Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?

You won't resolve your cognitive dissonances by calling me an idiot. Cognitive dissonance is the mental stress experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs. Given the fact that ToE contradicts reality on every instance of observation I know that evolutionists have these contradictory beliefs which makes them become psychologically uncomfortable, and then they insult people. But the problem is not other people. The problem is the state of mind in which evolutionists think something to be the case, without there being empirical evidence to prove it. Hence to resolve your mental stress you must free yourself out of arms of ToE. Insulting people won't help you.

I am not attacking the ToE in the same way as I am not attacking the flat Earth theory if I say that the Earth is round. In saying this I am simply stating the observation that the Earth is round and I don't care about the mental BS that individuals from modern flat Earth societies produced in the form of their flat Earth theory or whatever.Likewise, regarding evolution, I am simply stating the observation that there hasn't been enough resources to extract bio-functionality from matter and that the maintenance and reproduction apparatus of an organisam cannot exist in a simpler mode. So I don't care about the ToE, I am not attacking its infinite number of presuppositions. I am simply stating the fact that evolutionary processes cannot turn simple organisms into more complex organisms. The ToE in that regard, is just an atheistic rationalization, complex defence mechanism for denying the obvious - that living things are produced by an intelligent cause. And I don't care about atheistic rationalizations, so no - I am not attacking the ToE.

The meaning behind this word is pretty simple - something known by actual experience or observation. Share of bio-functionality in matter is known by actual experience or observation. The maximum number of resources available to extract this bio-functionality is known by actual experience or observation. The inability of an organism to live or to pass on its genes to the next generation, if we deform or reduce its maintenance or reproduction apparatus, is also known by actual experience or observation.On the other hand, claims like: "evolution starts with pre-existing materials and modifies them", as a response to the fact of small share of bio-functionality in matter, is just an ambiguous mental construct totally irrelevant to the issue in question, because every process in nature starts with pre-existing materials and modifies them - raining, wind blowing, radiation, nuclear fission, chemical reaction... So, what does the 'modification of pre-existing materials' has to do with the lack of resources available to extract bio-functionality from matter? Nothing. This is just an empty mental construct, fiction, an excuse for beliefs that are totally the opposite of what the actual experience or observation shows.So, you can play your rhetorical games all you want, but facts will stay facts and fiction will stay fiction.

Scientists make discoveries by applying their five senses and capacity to reason, while motivation or effort of an individual is what leads to discoveries. The ToE on the other hand is just a naive opinion, that by changing positions of molecules in the bacteria like creature, you can ultimately end up with a heart, liver, eye, kidney, brain, ear, etc., which has been disproven time and time again exactly because scientists made discoveries by applying their five senses and capacity to reason. Tying this naive opinion to science and discoveries is really tragicomical.

Well I am still waiting for a proper response to my first argument that talks about the lack of resources. All your responses were either red herrings or can be boiled down to this statement: "Evolution does not start from scratch but it builds on what already exists."This statement is of course deeply flawed since it neglects one critical aspect of biological reality, and that is: in the context of new structural or environmental niches, the pre-existing functional bio-structures are - junk. Yes, pre-existing function is junk in the same way as functional traction battery is junk in the context of petrol car engine or in the same way as semantically correct word "technology" is junk in the context of the question "What day is today? In we use the last analogy in the evolutionary context , and we say that the question "What day is today? is newly emerged environmental niche, then functional protein fold - "technology" is equally junk as this: "fdjkdjfkjdkeweo". "Junk" is simply anything that is regarded as worthless, meaningless, or nonfunctional in some context. Traction battery is worthless in the context of petrol car engine while "technology" and "fdjkdjfkjdkeweo" are worthless in the context of the question "What day is today?, Likewise, pre-existing functional bio-structures are worthless in the context of new structural or environmental niches. So, in order to bulid new organs, protein folds, metabolic pathways, ... evolution must start from scratch and the presupposition of the ToE that it does not, is flawed, the same as most of its presuppositions.Regarding my second argument, that talks about the structural and temporal intradependence of bio-structures, it was ignored completely on this thread. Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

The initial motivation which can led to some discovery might be some subconscious feeling, but this does not make subconscious feelings science.

