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

will make things easier to you by putting one part of my argument in the standard form:

Thanks, but I don't need you to make your argument easier for me to understand, I need you to address the rebuttals I already offered. You simply made a broad, sweeping generalization that my response was a logical fallacy without addressing my specific points.

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

And you can't wave your magic wand of logical fallacy and make my rebuttals invalid.

the above argument doesn't care about what the ToE is or is not,

But... if your assumptions and premises don't agree with the the premises of the theory you are not modeling or arguing against evolutionary theory, you are arguing against something else. So, yes, your argument does depend on what the ToE is or is not - that is what you are arguing against.

For example, your calculations require that biological functions, such as gills, are formed by a single gene that codes for that specific function or feature and that that gene appears out of nothing, with no pre-existing genetic material. Those assumptions and premises look nothing like evolutionary theory. So you are not actually arguing against the ToE, you are arguing against something else. If your point is that genes don't pop into existence out of nothing... well, OK. We can agree on that.

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.

I am not disputing your definition of deformation tolerance, I am saying your value of 50% is arbitrary and completely made up. You claim that it "favors evolutionary theory" and therefore it is OK to just pull the number out of the air. That is not empirically derived.

Your value for the number of variations in the history of earth 10^43 is taken out of context and you did not address the authors conclusions regarding that value. It is scientifically dishonest to lift someone's data out of context and come to the opposite conclusion without addressing why their arguments were wrong. This doesn't invalidate the number itself, but if you want your argument to be a strong scientific argument, you would need to address this issue.

Your value of 4^1346 = 10^810 is the number of possible combinations of nucleotides in a gene of 1346 base pairs. Since there is degeneracy in the genetic code, not all those combinations are functionally different. For example, valine, alanine, glycine and proline only require the first two nucleotides to be specific; the third position nucleotide can be any base. This reduces the number of functional combinations for these amino acids by a third. Your number doesn't take this into account.

A better way to approach it would be by determining amino acid sequences. Therefore the number of possible combinations in a peptide that is coded by a 1346bp gene is 20^(1346/3) = 5 x 10^583; significantly less than your number of 10^810.

Your number of 10^43 maximum number of variations is based on amino acid sequences and you are comparing it to numbers based on base pair sequences. Different units and can't be directly compared.

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.

But you don't really show that, you show that biological functions can't appear out of nowhere, they can't just but into existence. What is the probability that gene A will change into gene B that has a different biological function?

HBD

Well, interaction of forces and particles must result in something specific. And this specific thing is so deeply isolated in the space of all possible non-specific things, that interactions of forces and particles in the whole observable universe, from the Big Bang to the present day, would be insufficient for gears to appear in some random place in the universe, let alone to appear exactly near the locomotor structures that require transmission of rotational motion.

Why are you picking on biological features? Couldn't this be said about ALL things, even non-biological things?

For example, granite. Granite is composed of 11 chemical compounds. Considering that there are a lower limit of 10^18 possible chemical compounds in the universe, that means the chances of those specific 11 compounds coming together by random chance and forming granite are 1 / (10^18)^11 = 1 /10^198. Well that is an infinitesimally small chance of that occurring, therefore, we can be sure that granite was not created by random forces of nature.

But these ridiculously large probabilities can be generated for anything, but do they represent reality?

I failed to address several important aspects of granite formation in my calculations above, including abundance of the different compounds, processes that brought those compounds together, the fact other combinations could and have occurred (which makes the calculation of the probability of granite forming superfluous) and how these compounds interact (what are the number of compounds that could not have interacted with each other to form a substance). And finally, regardless of how small the probability of this happening is... we observe granite, granite does exist.

These are the same types of mistakes you make in your calculations. Obviously you don't see it that way, but that's how I see it. Probability calculations and all these "airplane from a junkyard" arguments are nonsense, since evolutionary theory does not predict that type of process.

HBD

This kind of word-play is a terrible analogy for genetics. It shows you think that genes are a recipe or a road map for traits. They are not.

HBD

Hence, the DNA is a recipe or a road map for traits.

I said genes are not a road map for traits. Genes code for a protein, not a trait.

Words are a bad analogy for genes. For example, you can often substitute any polar amino acid for any other polar amino acid and not affect the function. That does not apply to words, ever letter is distinct. Typically there is a functional motif in a gene that does the "work" of the gene - the rest of the chain determines how that motif is presented to the cellular environment. This is not how words work.

So, word play is bad analogy for genes. Genes are what you are discussing.

You simply don't have arguments against my refutation of the ToE, but your dogmatic belief in the theory forces you to post these useless messages.

Message 180 - you only replied to one paragraph out of a long message

Message 181 - a critique of your paper to which you did not reply

Message 225 - no reply

Message 226 - no reply

ABE: In fact you have not replied to even one of my points that I would consider substantive. /ABE

You are just name calling and posturing. I have given valid and informed reasons why I don't accept your argument in its current form. That is hardly dogmatic belief.

HBD

Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

The second is absurd because it boils down to this — "evolving biological functions is not a problem because granite was formed". Why would I respond to something like that?

Because that is not what I said, idiot.

Hence, like I have said, you are just a red herring to divert the attention from the crux of my argument that you cannot refute.

nahuh. you're a red herring.