Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
453 online now:
Phat, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric, vimesey (5 members, 448 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,012 Year: 6,124/6,534 Month: 317/650 Week: 87/278 Day: 9/26 Hour: 1/0


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 1380 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 210 of 248 (837047)
07-26-2018 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by PaulK
07-26-2018 12:28 AM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
PaulK writes:

Really? You are claiming that the E Coli in Lenski’s experiment would all have died without the mutation enabling the utilisation of citrate in aerobic conditions? I claim that no mutations were needed at all, they could just have gone on as they were.As for the assumption of determinism (and it is an assumption), if you believed it the probability of the evolution of gills should be 1.

In Lenski's experiment, one pre-existing biological thing (which enables citrate utilization) was moved from one location to another — near the switch (pre-existing biological thing ) that is active under oxic conditions. So, no new biological thing appeared in Lenski's experiment.

Regarding the last point. Philosophical determinism has nothing to do with my claims. I am simply saying that in order for biological things to appear, the interaction of forces and particles must result in something taht is determined or specific. Biological things are for example gears in the small hopping insect Issus coleoptratus. In nature all around us and within us, there is a constant interaction of forces and particles. But did you ever see that in some instance of the natural world, which hasn't had clusters of particles in the form of gears, this biological thing came into existence? No, you did not. Thus, what must happen in order for this biological thing to appear. 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.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by PaulK, posted 07-26-2018 12:28 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by PaulK, posted 07-26-2018 7:50 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 213 by Taq, posted 07-26-2018 4:16 PM forexhr has replied
 Message 226 by herebedragons, posted 07-28-2018 11:26 AM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 214 of 248 (837120)
07-27-2018 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by RAZD
07-26-2018 8:32 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises
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. 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. 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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 one well documented experiment.
Obviously your premises and your logical form are false.

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. 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. 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2018 8:32 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by RAZD, posted 07-27-2018 9:15 AM forexhr has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 215 of 248 (837121)
07-27-2018 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Taq
07-26-2018 4:16 PM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
Taq writes:

That is wrong. The changes resulted in an arrangement of particles that had never existed before, so that counts as a new function under your definitions.

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.

This claim is falsified by the simple fact that there are millions of species, all with different genomes. Obviously, it doesn't have to be specific.

If you had actually read what I said in above comments then you'd know that specificity requirement means that the general arrangements of particles that result from the interaction of forces and particles, won't provide biological functions, but only specific ones. Millions of different species are not millions of different general arrangements of particles but millions of different specific arrangements of particles.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Taq, posted 07-26-2018 4:16 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Taq, posted 07-27-2018 12:08 PM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 218 of 248 (837136)
07-27-2018 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by RAZD
07-27-2018 9:15 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises
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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Sorry, but with empty appeals to "reality" and "observation" you cannot refute an argument. Also, my argument doesn't say that new function cannot evolve, but that new function that is coded with one average eukaryotic gene cannot evolve. Please, read the premise #6 again.

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.

I have only one assumption, that of 50 percent deformation tolerance, which is both empirically founded and way too generous for the evolution theory.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Since a gene consists of four different bases, and any base can assume one of four values (ATCG), a sequence of L basis can assume one out of 4^L values. Given the 50 percent deformation tolerance and with the average eukaryotic gene size of 1346 base pairs, the functional space size of gills is 4^673 or 1.54×10^405. So, this number represents all possible gene variants that will code for functional gills."

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.

Again, with empty appeal to "reality" you cannot refute an argument.

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

With empty appeals to "TEST" you cannot refute an argument.

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.

My argument is about origin of a new biological function that is coded with one average eukaryotic gene, and it cannot be refuted with your empty and arbitrary definitions of "change" and "functionality".

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.

Please educate yourself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by RAZD, posted 07-27-2018 9:15 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Taq, posted 07-27-2018 1:02 PM forexhr has replied
 Message 220 by PaulK, posted 07-27-2018 1:11 PM forexhr has replied
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2018 8:31 AM forexhr has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 221 of 248 (837156)
07-28-2018 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by Taq
07-27-2018 1:02 PM


Re: Bad form, false premises
Taq writes:

This claim isn't supported by any science and is just a bare assertion.

Well, you can keep repeating that if it makes you happy. But you cannot refute an argument by repeating like a mantra that it is not based on science.

What empirical measurements back this claim? We can see that the bat wing is ultimately derived from the fins of bony fish, and there is way more than a 50% change in that limb. Your claims just don't hold up to reality.

