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

Hi forexhr, and welcome to the fray,

... However, in the case of evolution theory, things are not so simple since the general public is not familiar with the empirical or mathematical knowledge about the actual capabilities and constraints of the evolutionary processes. But once this knowledge is revealed, the mythical nature of the evolution theory becomes obvious, ...

So sorry, but math is just a model, it is not reality, and when the model and reality are at odds it is the model that is wrong. Usually due to a faulty assumption. As others have said, the map is not the reality.

Science uses models, like hypothesis, to make predictions, and when those predictions fail or are contradicted by evidence, it is the model/hypothesis that is demonstrated to be wrong and in need of correction or being discarded.

Evolution happens, it happens every day in the world around us in every generation. Perhaps your error is in your concept of what evolution is and how it works. There are a couple of sites that can help determine this, my favorite being An introduction to evolution, by Berkeley University.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: RAZD writes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes: quote: quotes are easy also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

... The Evolution Theory ...

Could you describe in your own words what the theory of evolution is?

... that there has been a lack of variations for new biological functions to form. ...

Because it seems that you are operating under a false impression.

Just curious.

Enjoy

ps -- your participation in answering people's posts rather than just posting pot-shots would be appreciated.

you could also work on paragraphs to make your message more readable.

Edited by RAZD, :

I already disproved your claims in previous posts. Perhaps you should check them out. Given your refusal to address posts disproving your claims, it would seem that you have more in common with the flat earthers than we do.

It seems that forexhr is not interested in responding to criticism ... "does not play well with others" ... ?

Pity, it would be nice to have a conversation, even if it is like the one on-going with faith.

Enjoy

... 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

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, : .

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, : .

... 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

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".

Thank you for the clarification. I'm going to go a bit long in reply, because there is so much to cover.

As noted before, scientific theories are much more than just ideas, they are tested concepts build on known evidence and observations, they explain the evidence, and they make predictions that then can test the theory: if the prediction occurs, then another prediction is made to test it further; if something occurs that is not the predicted results, then the theory is questioned and modified or discarded.

I'll note in passing that one way people deal with cognitive dissonance is to minimize the dissonant information (calling it something less than it really is for instance -- see Reduction).

The biggest test of the Theory of Evolution was when genetic data, genomes, were used to generate a tree of life, and that tree was compared to the one that had been derived for over 300 years from the morphological study of fossils (taxonomy). They matched for over 99% of the data, an extraordinary consilience, for there is absolutely no reason for such a match from two entirely different sciences if the theory is wrong, but if the theory is right then it is an expected result.

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.

All this proves is that your mathematical model is either incomplete or wrong, because it is at odds with reality.

As I noted before evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:

Like walking on first one foot and then the next.

I believe we agree on this.

If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation, some become sufficiently different that individuals develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population. Within each generation, however they all appear similar.

The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.

This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.

If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.

The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.

Over generations phyletic change occurs in these populations, the responses to different ecologies accumulate into differences between the hereditary traits available within each of the daughter populations, and when these differences have reached a critical level, such that interbreeding no longer occurs, then the formation of new species is deemed to have occurred. After this has occurred each daughter population microevolves independently of the other/s. These are often called speciation events because the development of species is not arbitrary in this process.

If we looked at each branch linearly, while ignoring the sister population, they would show anagenesis (accumulation of evolutionary changes over many generations), and this shows that the same basic processes of evolution within breeding populations are involved in each branch.

We have fossil evidence of just such modifications over time in the fossil record:

quote:

---

A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate

Pelycodus was a tree-dwelling primate that looked A complete fossil much like a modern lemur. The skull shown is probably 7.5 centimeters long.

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

---

Here we can see anagenesis occurring from the bottom up, generation after generation, and at the top we can see cladogenesis occurring where there is a split from the parent population into two daughter populations.

Note that this does not require "new" features, just modifications of existing ones. We don't see soft tissue in fossils, so we can't tell if fur patterns etc change, but that is likely - especially at the top.

The process of anagenesis, with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. It has been observed in the modern world, not just in the past.

The process of cladogenesis, with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis. It has been observed in the modern world, not just in the past.

This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypotheses, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations).

Putting these together:

The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution.

What the theory says is that modification of existing molecules and their expressed features occurs over time, that over time such changes become notably different from ancestral ones, but nothing "new" is created, it just seems so when you compare results from greatly different time periods.

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.

Cognitive dissonance again.