And here is the specific example of how the application of subconscious feeling led directly to a specific discovery - Scorpius X-1. This is the qoute from Bruno Rossi:"The initial motivation of the experiment which led to this discovery was a subconscious feeling for the inexhaustible wealth of nature, a wealth that goes far beyond the imagination of man." In the context of this discussion your statement about prenatal development was so meaningless that there was nothing for me to respond. Prenatal development occures due to the pre-existing information written in the DNA, while the discussion in this thread is about the origin of this information. Hence, prenatal development has nothing to do with statistical likelihood but with necessity that arises from the DNA.

You made one critical error in your reasoning: you defined function with relation to - nothing. In biology, function is always defined with relation to something. Even you paper has done this, I quote: "we selected functional proteins by enriching for those that bind to ATP". In my paper, this function was lambda repressor fold. If the ability to bind to ATP is considered a closed stuctural niche, only for that function you need to spend 10^11 evolutionary resources. If to this we add resources needed to extract lambda repressor fold, we are already 31 orders of magnitude short with regards to all evolutionary resources. Now add to this all differnt protein folds, organs and morphological structures and you will get a clear picture of the extent of the problemAlso, in your paper they started with small proteins, each containing 80 amino acids. On the other hand, average length of, for e.g. human protein, is 480 amino acids (1). Finally, your random six-figure number generator is totally unrelated to biology since its sequence space is 1.000.000 while for an average protein this space is 10^624 in size.(1) https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~asiegel/posts/?p=7Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

Well, the problem with your reasoning is that I didn't presented any theory at all. I presented scientific facts that there hasn't been enough resources to extract bio-functionality from particles comprising living systems and that the maintenance and reproduction apparatus of these systems cannot exist in a simpler mode. On the other hand, your theory is built on the assumptions that are in direct contradiction with these scientific facts. But that's nothing new. Your theory started with its fundamnetal hypothesis of divergence. But then completely opposite scientific facts were discovered - animals on different branches which have homologous traits that comes from a different common ancestor. Simply put - fundamental evolutionary hypothesis was falsified. In order to save the theory, evolutionists invented an excuse - ad hoc classification scheme in the form of unfalsifiable convergent evolution. Your theory also started with the fundamnetal hypothesis of perfect branching pattern. When science discovered "genealogical discordance so widespread that no single tree topology predominates", then evolutionists simply invented unfalsifiable, ad hoc mental construct called incomplete lineage sorting.
Since in science, reclassifying things and inventing ad hoc mental constructs doesn’t verify a theory, nor explain how nature functions, it is clear to every critically thinking individual that your theory is not only unable to explain or predict, but is has become unfalsifiable and thus pseudoscience. But of course, pseudoscientific theories can also led directly to discoveries. In a time span of 4.5 billion years, those "numerous replications/generations" produced 10^43 changes in the spatial positions of particles comprising organic matter. On the other hand, empirical science shows that in order to extract just one functional macromolecule(lambda repressor fold) from these particles, you need 10^63 changes in the spatial positions of particles. Hence, evolution falls short by 20 orders of magnitude to produce just one selectable effect or adaptation. It is really mind blowing that given thousands and thousands of real biological structures you cannot pick just one and mathematically explain how bio-function is extracted from particles comprising them, but instead you just repeat over and over again your ambiguous mantras about the power of variation and natural selection. Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

You can rebutt my argument only one way - by showing the empirical ratio of meaningful information to total sequence space of information that represent existing bio-structures and which is in line with available resources in evolution. Repeating just so stories like: "similar environmental niches are often exploited in similar ways by unrelated lineages, called convergent evolution"... have nothing to do with this empirical ratio. Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.

I did that several times already. But I can repeat for you, no problem. Meaningful information in biology is an arrangement of particles(atoms, molecules, cells) with the ability to fulfil a particular structural or enviornmental niche. Examples of structural niches: intron-exon gene structure, female reproductive system, lactose, ATP, and DNA operator. Arrangement of particles with the ability to fulfil these structural niches: RNA splicing machine, male reproductive system, β-Galactosidase, ATP-binding protein and lambda repressor.I gave the empirical example for the ratio of sequences capable of adopting the lambda repressor fold(meaningful information) to the total number of possible 92-residue sequences(total sequence space of information). The ratio is 1 in 10^63. Hence, everything is calculated already but your brothers in faith are denying this empirical result with just so stories because evolution falls short by 20 orders of magnitude to produce just this one selectable effect or adaptation.