So, we observe two biological things, the same as we observe man made things, for e.g. Ferrari 458 and Lamborghini Aventador. And these things have similarities. Now, what these observations have to do with the deformation tolerance? Or in other words, what a certain degree of similarity between things have to do with the fact that a certain degree of structural deformation of these things will destroy their ability to perform functions? Well, obviously nothing. The fact that Ferrari 458 and Lamborghini Aventador are similar won't magically make them resistant to damages.

So, what are you trying to say with this kind of statements? They don't make any sense. You can't just throw random sentences here and think that this somehow challenges my arguments. It doesn't. It just demonstrates your inability to engage in meaningful discourse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Taq, posted 07-27-2018 1:02 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Taq, posted 07-30-2018 1:40 PM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 222 of 248 (837157)
07-28-2018 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by PaulK
07-27-2018 1:11 PM


Re: Bad form, false premises
PaulK writes:

And you’ve failed to prove even that. Do you actually intend to properly address the fatal faults in your argument - which would require quite a lot of research and work to do properly - or can we call a halt to this failure?

With empty appeals to "you’ve failed" and "fatal faults" you cannot refute an argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by PaulK, posted 07-27-2018 1:11 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by PaulK, posted 07-28-2018 6:27 AM forexhr has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 227 of 248 (837202)
07-28-2018 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by PaulK
07-28-2018 6:27 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises
PaulK writes:

I was simply repeating established facts. Your argument has already been refuted. I don’t need to do it again.

Yes, from the very beginning of this thread I have been reading these comments that my argument was refuted. But you know what? Nobody and I mean NOBODY has even addressed its fundamental premise, which is P4: "The appearance of a biological function that is coded with only one average eukaryotic gene requires 10^405 variations.

Your brother by faith, RAZD, is for e.g., shifted his focus from P4 and is deeply engaged in copy-pasting stuff from the tutorial: "How to Argue With Creationists/IDiots", and in philosophical discussion about ad hominems.
It is the premise #4 where the crux of the whole argument lies. And people on this thread have been avoiding this premise like the plague. Here is why they behave like that.

This premise is based on one simple and obvious fact that every meaningful or functional thing has its space of meaningfulness, or space of functionality. Take for e.g this word: "Wednesday". This is obviously a meaningful word. Now, what the space of meaningfulness of this word means. Well, it simply means that this word can tolerate a certain degree of 'deformation' or random letter changes before it turns into random gibberish, or meaningless series of letters. I called this degree of 'deformation' the deformation tolerance.

Now, since the word "Wednesday" has nine letters, 10 percent deformation tolerance means that this word can have one random letter and still retain its meaning, i.e. answering or "fitting" the following question or "the environment" - "What is the third day of the week in the English language?" So let's assume the third letter is randomized, and we get this: "Weynesday". Obviously this one change didn't distort the meaning of the word and it still has meaning. Now, with 30 percent deformation tolerance, and randomization of the first and seventh letter, we end up with this: "Oeyneskay". With this percentage of change, the word has finally lost its meaning and it doesn't "fit" the "environment". Now, if we say that at the "beginning of text" this meaningful word didn't exist in the "first" sentence, that was this: "Me thinks it is like a weasel", then the only way for "Weynesday" to appear is via duplication of pre-existing sentence and then, random variations and "natural selection".

So, lets assume that this part of the "first sentence" was duplicated: "thinks it", and is ready to undergo random changes. But in order for this random changes to prevail they must fit certain environment, and the environment is this: "What is the third day of the week in the English language?"

The question we are now interested in is how many changes must "thinks it" undergo before it fits the above environment. Well, we simply must calculate how many meaningful words will fit "What is the third day of the week in the English language?" In other words, we must calculate the space of meaningfulness.

We saw that with the 30 percent deformation tolerance the word doesn't fit the environment, but let's use it anyway to reduce the number of required changes. Since a word can consist of 26 different letters, a sequence of L letters can have 26^L different words. Given the 30 percent deformation tolerance, we get that the space of meaningfulness is 26^3 or 17,576. So, this number represents all possible words that will fit "What is the third day of the week in the English language?" environment. But there are also words that won't fit that environment. We get their number by simply subtracting the space of meaningfulness (17,576) from the total number of possible 9 letter words (26^9-17,576 or 5,429,503,678,976 - 17,576 =542,503,661,400) .