People have consistently challenged your argument with actual facts, facts that show your claim is false. You can continue to ignore those arguments or you can "acknowledging the very fact" that they exist, and that they discredit your claim.

I was asking for clarification, so I could see where you went wrong.

... 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. ...

A mathematical model is not reality, it is an attempt to model reality, and if there is a conflict between the model and reality it is not reality that is false, it is the model.

It doesn't matter how much you fuss over the responses, your model is wrong, demonstrated wrong by reality.

Enjoy

@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.

And there we have the full personification of cognitive dissonance. Ad hominum attacks on people who disagree with you and the complete denial of the arguments against you are not validations for your failed model, it's just you crawling into your shell, closing your eyes and ears and shouting nananana .....

Sadly, for you, this is completely incapable of altering the reality: evolution has, does, and will continue to occur, and the theory of evolution -- the actual scientific one -- will continue to produce predictable results ... until it is disproven by evidence, objective empirical evidence,

... You cannot disprove numbers provided in this model with philosophical concepts, ...

No, it is disproved with objective empirical evidence of the reality of the world that surrounds you. Nothing philosophical about it. You only call it philosophical so you can tell yourself you can ignore it -- that's your cognitive dissonance in action.

In science, when someone shows you that you are wrong with evidence, you correct yourself, you don't deny the evidence. When someone says I think you are wrong because my model says so, you say where is your objective empirical evidence that your model actually works: you . don't . have . any .

A mathematical model is not evidence, it is hypothetical, yours is built on cherry picked information and not a complete analysis of all the evidence ... and a model is only as good as far as it models reality. You can't force reality to fit the model.

And, sorry, I'll keep saying it, because reality matters. If not to you then to other readers of these threads.

Enjoy

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

Thanks.

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.

Your "conclusion" is already stated in P2 -- this is a logically false argument of begging the question.

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.

These are your numbers, and they have been disputed in previous posts in this thread. They are basically assumptions that have not been shown to be true. The validity of your argument requires that they be true, so that validity has been questioned and you have yet to answer that honestly (ie -- not by calling the posters names and dismissing the arguments as logical fallacies and beliefs).

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.

What about two or three genes interacting? Not covered. A fatal flaw to your argument -- you have not covered all the possibilities, just singled out one cherry-picked subset. This is the logical fallacy of the part for the whole.

You assume that only one variation can occur at a time, whereas all sections of DNA can - and do - undergo variation at the same time.

You assume that new biological function is only due to one variation, and not to an interaction of variations in different sections of the DNA -- something that has been observed.

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

The evolution theory holds that the existence of variation is adequately explained by the observed processes of evolution seen in everyday life. This has not been demonstrated to be false by your argument.

C3: Therefore, the evolution theory is wrong.

Now we take that hypothesis (regardless of it's basis) and test that against the evidence of reality to see if it passes scientific muster:

In the e-coli experiment "previously non-existent biological functions" of being able to metabolize citrate was observed to occur and it was determined that this ability developed by mutation and selection as is documented by the frozen samples of each generation.

Note: this ability developed due to the interaction of two changes in the DNA.

In other words your hypothesis failed -- it was falsified by [i]one[i] well documented experiment.

Obviously your premises and your logical form are false.

Thank you for playing.

Enjoy

RAZD writes: Your "conclusion" is already stated in P2 -- this is a logically false argument of begging the question. No, it is not, because P2 refers to previous non-existence in life forms, while the conclusion refers to previous non-existence generally. ...

Really? Here they are again:

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.

Now please elucidate the difference between:

" ... many of them (biological functions) were non-existent in the first life forms."

and

" ... many biological functions are previously non-existent things."

They both refer to "previous non-existence generally" as far as I can see. Can you explain the difference?

... Further, C1/P3 is truth in itself, and P1 and P2 are not needed at all for the whole argument to be valid. In other words, the conclusion C3 is valid even without P1 and P2. ...

In other words you are agreeing that the C3 conclusion is included in the premises and that you were in fact committing the logical fallacy of begging the question. Glad you cleared that up.

... I used these premises simply because you people misrepresent even the obvious facts, so the first two premises (facts) were added to the argument in order to make the third premise (fact) more obvious.

One of the signs of a losing argument is the use of the ad hominem attack on the messengers instead of dealing with their arguments.

