A'). The environment kicks in at the next stage. But first let's define the word "environment" 'more accurately'. Since the natural world is nothing but forces and clusters of particles, the environment is, you guessed it... cluster of particles. Let's call it E. Now, what does it mean when we say that an organism has adapted to its environment?

Well, we imply that cluster of particles A' retained the abitilty to produce cluster of particles nearly identical to itself because its 'modifications' were such that they fitted E.

If we now assume that A had another offspring, let's call it A'', what does it mean when we say that A'' didn't adapt to its environment? We imply that A'' didn't retain its abitilty to produce cluster of particles nearly identical to itself because its 'modifications' were such that they didn't fit E.

Let's now go to your definition of the ToE:

"The evolution theory is an idea according to which new phenotypes are produced through the evolutionary processes of mutations, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift in a process often referred to as descent with modification."

When this definition is translated from abstract language into the language of natural world, here is how it looks like: The evolution theory is an idea according to which new clusters of particles are produced through the interaction of forces and clusters of particles in a process often referred to as modified clusters of particles. Or simply put: the evolution theory is an idea according to which things change in a process that changes things. Now, is it possible to refute something like that? Of course, it is not. By such definition, the ToE is true in every possible interpretation, i.e. it is a tautology.

Now, here is the most scientific definition:

The evolution theory is an idea according to which the interaction of forces and clusters of particles can result in such a cluster of particles which is predefined by other cluster of particles.

Here is the interpretation: in the above explanation we saw that the only thing that differentiate the ability of A' and A'' to retain the ability to produce cluster of particles nearly identical to themselves is the environment E. Since the environment E is just another cluster of particles, the evolutionary idea boils down to the hypothesis that one cluster of particles can be modified into what is predefined by another cluster of particles.

My model, which you avoided like the plague, simply states that this is impossible because the number of modifications in nature is insufficient to overcome the ratio between modifications which do not fit what is predefined by E and those that do.

All responses in this topic, your two lengthy posts included, are just red herrings trying to distract from the fact that the whole evolution theory is just one complex tautology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by herebedragons, posted 07-22-2018 5:27 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by herebedragons, posted 07-23-2018 9:39 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 206 by Taq, posted 07-25-2018 12:59 PM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1384 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 191 of 248 (836853)
07-23-2018 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by herebedragons
07-23-2018 9:39 AM


Re: Wrong again
herebedragons writes:

There certainly are such things as phenotype, genotype, physical properties, etc... that is what science studies; the physical properties of the universe. These interactions of force and particles take on physical properties which we can study.


The interaction of forces and particles is the only thing that creates 'slightly modified' clusters of particles (offsprings) that are important for the ToE, because modified clusters either fit the environment E or they don't. On the other hand, phenotype is a just a word - creation of the human mind that describes the fact that one cluster of particles (genotype) resulted is another cluster of particles(phenotype). Since phenotype is what is selected for, genotype-phenotype distinction is completely irrelevant for the question whether the TEO is true, or IOWs, whether the interaction of forces and particles can result in such a cluster of particles which fits E.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by herebedragons, posted 07-23-2018 9:39 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by herebedragons, posted 07-23-2018 11:39 AM forexhr has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1384 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 194 of 248 (836858)
07-23-2018 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by herebedragons
07-23-2018 11:39 AM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
@herebedragons
You are the one who is incapable of rational discussion since every statement of yours, which opposes mine, is a logical fallacy. You pick the one you want and I will show you what logical fallacy it falls under.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by herebedragons, posted 07-23-2018 11:39 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by herebedragons, posted 07-23-2018 1:02 PM forexhr has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1384 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 197 of 248 (836907)
07-24-2018 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by herebedragons
07-23-2018 1:02 PM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
I have defeated you because you were unable to disprove my argument. The funny thing is you haven't even tried to disprove it, as you addressed neither its logical structure nor its premises. The only possible way to disprove an argument is to either show a flaw in its logical structure or falsehood of one or more of its premises. In your response you did neither, but instead, simply ignored its conclusion because it opposes your tautological arguments for the truth of evolution theory.

This is like trying to oppose the argument that humans cannot jump from Earth to the Moon because kinematic and kinetic data showed that their jumping abilities are limited to about a dozen meters, by saying: humans can perform that jump because we have empirical evidence that human are able to jump and empirical evidence that they were on the Moon.

I have provided an argument that a function coded with an average gene cannot evolve because it requires 10^405 variations, while the data showed that the varying capacity of gene pools is limited to about 10^43 and of observable universe to about 10^140. You rejected this argument by saying that we have empirical evidence that variations (new phenotypes) are produced through the process that produces variations (descent with modification) and because we have a framework within which we can explain the diversity(variety) of life forms. By this framework, life on this planet has become diverse because it changes. Simply put, you ignored valid argument on the bases of circular, tautological notion that life forms change via the process that changes life forms.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by herebedragons, posted 07-23-2018 1:02 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by herebedragons, posted 07-24-2018 12:26 PM forexhr has replied
 Message 199 by ringo, posted 07-24-2018 12:30 PM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1384 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 200 of 248 (836960)
07-25-2018 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by herebedragons
07-24-2018 12:26 PM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
I will make things easier to you by putting one part of my argument in the standard form:

P1: In the natural world, previously non-existent things can come into existence only by natural means, through variations.