As there are 17,576 words that will fit the environment and 542,503,661,400 that won’t, the principle of mathematical expectation tells us that we need 308,915,775 changes (542,503,661,400/17,576). So, this is the number of changes that "thinks it" must undergo before the word will fit the environment.

The mathematics behind this simple example is what is behind the premise #4 of my argument. The only difference is the deformation tolerance and the unit of selection. In this example we have one word that is 9 letters long, and in my argument, we have one average eukaryotic gene that is 1346 base pairs long.

So, all one needs to do in order to refute my argument is to address two things: the deformation tolerance and unit of selection. If someone disagrees with 50 percent deformation tolerance he must explain why he disagrees. Is maybe 55 percent the right value, 60 percent, 75, 20...? Why would such value be correct? I think that 50 percent is extremely conservative, especially in the context of highly conserved genes and ultra-conserved genes, but I used that value anyway. The unit of selection is also extremely conservative given the fact that biological functions require many different genes interacting with each other and many of them are much longer than the average gene.

Who in this topic has properly addressed these two values? Nobody. RAZD for. e.g. has generally declared the deformation tolerance "disputed" or refuted by "reality". But how can someone refute the fact that things will stop performing their functions after we destroy or deform them? How can someone refute the fact that we need variations in order for things to fit new environments? So, the guy denies reality just like the flat-earthers do. The rest of the responders just repeat his words like mantra, you included.

So no, my argument hasn't been refuted. Now that you know what its crux is, I am waiting for your proper response.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by PaulK, posted 07-28-2018 6:27 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by PaulK, posted 07-28-2018 1:41 PM forexhr has replied
 Message 230 by herebedragons, posted 07-28-2018 3:34 PM forexhr has replied
 Message 241 by caffeine, posted 07-30-2018 1:38 PM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 229 of 248 (837205)
07-28-2018 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by RAZD
07-28-2018 8:31 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises, bad conclusions ...
RAZD writes:

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).


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

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.

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

P4: The varying capacity of the natural world, from the Big Bang to the present day is 10^140.

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.

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.

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.

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. Either, simple gills or complex gills, but gills. 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.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 07-28-2018 8:31 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-29-2018 1:52 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 236 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2018 10:22 AM forexhr has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 232 of 248 (837233)
07-29-2018 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by PaulK
07-28-2018 1:41 PM


Re: Bad form, false premises
PaulK writes:

Actually I have refuted that.

What did you "refute"? That deformation tolerance of 50 percent is empirically based? How did you do that? By showing that 50.5 percent is the correct value? You have refuted nothing. You just keep repeating the same old nonsense.

Even if your assumption about the limit of “deformation” is correct (and it very likely isn’t) that is still the probability of getting one specific function, not the probability of getting a new function. In fact there may even be different ways of getting the same function you have not considered.

There is no difference between specific function and new function, since in order to get from old function to new function you need "different-then-old", a.k.a. specific, arrangement of particles. In other words, "function" is simply the name for a group or groups of particles, when they fit certain environment within or outside of an organism. "Function" per se doesn't exist in nature, but only particles and forces do. Function in biology is a concept in the human mind for an arrangement of particles that fits an environment, and in that way, enable an organism to reproduce i.e. produce slightly modified version of itself. In my example we started with old function, i.e. old meaningful words — "thinks it". Now, what "thinks it" must 'achieve' in order to fit new environment in this form: "What is the third day of the week in the English language?" Well, obviously something "specific". 'Old function' in the form of "thinks it", won't fit new environment and it that sense it is not different than random gibberish, for e.g. this "djklsdjfcvn". Since the environment determines what the "function" is, in the context of the environment "What is the third day of the week in the English language?" both the old function — "thinks it" and "djklsdjfcvn" are equally useless. They are equally gibberish. So in both cases something specific must be achieved to get new function. For that reason, there is no difference between specific function and new function. Biologically speaking, nucleotides that code for function provided by sperm cell won't fit the aquatic environment i.e. provide underwater respiratory function. So to get that function, nucleotides must be changed to something specific — something that fits the aquatic environment.

But the logical problem, that that premise is inadequate to prove your argument is far more serious. And you have yet to adequately address that.
(I will also note that it is for you to support your premises. We do not have to accept them by default.)

With empty appeal to "premise is inadequate" you cannot refute an argument. You must name the premise and provide a rational explanation of why it is inadequate. Also, arguments are either valid or invalid, and have nothing to do with whether you personally accept them or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by PaulK, posted 07-28-2018 1:41 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by PaulK, posted 07-29-2018 4:52 AM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 233 of 248 (837234)
07-29-2018 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by herebedragons
07-28-2018 3:34 PM


Re: Bad form, false premises
herebedragons writes:

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

Yes I think exactly that and I am right. You are wrong, which is why you ended your response at empty assertion without providing rational explanation - as I will provide now.