No shit Sherlock! If I arrived at these numbers, then obviously, these numbers are mine. Now, to dispute them you must provide your own numbers, i.e. show that deformation tolerance of 50 percent is not empirically founded. In other words, you must show that all biological things will retain their functions after we randomize 50 percent of their coding molecules. I must show only one opposite example to refute the evolution theory. With highly conserved genes and ultra-conserved genes I have thousands of them. Further, in the article, in the RNA splicing example, I assumed 90 percent deformation tolerance, and still ended up with a ridiculously enormous number of required variations: 10^16,200. So, nothing has been disputed in previous posts in this thread. “Your side” is just throwing around empty claims.

Reality refutes your numbers, because evolution of new functions has been observed. This is a "(fact)" that you are ignoring.

Message 215: The changes in Lenski's experiment resulted in a different location of pre-existing arrangement of particles, so this doesn't count as a new function under my definition. Also, under my definition even 10^405 different arrangements of particles count as one function. Hence, under my definition, the arrangement of particles that had never existed before is not new function.

The arrangement itself is not a new function, it causes the new function.

You do realize that DNA is composed of four (4) molecules, and that the varying pattern of these molecules is what causes the expressed functions of the organism, yes? The "pre-existing arrangement" can (and likely does) occur in many places of the entire genome, and it would have different results in expressed functionality, so this is not a valid argument against it producing a new function.

The "pre-existing arrangement" in other locations did not produce the expression of citrate metabolism in the organism, so the location is critical to the expression of the functionality, and a new location causing the expression of a new functionality IS a new arrangement.

Thus this claim of "different location of pre-existing arrangement of particles" is just your bogus way to ignore the "(fact)" that the resulting new location(s) of molecules is in "(fact)" different from the previous arrangement ... AND that this in "(fact)" affected the expression of functions in the organism causing, a new function to occur.

If this doesn't fit your "definition" for a new function, then your "definition" is wrong because it doesn't reflect the reality of DNA and function expression within organisms.

... Further, in the article, in the RNA splicing example, I assumed 90 percent deformation tolerance, and still ended up with a ridiculously enormous number of required variations: 10^16,200. So, nothing has been disputed in previous posts in this thread. “Your side” is just throwing around empty claims.

You make many assumptions, but your calculations are erroneous because you do not consider all the possible ways for mutations occur simultaneously and to interact with each other in ways that produce new functionality.

Anytime a creationist/IDologist spouts big numbers you can be pretty sure they are committing one of several false assumptions.

See the old improbable probability problem, in particular:

quote:

---

4. The calculation fails to account for combinations of groups of such molecules in smorgasbord fashion instead of in assembly line fashion all at once all from nothing. And further, that all those "failed" experiments are still available to be cut and reassembled into new experiments without having to go through all the preliminaries. It fails to account for actual combination process as used in natural assembly of large organic compounds. Amino acids are assembled into larger molecules like peptides and not from extending amino acids by adding atoms. This failure means that all the ways to reach the final necessary combination are not included and thus it unnecessarily excludes possible combination methods.

5. The probability of winning a lottery by any one ticket is extremely low, but the probability that the lottery will be won is extremely high. How do you reconcile these two very disparate probabilities? By knowing that any one of the millions of tickets is a valid winner if picked. To show that this is not the case for the calculations mentioned (ie -- in order to say "1 out of") you have to show that no other combination works of all the other probabilities. There are several different known forms of hemoglobin, all of which do the job of transporting oxygen in the blood, and thus the probability is high that there are other versions that will work as well. Scientists have also manipulated an organism successfully to make it produce an unnatural amino acid, one that does not occur naturally, thus demonstrating that there are other "solutions" than the ones that happen to be used in life as we know it. It could well be that 1 in a million "solutions" of the possible combinations would work, and that the probability would then reduce to 1 in 10⁶. This calculation has not been done and is not included, unnecessarily excluding possible solutions from the probability calculation.

---

Also see Message 24 of that thread.

This is another series of empty, random and nonsensical claims. Take for example this one: "You assume that only one variation can occur at a time." What that even means? When and how did I assume something like that? Whose ass in hell did you pull that claim out of? P5 clearly states that literally all theoretically possible variations, from the Big Bang to the present day, i.e. 10^140 of them, were available for the origin of one average function. And you are claiming that I assumed only one. It is simply astounding to see all mental gymnastics you are doing just to deny the obvious.

Pot meet kettle (the irony, it burns ... ).

... P5 clearly states that literally all theoretically possible variations, from the Big Bang to the present day, i.e. 10^140 of them, were available for the origin of one average function. ...