Medicine is neither a theory, nor an idea nor a hypothesis but human activity concerned with maintenance of health and the prevention, alleviation, or cure of disease. You are mixing apples and oranges. Finding functional landscape and covering functional landscape once it is found are two completely different things. My numbers are concerned with search for functional landscape. In biology targets are always specific. Ability of the lambda repressor to bind to lambda genome in order to regulate expresion of cI protein is a specific function. About what targets are you talking about? What that even means? Is this again an appeal to generality as an excuse for lack of proper response?

You need to learn some basic definitions. Medicine is a science, which means that it is based on systematic knowledge gained through observation and experimentation. Theories, ideas and hypotheses are just mental construncts that can be verified or falsified by knowledge gained through observation and experimentation. Your attempt to equate falsified mental construct (Darwinian evolution) with something that is based on systematic knowledge is really tragicomical and it shows that you dogmatic darwinists are worse than flat earthers. Understanding how organisms change and adapt to the environment has nothing to do with evolution but with biology. Every living organism has a built in ability to adapt to the environment(phenotypic plasticity). Gaining knowledge about phenotypic plasticity is a part of science. Darwinian evolution on the other hand is the falsified idea based on the assumption that by changing the positions of molecules in the bacterium-like organism you can ultimately turn this organism into lungs, heart, blood vessels, stomach, liver, kidneys, muscles, brain, etc. Biology is a natural science concerned with the study of living organisms that all have functional maintenance and reproduction apparatus. Darwinian evolution on the other hand is just a mental construct, an idea, conjecture..., that of course started as a valid hypothesis suitable for testing and falsification, but due to the fact that it was falsified with scientific discoveries, instead of becoming scientific theory, it became an atheistic dogma. You obviously don't understand the paper you are referring to. Possible protein sequence space is a mathematical fact. It can be represented as a space with n dimensions, where n is the number of amino acids in the protein. Each axis has 20 positions representing the 20 amino acids. I know that you evolutionists hate to talk about real biological examples because they bring into full light the absurdity of your beliefs, but the idea of evolution aims to explain the development of real biological structures that we observe around us. It does not aim to explain the development of your mental targets. So, you have two options: either you will choose real biological structures and explain what do you mean by "functional distance" or you can keep trolling with your ambiguous mental constructs. Here we go again, another false accusations. Now I am accused of ignorance of protein modularity because I stated the fact that the ability of the lambda repressor to bind to lambda genome in order to regulate expresion of cI protein is a specific function. But of course, as usual, you did nothing to prove your accusations. Regarding the translocation of a domain, we are not discussing how the pre-existing functional structures are moved from one position to another, but how these structures came to be in the first place. Your red herring abilities are really astonishing.