P2: Biological functions are things that exist in nature, and many of them were non-existent in the first life forms.

C1/P3: Therefore, many biological functions are previously non-existent things.

P4: The appearance of a biological function that is coded with only one average eukaryotic gene requires 10^405 variations.

P5: The varying capacity of the natural world, from the Big Bang to the present day is 10^140.

C2/P6: Therefore, biological function that is coded with only one average eukaryotic gene didn't came into existence by natural means in Universe's history.

P7: The evolution theory holds that all previously non-existent biological functions came into existence by natural means in Earth's history.

C3: Therefore, the evolution theory is wrong.

To disprove this argument you have to show either a flaw in the above logical structure or falsehood of one or more of its premises. For e.g., if you think that the P4 is false, you must disprove my calculations and provide yours with different numbers. You cannot simply make empty assertions like you did: "You have no idea what this “deformation tolerance” actually is" or "these numbers need to be empirical". I clearly defined the deformation tolerance in the article, while numbers are 'empirical', and indeed way to generous, if we take into account the 'empirical' data showing the existence of highly conserved genes and ultra-conserved genes. Mutations that arise in these genes create such a high degree of functional disruption that they are very quickly eliminated from the gene pool. So, saying that the deformation tolerance of 50 percent is not empirical is just an empty assertion.

Further, the above argument doesn't care about what the ToE is or is not, what it teaches, how many scientists support it, or how many predictions, ad hoc hypothesis, evidences, and fancy terms it has. All it cares about is the fundamental assumption of the theory that all biological functions came into existence via variations by natural means in Earth's history. With this fundamental assumption wrong, ToE is wrong by definition.

Finally, you cannot simply wave the magic wand of your previous statements and then pretend that this somehow makes my argument invalid.

Good luck!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by herebedragons, posted 07-24-2018 12:26 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2018 8:25 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 204 by caffeine, posted 07-25-2018 12:38 PM forexhr has not replied
 Message 212 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2018 8:32 AM forexhr has replied
 Message 225 by herebedragons, posted 07-28-2018 10:40 AM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1384 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 202 of 248 (836969)
07-25-2018 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by PaulK
07-25-2018 8:25 AM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
Your argument has a clear logical error in jumping from C2/P6 to P7. Biological functions need not be encoded by a single eukaryotic gene.

I already addressed this here: Message 162

P4 is in error because the calculation assumes that the gene must be produced randomly, rather than, for instance a new function being acquired by mutation or the gene arriving via horizontal transfer (the latter being rather important for bacteria). It also assumes a predetermined function which is also an error - you would need the probability of any useful function, not a particular one.

Horizontal transfer is simply transfer of something that already existed - either functional or junk, and has nothing to do with the question of variations that are required for new functions.

Regarding predetermined function. Underwater respiratory functions is predetermined by aquatic environment, splicing function by intron-exon structure, enzymatic function by substance that needs to be metabolized, pumping function by vascular system, sperm cell by egg cell, male sex organs by female sex organs.... In short, everything is predetermined. I explained this already: Message 187

(And that is not addressing the really bizarre idea of gills as a “new biological function” when they really only increase the surface area available to a pre-existing function).

Message 140

So you have both a serious problem with both P4 and the logic, invalidating your argument.

Nice try, but better luck next time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2018 8:25 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2018 11:43 AM forexhr has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1384 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 207 of 248 (837026)
07-25-2018 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by PaulK
07-25-2018 11:43 AM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
PaulK writes:

And you are still obviously wrong. While it is conceivable that there might be cases where one particular function is required it is hardly likely to be the normal case.

There are no isolated cases, but all biology is predetermined and in every case particularity is needed. As I already mentioned in this thread, all things in the natural world are only forces and particles that interact and produce various clusters of particles. What are biological things? They are simply clusters of particles with properties not present in other or non-biological clusters of particles. The same is true at the level of biological things. Biological thing A is a cluster of particles with properties not present in biological thing B. And "property" is nothing but specific number and 3D arrangement of particles. So in order for interactions of forces and particles, or in other words, variations to result in biological clusters of particles, they must result is something that is specific or predetermined. By denying that we are claiming that every cluster of particles is biological thing, which is obviously absurd. Finally, the number of non-biological clusters of particles is so big that it is impossible for interaction of forces and particles to result in biological things. Abiogenesis theory and evolution theory are two complex abstractions designed for denying this fact.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by PaulK, posted 07-25-2018 11:43 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Taq, posted 07-25-2018 5:31 PM forexhr has not replied
 Message 209 by PaulK, posted 07-26-2018 12:28 AM forexhr has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022