I again refer you to the old improbable probability problem ... how many combinations of parallel occurrence(s) of variations have you considered? Apparently none. If I play a game of getting from A to B by throwing a single di then it will take a predictable number of throws on average to go the distance ... once that is known ... but if I use 2 or 3 di at the same time and combine their results, then the number of throws decreases dramatically. You don't know the distance or the number of di being used by the natural processes, and that is why your number is bogus.

The evolution theory holds many assumptions, hidden assumption, hypotheses, ad hoc hypotheses, predictions and falsified predictions about the observed processes of mutations and selection? So what? My argument is concerned with its fundamental, hidden assumption that mutations can result in previously non-existent functions and renders this assumption invalid. Tossing around random statements about the evolution theory doesn't make the argument invalid.

Your "argument" is a purely mathematical construct and just philosophical until tested, and if it is not tested against reality, then it is just hypothetical ... and when we do test it against reality we see that it in "(fact)" fails.

That is all that is needed to falsify your argument. No numbers, just reality.

None of the premises of my argument state anything about Lenski's experiment, so what you wrote is just another useless entry in this thread. ...

Curiously, Lenski's experiment is a TEST of your argument, objective empirical evidence that your claim/argument is false.

... Further, I mentioned a dozen times already, and it is clearly stated in the papers linked in the article, that the ability to metabolize citrate in not new, since the gene that transports citrate into the bacterium (citT) already existed in 12 initial populations of E.coli. What is new is the location of this pre-existing function. And changing the location of X says nothing about the formation of X. ...

As you said, " ... It is simply astounding to see all mental gymnastics you are doing just to deny the obvious."

The expression of functionality in every organism depends on location along the DNA as much as it does the arrangement of the specific 4 molecules that construct the genome, so a new location (a) IS a change and (b) can cause different functionality. Denial of this "(fact)" does not refute it.

... So you are either deliberately intellectually dishonest or too intellectually inept to comprehend something so simple. Either way I will further ignore your posts as I simply don't have mental capacity to deal with this level of ignorance and stupidity.

And we're back to the ad hominem to "defend" a losing argument instead of dealing with the "(fact)" that the evidence of reality refutes your hypothetical mathematical model.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Unbelievable, even when it is clearly written... "non-existent in the first life forms", you still cannot comprehend that this doesn't refer to non-existence generally. It is P1 that refers to non-existence generally as this general statement (the major premise) includes all things in the natural world. And it is this general statement what enables P2 (the minor premise) to justify the conclusion that biological functions are previously non-existent things. Hence, this is a simple and valid syllogism. P1: All living things are mortal. P2: Men are living things. P3/C1: All men are mortal. P4: Socrates is a man. C2: Therefore, Socrates is mortal. According to your "logic", the above argument contains the logical fallacy of begging the question. Nuff said.

Except that is not the form of your argument. Your arguent was:

forexhr wrote Message 200: 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.

or, to put it in simple terms

P1: X only occurs by Y
P2: Z exists now and did not before
C1/P3: Therefore Z now exists (and previously did not)

This "conclusion" makes no reference to P1 and just rewords P2 (which clearly shows the begging the question fallacy).

A more proper construction would be:

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

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 came into existence by natural means, through variations (and selection).

Which sort of ruins your argument, because you started with an improper conclusion, while the valid conclusion is at odds with your argument.

It is also instructive to note that creationists/IDologists frequently make the logical fallacy of the part for the whole when they refer to one part (variation) of basic evolutionary theory and ignore the other part (selection)

One of the signs of a losing argument is the use of the ad hominem attack on the messengers instead of dealing with their arguments. P1: RAZD is claiming X. P2: RAZD is a moron. C: Therefore, X is not true. The above is an ad hominem attack, while saying that RAZD misrepresents obvious facts is not. And we're back to the ad hominem to "defend" a losing argument instead of dealing with the "(fact)" that the evidence of reality refutes your hypothetical mathematical model. Enjoy "Attacking the person" is not ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem fallacy is attack against person that is used as a premise within an argument. For e.g.: argument 1 (P implies Q , P therefore Q), also you (my opponent) is an idiot. Therefore, my opponent is wrong. If the argument is a conjunction of Argument 1 and my insult, then it is a fallacy, because my insult is a premise. However, argument 1, therefore my opponent is wrong, also, btw, you are an idiot. This is not an ad hominem fallacy because "attacking the person" is not being used to support an argument as a premise.