Every organism starts its life as a single cell. Within that single cell there is nothing that could determine the shape, structure and size of eyes, ears, lungs, gills, joints, heart, brain... except... the DNA. Hence, the DNA is a recipe or a road map for traits. If trait is for e.g. gear of the Issus insect, then obviously specific nucleotides and their arrangement constitute a recipe for how to make that gear — they are the road map for that trait. Either if these nucleotides are organized as a single group (DNA sequence ) or many separate groups (DNA sequences), the same as the word "Wednesday", they have deformation tolerance whose violation leads to loss of function they code. So, your empty assertion of "terrible analogy" is just repeating the old nonsense by using different words. 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.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by herebedragons, posted 07-28-2018 3:34 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by herebedragons, posted 07-29-2018 7:29 AM forexhr has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 237 of 248 (837251)
07-29-2018 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by herebedragons
07-29-2018 7:29 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises
herebedragons writes:

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

And I said "specific nucleotides and their arrangement constitute a recipe", which is correct, you cannot deny that. With the last response I have stopped using the word "gene", because this concept of biology is not needed for disproving the evolution theory, and because by misusing this concept, "your side" misrepresents my arguments, which you have done now so many times already.

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.

I have used "words" to describe the concept of deformation tolerance and not to compare words and genes. Genes can tolerate a certain degree of random rearrangements before they lose their "meaning" or "function". Words also. So I did nothing wrong. You are just a red herring to divert the attention from the crux of my argument.

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.

From the beginning of this thread "your side" has posted hundreds of non-sequitur comments that have nothing to do with my argument. Do you really think I will reply to all these non-sequiturs? Your posts - Message 225 and Message 226 are for e.g. useless and absurd. The first is useless because it focuses on 10^43 variations in the gene pools, while in the standard form of my argument I explicitly used all theoretically possible variations in the natural world from the Big Bang to the present day (10^140). 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? It is a complete waste of time. 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by herebedragons, posted 07-29-2018 7:29 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by herebedragons, posted 07-29-2018 9:55 PM forexhr has not replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 239 of 248 (837294)
07-30-2018 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by RAZD
07-29-2018 10:22 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises, bad conclusions continued ...
RAZD writes:

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

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

First, the appeal to selection. 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. Hence, selection is not creative mechanism, but only selective one. 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. Thus, my argument cannot be refuted by an empty appeal to selection. I explained this simple distinction between the origin of a thing and its selection a dozen times already in this thread, but you people just keep ignoring this simple concept, the same as the flat-earthers ignore the round shape of the Earth.

Second, the appeal to Frogs. 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. Well, it is because you must post something, no matter how absurd and useless it is, just to create the illusion that this somehow challenges my argument. In reality, you are just repeating the same old stuff that I already addresses and disproved.

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

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.

P3 explicitly says:

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

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.

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 ?

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

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2018 10:22 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by RAZD, posted 07-30-2018 9:45 AM forexhr has replied

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 1380 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 243 of 248 (837361)
07-31-2018 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by RAZD
07-30-2018 9:45 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises, bad conclusions continued ...
@RAZD, caffeine, Taq,...

So guys, it seems you don't have emotional, physical, intellectual or mental capacity to provide your numbers for the deformation tolerance. All these appeals to "I refuted" are really funny because it is a simple fact that every man made or biological thing has this tolerance. It is just that values are different. Melting down a mechanical watch or randomizing all nucleotides that code a biological thing would constitute a 100 percent deformation of the thing. Now, do you need "science" to know that this would destroy the ability of the thing to perform its previous function? Melting down 20 percent of mechanical watch would probably also destroy its ability to function, 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 every realistic estimate would destroy your dogmatic beliefs. That is why a red herring and trolling are your only options. Replying to all these rhetorical spins is not something I am interested in anymore.

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

** Even with the 80 percent deformation tolerance and given the all theoretically possible variations in the natural world from the Big Bang to the present day (10^140), variations are still insufficient by more than a sixty orders of magnitude.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by RAZD, posted 07-30-2018 9:45 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2018 7:54 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 247 by Taq, posted 07-31-2018 11:37 AM forexhr has not replied
 Message 248 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-31-2018 8:40 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