Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
707 online now:
Dredge, nwr, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 702 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,149 Year: 6,261/6,534 Month: 454/650 Week: 224/278 Day: 20/44 Hour: 3/7


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: 8525
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 110 of 248 (836435)
07-16-2018 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Faith
07-16-2018 5:55 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Faith writes:

But mutation can only change the variation on the phenotype as I keep saying, not the phenotype itself.

You need some evidence to back this claim.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 07-16-2018 5:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 07-16-2018 6:15 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8525
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 not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8525
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: 8525
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: 8525
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 not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8525
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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8525
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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8525
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 136 of 248 (836512)
07-18-2018 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by forexhr
07-18-2018 2:57 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by forexhr, posted 07-18-2018 2:57 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by forexhr, posted 07-19-2018 4:11 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8525
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 137 of 248 (836513)
07-18-2018 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by forexhr
07-18-2018 4:19 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by forexhr, posted 07-18-2018 4:19 AM forexhr has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8525
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 138 of 248 (836514)
07-18-2018 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
07-17-2018 5:33 PM


Re: No New Functions?
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 07-17-2018 5:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8525
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 150 of 248 (836578)
07-19-2018 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by forexhr
07-19-2018 4:11 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by forexhr, posted 07-19-2018 4:11 AM forexhr has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8525
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8525
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 205 of 248 (836998)
07-25-2018 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Faith
07-20-2018 6:01 PM


Re: Wrong again
Faith writes:

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

I directly addressed the evidence presented in the essay in posts 38, 39, and 42. Perhaps you could start with those posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 07-20-2018 6:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8525
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(3)
Message 206 of 248 (837000)
07-25-2018 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by forexhr
07-23-2018 5:10 AM


Re: Wrong again
forexhr writes:

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.

No, that is not what the theory of evolution is. There are chemical reactions happening all around us that modify molecules and elements, but that isn't evolution. Evolution has to do with reproducing organisms, inheritance of DNA, and how those organisms change over time.

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.

No such model exists. You never show any math as it relates to human and primate mutation rates, including the rate of recombination, indel, and substitution rates.

Let's do some back of the envelope calculations. The substitution mutation rate in humans is about 100 mutations per person per generation. Most scientists place the split between the human and chimp lineages at about 5 million years ago. The generation time for humans is around 25 years. Let's use a constant population size of just 100,000 for our calculations.

Using these numbers, that's 5 million/25 or 200,000 generations. For a constant population of 100,000 and 100 mutations per person per generation, that is 10 million mutations per generation. 10 million mutations per generation for 200,000 generations is 2 trillion mutations that have happened in the human lineage over the last 5 million years.

So how many substitution mutations separate the chimp and human genomes? Just 35 million, and about half of those would be mutations that happened in the chimp genome. Out of the 2 trillion mutations that did happen we only needed about 20 million to stick around in order to produce the differences we see between the human and chimp genomes with respect to substitution mutations. That's just 0.001% of the mutations that did occur. So why do you think that the observed mutation rate is incapable of producing the differences we see between species?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by forexhr, posted 07-23-2018 5:10 AM forexhr has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8525
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 208 of 248 (837027)
07-25-2018 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by forexhr
07-25-2018 5:29 PM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
forexhr writes:

here 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 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.

If I am lose my thumb in a workplace accident, does this mean that all of my children will also be missing a thumb?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by forexhr, posted 07-25-2018 5:29 PM 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