Not quite.

quote:

---

Ad hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2] ...

Paul Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement lists ad hominem as the second lowest type of argument in a disagreement.

---

Of course the implication of the ad hominem is that the argument (message) of the person (messenger) can be ignored.

P2: RAZD is a moron.

And that is the lowest type of argument in a disagreement.

Please educate yourself.

Again with the irony. The point remains that you attack the people criticising your argument instead of their arguments and the content of those arguments that show serious problems with your mathematical concept/fantasy.

This type of argument is typical in cases of where the person experiencing dissonance (the real world not matching his fantasies) tries to ignore, deny, or diminish the conflicting information by pretending the messenger is not honest/knowledgeable etc.

Now all you have to do is prove that I committed one these false assumptions. Copy-pasting something from the tutorial: "How to Argue With Creationists/IDiots" is not the way to refute an argument.

No, you have to demonstrate that you haven't: you're the one making the claim, it is yours to defend, but just for kicks, grins and giggles, you claim:

How many? 10^405. Here is the quote from the article. "The next thing we need to know is the functional space size of gills. This size represents the number of all possible molecular arrangements (gene variants) that will provide underwater respiratory function. We can get this number through the parameter that we will call the deformation tolerance. What does that mean? Well, if we presuppose the existence of fully functional primitive gills, and we start to deform them by randomly rearranging their molecules, then obviously, at some point, we will destroy their ability to provide underwater respiratory function. In other words, gills, just like all other biological structures, have some deformation tolerance. Let’s be very conservative and assume the deformation tolerance of 50 percent. In terms of genes, such deformation tolerance means that 50 percent of base pairs in a gene that codes for primitive gills can be random, and this will still retain the ability of this structure to provide underwater respiratory function. Although biological structures can tolerate a lot of variance or deformation without affecting their functional roles, the deformation tolerance of 50 percent is way too big, but the aim is to give every possible advantage to the evolution theory.

In other words you only take one functional "gill" and reduce it until it doesn't work, what you don't do is cover all other ways to provide the same function as gills.

If you did the same "analysis" with a single hemoglobin molecule you would end up with similar results, but you would be ignoring the other forms that work just as well, ... as well as any other means of transporting oxygen with organisms.

This is the basic problem of working backwards from an existing system to evaluate the possibility of that system evolving -- you are taking a "winning ticket" and then you pretend that it is the only one that could win the lottery when there were a number of other possible winners.

You can also look at the number of different ways eyes work, for instance: nature has provided several different types of eyes, each functional for the organisms that have them.

Enjoy

Yes, you are correct. Here is the new version of the argument.

Thanks, but you are still ignoring the logical conclusion of the first two premises:

P1: Starting with the Big Bang, new things in nature can come into existence only by natural means, through variations. P2: Biological functions are new things that appeared after the Big Bang.

C1: Therefore Biological Functions came into existence by natural means, through variation.

Note that this actually describes the beginning of life (abiogenesis), and that after this point we are dealing with variation and selection in the process of developing new Biological Functions. Ignoring the role of selection is a rather massive oversight -- and a typical mistake of creationists/IDologists:

If I take 10 di and throw them, the probability of getting all 6's is extremely small, but if I select the 6's that appear with each throw and save them, then restock the throwing number of di to 10 and repeat, it does not take long at all to get 10 di with all 6's in the saved/selected pile.

P3: The appearance of a new biological function that is coded with only one average eukaryotic gene requires 10^405 variations.

You are trying to get all 6's with one throw and ignoring the role of selection in biological systems. This has been criticized before (Message 216) and you still have not shown that you are not making one of the common mistakes listed in the old improbable probability problem.

C1/P5: Therefore, biological function that is coded with only one average eukaryotic gene didn't came into existence by natural means in Universe's history.

Let's add a new premise here and see what conclusion we reach:

P5a: New biological functions have been observed evolving ("(fact)").

C1a/P5b: Therefore these observed new biological functions didn't come into existence via variation creating one eukaryotic gene and

C1b/P5c: Therefore premise P5 does not adequately describe how new biological functions occur.

Again, selection has not been included, and this is one obvious way that P5 is inadequate in describing how new biological functions evolve.

P6: The evolution theory holds that many biological functions came into existence by natural means in Earth's history. C2: Therefore, the evolution theory is wrong.

Correction:

C2: Therefore, the evolution theory is wrong ... OR one of the premises of this argument is wrong.