This is because Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with biology.Here is just one example. Genes of today's eukaryotic cells are interrupted by noncoding sequences called introns that need to be removed via splicing machine from the RNA molecule before the process of protein synthesis can begin otherwise they would destroy the protein-coding capacity of genes. So, from the evolutionary perspective, the splicing machine is the complex evolutionary solution to the intron insertions problem, that began early in a cellular live, once these early cells got introns inserted into a critical gene. In other words, if evolution produced splicing machine, then this machine was a specific goal that evolution needed to achieve once early cells got introns within their genomes.Now of course this machine cannot be produced in a step-by-step manner because either you have all four subprocesses - recognition of mRNA and its intron-exon boundaries, cutting the introns out, rearranging the exons, releasing the rearranged molecule - or you are unable to rearrange the mRNA. For example: if we assume the existance of splicing helper proteins that assembly at the intron-exon borders to guide small nuclear ribo proteins to form a splicing machine, this partial correctness of the splicing process won't cause introns to magically disappear without a complete splicing machine. This partial correctness won't cause random, blind and unintelligent process to put aside these helper proteins because they're good for the future splicing function. Evolution has no long term goal, it cannot plan, there is no long distance target to serve as a criterion for selection.So we have a specific target that cannot be produced in a step-by-step manner. And this target is a massive complex comprising five non-coding RNAs and about 200 proteins:SmB/B, SmD1, SmD2, SmD3, SmE1, SmF1, SmG1, LSM2, LSM3, LSM4, LSM5, LSM6, LSM7, LSM8, U1-70kD, U1-A, U1-C, U2-A, U2-B, SF3a60, SF3a66, SF3a120, SF3b49, SF3b145, SF3b130, SF3b155, p14, PRP8, U5-200kD, U5-116kD, U5-102kD, U5-100kD, U5-40kD, U5-15kD, HPRP3, HPRP4, RY-1, USA-Cyp, 15.5 tri-snRNP, U2AF65, SF1, CBP20, CBP80, U2AF35, ASF/SF2, UAP56, PRP5, Tat-SF1, PTB, PRP19, PRP31, DDX16, PRP16, PRP17, SLU7, PRP18, PRP22, EWS, PRP43, PRP24, DDX3, CDC5, ISY1, SYF1, CRN, GCIP-IP, PRL1, BCAS2, SKIP, ECM2, SART1, p68, SPF45, SPF30, PSF, FLJ31121, SAD1, LUC7, SRm300, SRm160, SC35, SRp40, SRp55, SRp75, SRp30c, 9G8, SRp54, SFRS10, SRp20, REF, RNPS1, Y14, MAGOH, hTHO2, hHPR1, HsKin17, ASR2B, KIAA0983, C21orf66, PAB2, CF I-68kD, CF I-25kD, CPSF 160K, HDB/DICE1, Abstrakt, eIF4a3, DDX35, DDX9, KIAA0052, p72, CypE, KIAA0073, Cyp60, PPIL3b, PPIL1, SDCCAG10, KIAA1604, TIP39, G10, FLJ10374, MGC13125, ZNF183, FLJ10634, SF3b14b, SPF31, CHERP, F23858, CA150, SF3b10, SR140, RBM5, E1B-AP5, FLJ10805, MFAP1, KIAA0560, RED protein, Pinin, NOSIP, FLJ10206, PUF60, DGSI, Cactin, FRG1, PMSCL2, RBP 7, MGC23918, SNP70, OTT, IMP3, PRP4 kinase, AcinusL, RNPC2, FLJ90157, NuMA, hnRNP A1, hnRNPA2/B2, hnRNP A3, hnRNP C, hnRNP D, hnRNP F, hnRNP G, hnRNP H1, hnRNP K, hnRNP L, hnRNP M, hnRNPR, hnRNP U, hnRNP RALY, Ku70, PTB, Gry-Rbp, hUR, NF45, NF90, MAT3, YB-1, TLS ip, HSP70-2, HSP71, FUS.And according to darwinists, evolution produced this massive complex via 10^43 random changes while in reality sequence space of just one average protein in this complex is hundreds orders of magnitude larger than the number of these random changes. That is why Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with science. This is just a dogmatic belief system of atheists.

Given the discussion on this thread one interesting question arises: why people who argue for evolution cannot choose only one of many thousands of bio-sturctures and provide an empirical illustration for the ratio of non-bio-functional arrangements of particles to bio-functional arrangements of particles and then, through simple mathematical calculations, put this ratio in the context of resources available to evolution? Because that's what this discussion is all about - bio-functional arrangement of particles must first be present in the population before natural selection can act on it, which means that extracting bio-functional arrangement of particles is the only important physical task that must be completed before the process of adaptation can begin.But instead of illustrating this important point, they are doing everything they can to distract from it. The most used distraction is mantra that I don't understand how evolution works, which obviously has nothing to do with the physical reality of organic matter and its infinite potential for non-biological manifestation. Their other distraction method is asking questions totally unrelated to the issue at hand and making various false accusations. Since it is impossible to have a rational discussion that way, from now on, I will only respond to posts that are concerned with the above mentioned important point of this thread.