Now I've already shown that C1/P5 does not adequately describe how new functions evolve, but we also need to carry on and add, using the corrected C2 as P7 to reach the logical conclusion:

P5a/P8: New biological functions have been observed evolving (again, "(fact)").

C3/P9: Therefore this argument does not show that evolution theory is wrong, and

C4: Therefore one of the premises (C1/P5) of your argument must be wrong.

Well, I assumed 10^405 different ways to provide the same function as gills. Btw, a thing that provides the function of gills is called.... gills. ...

Frogs (and many other critters) breath oxygen underwater through their skin. Are you now saying that frog skin (a) is a gill and (b) is included in your "deconstruction" of gill functions?

quote:

---

What Is It Called When Frogs Breathe Through Their Skin?

What It's Called

When a frog breathes through his skin, it's called cutaneous gas exchange. This means he's exchanging oxygen for carbon dioxide, similar to the way your lungs exchange the gases. The gases pass through the skin by diffusion.

How It Works

A frog's skin can absorb oxygen, which is captured by capillaries lying just beneath the skin's surface. These capillaries transport the oxygen throughout the frog's circulatory system, carried by the blood. Blood cells not carrying oxygen pick up carbon dioxide and carry it back through the circulatory system to the skin, where it diffuses out of the frog. When frogs hibernate in cold weather, they breathe through their skin almost exclusively.

---

Curiously, I don't see them saying that the frog skin is gills ... same function, different structure.

... But ok, let's assume that in some gene pool, something similar to gills can appear. In that case we again need resources, we need variations to get from 'no-similar-to-gill' to 'similar-to-gill'. Meaning we need another 10^405 variations to overcome all molecular arrangements that won't provide 'similar-to-gill function'. So, nothing changed in principle, the problem is even worse, which means that you are playing rhetorical games without addressing the issue at hand.

Except that, once again, you are ignoring the role of selection in the accumulation of variations that are beneficial to the organism/s, and your assumed need of 10^405 variations is bogus -- you are once again trying to get 10 di all 6's in one throw instead of through selection of 6's from each throw.

The ("(fact)") of the evolution of new biological function being observed proves that your C1/P5 is wrong.

Enjoy

Still dodging the facts I see.

You overcomplicated things more than necessary. And you did that just to hide another series of appeal fallacies and false statements.

This does not refute the logical development I showed you, one that corrects your mistakes.

First, the appeal to selection. ...

That is not a logical fallacy, you're making stuff up now, a sign of desperation?

... Selection cannot create things, only interaction of forces and particles can. Selection is just the name for a human concept according to which the frequency of specific nucleotides in the gene pool will increase, because these nucleotides code for a thing which fits specific environment and in that way retain the ability of an organism to produce 'slightly modified version of itself'. In other words, first there is the thing that fits the environment (functional thing), and then selection kicks in to increase the frequency of this functional thing. ...

Increasing the frequency of a beneficial mutation in a breeding population means that it is more likely to be combined with another mutation that also provides benefits than just random mutation alone -- which is what you claim to model. That is why your model is wrong, your number is wrong, and your conclusion is wrong. As I said:

RAZD Message 236: If I take 10 di and throw them, the probability of getting all 6's is extremely small, but if I select the 6's that appear with each throw and save them, then restock the throwing number of di to 10 and repeat, it does not take long at all to get 10 di with all 6's in the saved/selected pile.

You have not addressed that issue, just falsely claimed a non-existent fallacy. Sadly, for you, that does not refute my argument.

Now we let 10 di with all 6's represent a new biological function, your model ignores selection and thus ends up with a false result, a misleadingly large number, instead of the much much smaller number that represents how evolution actually works.

... Hence, selection is not creative mechanism, but only selective one. ...

Indeed, but that selection improves the probability of further beneficial variation, to work in combination with another existing mutation or one that comes along later. Failure to model this means your model inadequately describes what happens with evolution. With selection you get ten sixes a lot faster than you do without.

If you don't model evolution properly then you can't logically demonstrate that it is wrong.

... Functional things in biology can be created only through interaction of forces and particles or in other words, through variations of pre-existing arrangements of particles (pre-existing functional or non-functional things). And my argument simply states that these variations are insufficient for this to happen. ...

And yet it is still a "(fact)" that they do happen, have been observed to happen, and this demonstrates unequivocally that your model is inadequate to actually model the evolutionary process.

You're continues argument is curiously incapable of changing that reality.

Because you ignore selection.

This is the logical fallacy of the part for the whole, if you want to enumerate logical fallacies.

... Thus, my argument cannot be refuted by an empty appeal to selection. ...

Again, appeal to selection is not a logical fallacy. This is just you trying desperately to ignore reality.

... I explained this simple distinction between the origin of a thing and its selection a dozen times already in this thread, ...

Amusingly, evolution theory already recognizes the "simple distinction between the origin of a thing and its selection" in the process of evolution. As noted in my 4th post, Message 141, on this thread:

Evolution is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation: Like walking on first one foot and then the next.

Without selection you have no means to accumulate beneficial mutations in a breeding population and increase the probability of combination with other mutations to provide new function.

Failure to account for this beneficial bias of the gene pool in a population is why your numbers are irrelevant and your conclusions are wrong. As I have repeatedly demonstrated.

... but you people just keep ignoring this simple concept, the same as the flat-earthers ignore the round shape of the Earth.

Again with the irony.

The theory of evolution is indeed a simple concept, but to prove it wrong you need to model the actual theory, not a straw man fallacy based on the fallacy of exclusion.

Second, the appeal to Frogs. ...

Again, this is not a logical fallacy, so you're still making stuff up ro avoid the issues raised. Calling it a fallacy does not make the evidence go away.

... If taking in oxygen from the surroundings and letting out carbon dioxide is a function, let's call it A, which evolved independently several times, then it follows that several different gene pools required 10^405 variation to get from 'non-A' to A. If A evolved only once, then only one gene pool - that of all organisms in evolution's history, required 10^405 variations. Now, why in the hell would you make an appeal to something that is even worse for your position, where you need to spend 10^405 variations multiple times, instead of just once. ...

You're not seeing the obvious error in your thinking here, and it is because you are committing the "Texas sharpshooter" logical fallacy:

The name comes from a joke about a Texan who fires some gunshots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the tightest cluster of hits and claims to be a sharpshooter.

You're thinking of A as the must hit target and that evolution has to hit the bull's eye.

This is another reason why your number is bogus. There is no goal in evolution, no need to end up with function A. That function A evolves is because it's development proved beneficial and was selected.

If I shuffle a bunch of cards and then lay them out one after the other, you can calculate the probability of ending up with that exact pattern and then claim that it is highly improbable to achieve it. The reality is that it was just the pattern dealt and not the goal of the dealing.

The probability of dealing out a pattern, any pattern, is 1.

The probability of winning a lottery with a single specific ticket is very low, butthe probability that a ticket will win the lottery is very high.

... In reality, you are just repeating the same old stuff that I already addresses and disproved.

You have yet to actually disprove a single argument against you. All you have is denial and the repetition of bad arguments, which are curiously incapable of changing or affecting reality in any way.

Your third appeal fallacy, to "the improbable probability problem", is no different. ...

And we have another made up fallacy ... making up stuff like this is not a refutation of the argument, it's an avoiance mechanism.

... I already responded to your copy/paste material here: Message 218. I gave you the quote from article which shows that I considered 10^405 "combinations of parallel occurrences of variations", and not only one, as your improbable probability problem postulates and as you have claimed. ...

Responded, yes, answered, no. In Message 224 I showed how you failed to refute it, to which you make up a fallacy argument ...

... You know how you responded to this? With the appeal to multiple functions, which ended up with the appeal to Frogs. So your behavior on this thread is completely irrational. You just recycle and repeat the same false statements.

Except calling them a fake made up fallacy does not show the statements to be false.

All evolution needs is A way to breath underwater (which is what my argument showed), a specific way to breath underwater (which is what your number calculates, because it works backwards from an existing system -- it draws the target around the bullet hole).

Message 218: Now all you have to do is prove that I committed one these false assumptions. ...

Message 216: 5. The probability of winning a lottery by any one ticket is extremely low, but the probability that the lottery will be won is extremely high. How do you reconcile these two very disparate probabilities? By knowing that any one of the millions of tickets is a valid winner if picked. To show that this is not the case for the calculations mentioned (ie -- in order to say "1 out of") you have to show that no other combination works of all the other probabilities. ...

Frog skin ≠ gills but provides the same function, it is another winning ticket, one you did not include in your number calculations for gills. You're response? Making up a fake "appeal to frogs" fallacy ... and then you proceed to make the same error on frog skin that you already made with gills ... amusing, but inadequate, and certainly not any refutation of my argument.

Finaly, we are at this statement of yours: The ("(fact)") of the evolution of new biological function being observed proves that your C1/P5 is wrong. This is as stupid as saying: The fact of human jumping ability being observed, proves that your statement that humans can't jump from the Earth to the edge of the Milky Way galaxy, is wrong.

Except that is not the actual argument; a better restatement would be:

The fact of human jumping ability being observed, proves that your statement that humans can't aquire the ability to jump, is wrong.

P3 explicitly says: "The appearance of a new biological function that is coded with only one average eukaryotic gene requires 10^405 variations."

And, once again ("with feeling" (Arlo Guthrie)), the actual appearance of actual new biological function, confirmed and documented in actual scientific experiment (ie "(fact)") proves that your modeled way is not the only way for new biological functions to evolve -- it is inadequate and does not model reality or how evolution actually works.

It doesn't say function that is coded with couple of dozen of nucleotides nor it says function that already existed. It says "new biological function" that is coded with "one average eukaryotic gene". So your appeal to "observation" is just one of appeal fallacies you produced in your final post.

And here we have your latest made up fallacy. The appeal to facts ... LOL. as if that makes the facts go away.

Can you now finally focus yourself on the crux of the argument and provide your empirical value for the deformation tolerance and unit of selection: Message 227 ?

Why waste my time making up a bogus calculation when I have demonstrated that it is an inadequate way to actually model evolution, that it uses the "sharpshooter" fallacy, and that it ignores the role of selection in evolution -- things that you ignore in your post.

If not, I have only one request: PLEASE STOP TROLLING.

Another false accusation: you keep saying that, but I don't think you understand what it means ...

quote:

---

Internet troll

In Internet slang, a troll (/troʊl, trɒl/) is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.

---

One could argue that you are trolling this forum, but you can't argue that fact based logical responses to your model, ones that actually demonstrate it's failing, is trolling: it is instead rational debate and discussion.

When you stop (repeated) posting of (demonstrated) false information, making up fake logical fallacies, and actual deal with reality, then I will stop delineating your errors and misleading information.

You could start by admitting that you are wrong, that your model is -- in "(fact)" -- wrong and that it is an inadequate representation of actual evolution.

Enjoy

Let's cut to the guts:

... but by randomizing the same percent of nucleotides that code for a biological thing, this would probably not happen. Meaning, the values for most (*) biological things are higher, but they are certainly not 80 percent (**). So, the deformation tolerance is real, the same as round shape of the Earth. The reason you guys are so vehemently opposed to provide values for this tolerance, is because you know ...

... that this is totally irrelevant to how biological systems evolve.

Yes you can take a watch apart, and at some point it doesn't function. So what.

Taking out a section of DNA here or there does not in any way model how the biological systems originally formed.

Biological systems evolve by random mutation that provides variation and sometimes affects the ability of the individuals to survive and breed -- either on their own or in combination with other sections of the DNA -- sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. Then selection filters out the least beneficial and favors the more beneficial, resulting in an increase in it's proportion within the gene pool.

You may alter the DNA enough to affect the formation of a specific biological function, but then we simply have an organism without that function, and selection working again to see it the result is better or worse for survival and reproduction.

Amusingly, this "deformation" process actually happens naturally all the time with mutations, and can be observed. Sometimes the removal or alteration of the DNA is so severely deleterious that the organism never makes it out of the womb. That would be "low deformation tolerance" to the extreme, yes? ... but it doesn't affect other organisms/species that are part of the on going evolving ecosphere of life.

So we don't need a number for deformation tolerance, we can just observe the effects of it on individuals, while the remainder of the evolving ecosphere happily carries on with evolution.

* A few biological things with low deformation tolerance are sufficient to refute the evolution theory.

Again, you are, sadly for you, obviously wrong, because evidence shows otherwise.

Individuals with deformed biological systems that don't survive to breed are a very common part of how evolution actually works. A species that as a whole doesn't survive to breed goes extinct. Happens all the time. You can say they have a "low deformation tolerance" but that doesn't alter the fact that other populations are doing well.

On the other hand, the evolution of a single new biological function destroys any hypothesis that it can't happen. This is scientific fact: falsified hypothesis are wrong.

Evolution doesn't care what you think, or how you derive the silly big numbers that you can contrive, it happily goes on ... evolving new functions as the opportunity arises.

Reality ignores you. Life ignores you.

Because you, your hypothesis, are irrelevant.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : ...