Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-24-2019 3:23 AM
21 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 857,532 Year: 12,568/19,786 Month: 2,349/2,641 Week: 304/554 Day: 2/104 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 76 of 293 (803878)
04-05-2017 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by forexhr
04-05-2017 11:54 AM


foxexhr writes:

How does the selection pressure for "chemistry" reduces the resources needed to transform this gibberish: "ttufwefjkl" or this semantically correct word : "technology", into "chemistry"?

Your question makes no sense. I only pointed out that in order to have a valid analogy to evolution that you need selection pressure. How you include selection pressure in your analogy is your business, but you can't just ignore it.

I claimed that 10e43 resources are insufficient to find bio-functional solution. To backup my claim I provided the empirical evidence of structural niche which is filled with gamma repressor fold. Your response is this: your assumption is wrong, your assumption is wrong, your assumption is wrong. Can you finally explain why my assumption is wrong?

I think it's been explained several times already. Evolution does not build new proteins from scratch with each new generation. It modifies pre-existing proteins in minor ways, and small changes gradually accumulate into large.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 11:54 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 3:04 PM Percy has responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 10.0


(3)
Message 77 of 293 (803879)
04-05-2017 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by forexhr
04-05-2017 10:47 AM


Re: Back to the same mistake
So, your just so story presupposes that there are magic jumps between function A and function B. Unfortunately these jumps do net exist, they are nothing but a mental fantasy.

Actually, no. This is what you are presupposing... that evolutionary change requires these "jumps" across vast wastelands of "junk."

A single nucleotide mutation can change the affinity of a transcription factor and alter the expression of a gene. This can result in significant changes in morphological structures and fitness of the organism. Not a huge "jump" though a wasteland of "junk."

Most evolutionary progress comes from changes in regulatory functions rather than mutations in significant regions of protein sequences. These changes in regulation do not require huge "jumps" through a wasteland of "junk."

There are examples of genes that have been duplicated and then one of them truncated and are serving a different function than the original gene. Not a huge "jump" through a wasteland of "junk."

Actual studies of the evolution of genomes shows a general step-wise modification of pre-existing genes, not huge "jumps" through a wasteland of "junk."

You also make the assumption that all bio-functional structures are very, very far apart on this functional landscape. However, you have not demonstrated this to be the case. In order to do this you would need to identify all such bio-functional structures and determine distance between them. Lets say there are the bio-functional structures 'A' 'B' 'C' 'D' 'E' and 'F' in a particular sized polypeptide. You have only given the calculation for the distance between no structure and each of the final structures A, B, C, D, E, and F (which I have already pointed out is a flawed calculation to begin with), not the distance between the structures.

That is why when you start to randomly change the positions of particles is the pre-existing bio-material, enzyme for e.g., you won't end up with new functional enzyme but you will turn the old one into gibberish, junk, you will destroy its abilty to perform a metabolic function.

You don't know this, and you have not demonstrated it to be true; it is an assumption you are making. You do not know if the functionality landscapes of two bio-functional structures overlap, since you have no data regarding that.

Therefore, your model of bio-functionality landscapes is flawed.

I also note that although you say you don't want to discuss evolutionary models but the extraction of bio-functional combinations, you ignore direct arguments against your maths and focus on those comments that refer to evolutionary models. eg. you skipped my Message 66 and instead replied to Message 67.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 10:47 AM forexhr has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 78 of 293 (803880)
04-05-2017 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by forexhr
04-05-2017 11:54 AM


To backup my claim I provided the empirical evidence of structural niche which is filled with gamma repressor fold.

As I pointed out several times now, you citation was bogus. Do we need to go over it again as to why it is not a valid citation in support of your premise?

your assumption is wrong, your assumption is wrong, your assumption is wrong. Can you finally explain why my assumption is wrong?

Ignoring responses that demonstrate why your assumption is wrong doesn't make them go away.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 11:54 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 3:13 PM herebedragons has responded

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 79 of 293 (803902)
04-05-2017 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Percy
04-05-2017 12:11 PM


'Selection pressure' is just an evolutionary magic phrase since the word 'selection' describes the effect in which some structural on environmental niche has been fulfilled. And to fulfill the niche, functional solution must already be present in the gene pool of a population. If the population is in danger of extinction(pressure) that doesn't mean that you need less resources in the search for a functional solution. It just means that if solution is not found, organisms in that population will die. So, if one tries to appeal to 'selection pressures' this is like saying that the poor man stands a better chance of winning the lottery than the rich man because he is under financial pressure, which is nonsense. That is why you cannot provide a rational explanation of what 'selection pressure' is.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 04-05-2017 12:11 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 04-06-2017 7:58 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 80 of 293 (803904)
04-05-2017 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by herebedragons
04-05-2017 12:25 PM


herebedragons writes:

A single nucleotide mutation can change the affinity of a transcription factor and alter the expression of a gene. This can result in significant changes in morphological structures and fitness of the organism. Not a huge "jump" though a wasteland of "junk."


"Significant changes in morphological structures"... just means... changes. It doesn't mean meaningful changes, it doesn't mean functional changes, it doesn't mean changes needed to fulfil newly emerged structural on environmental niches. I know that everything is changing all the time in nature. Point? Everybody can make an appeal to change to explain everything. For example I can say that Moai figures on Easter Island are emergent property of changes caused by erosion process. The right constituents under the right circumstance result in the Moai figures. The constituents are the minerals or mineraloids, the circumstances we are yet investigating. Wind, rain, waves, ice, heat from the sun, acid rain... to name a few possible circumstances. And voilà, I have a natural explanation for the origin of Moai figures.

herebedragons writes:

You also make the assumption that all bio-functional structures are very, very far apart on this functional landscape.


Can you explain how functional landscape of a bacteria is not far apart from a functional landscape of the gears found in the planthopper insect (Issus coleoptratus). You can't just point to the existing bio-structures that are similar and then claim that these structures are not far apart on their functional landscape. Of course they are not - they are similar. You need to explain how functional structures like gears, joints, ears, kidneys... came to be in the first place since the first self-replicating organism didn't had them.

herebedragons writes:

You don't know this, and you have not demonstrated it to be true; it is an assumption you are making. You do not know if the functionality landscapes of two bio-functional structures overlap, since you have no data regarding that. Therefore, your model of bio-functionality landscapes is flawed.

Of course I know this and of course I have demonstrated it to be true. If only 1 in 10e63 sequences contain the information that is required to fulfill a particular structural niche then there is a 99,9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 percent chance that the final consequence of the random walk will be junk. Or, in the words of the analogy: if you make a clay model of Statue of Liberty and then expose it to some random process that will change the position of clay particles(rain for e.g.), you won't end up with another meaningful clay model like Michelangelo's Pieta, but with some useless piece of clay, because there are infinitely more ways to arrange clay particles into distorted shape that into something meaningful. The same is true in biology. If the structural niche in the form of female reproductive system emerged, then to fulfill this niche you need meaningful arrangement of cells and molecules in the form of male reproductive system. But since there are infinitely more ways to arrange these cells or molecules into some junk that into male reproductive system, the simple fact is that there are not enough resources to fulfill the niche.

herebedragons writes:

As I pointed out several times now, you citation was bogus. Do we need to go over it again as to why it is not a valid citation in support of your premise?


You can keep pointing out, but you are just repeating the empty claims, lik Paul. You never proved that my citation was bogus. You just made an appeal to 'functional sequences in general'. Then I refuted your claim by pointing out that 'functional sequences in general' cannot neither perform specific biological functions, nor fulfil specific environmental niches.
You didn't reply to this, but instead, you keep repeating this mantra of yours that my citation was bogus.

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 78 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 12:25 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 3:47 PM forexhr has responded

    
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1513
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 81 of 293 (803909)
04-05-2017 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by forexhr
04-05-2017 3:13 PM


Can you explain how functional landscape of a bacteria is not far apart from a functional landscape of the gears found in the planthopper insect (Issus coleoptratus).

Right, but no one (other than you) claims the we need to jump from a bacterium to a gear in a plant hopper in one step.

You need to explain how functional structures like gears, joints, ears, kidneys... came to be in the first place since the first self-replicating organism didn't had them.

Your faulty requirement is that each of these systems need to come into existence from nothing, poof! One day it's a bacterium the next day it's a leaf hopper insect.

If only 1 in 10e63 sequences contain the information that is required to fulfill a particular structural niche

But you have not established this as a fact. You simply lifted the number from a paper out of context. 1 in 1063 is only for a particular function. There is nothing about other functions that the arrangement might take on. I don't know how I can explain this any better to you...

If I ask you how many different combinations can you get from a 90-aa protein? You would respond with something like "90!" .

Then I ask how many are functional? And you respond 1 in 1063 (which means there are 1075 functional combinations - which is a lot). BUT, these are ONLY those combinations that result in a specific structural function.

How many different functional structures could a chain of 90-aa produce? I don't know... and neither do you. But I would guess it's an awful lot. You have not considered those "other" functions and how far it is to each of them on your functional landscape or what proportion of all 90-aa sequences would perform a function of some kind.

You keep insisting that each new protein needs to be created from scratch, but this is not the case.

You never proved that my citation was bogus.

You can't take data from a source out of context and claim it is evidence of another context. Which is what you did with the 1 in 1063 number and your claim of only 1043 mutations since life began. Both taken out of context and used to support a different (opposite) context. It's not the opposite position that's the problem, it is taking the data out of context and pretending it means something it doesn't. The sources you cited do not support your claim and the way you are using the information in them is not honest. Just read the paper and you will see what I mean.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 3:13 PM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by forexhr, posted 04-06-2017 5:17 AM herebedragons has responded

  
forexhr
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 82 of 293 (803962)
04-06-2017 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by herebedragons
04-05-2017 3:47 PM


herebedragons writes:

Right, but no one (other than you) claims the we need to jump from a bacterium to a gear in a plant hopper in one step.


When evolutioists who argue that a particular physical result was achieved via small evolutionary steps, are left without arguments for their position, they always react in the same, easy predictable manner - they pull out false reductio ad absurdum argument in the folowing form - "no one (other than you) claims the we need to jump from A to B in one step. And of course, you did the same thing. You used the same false reductio ad absurdum.

In logic, reductio ad absurdum is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous or absurd conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible.

Example: Your friend says, "If I rub my lucky rabbit's foot, then I will do well on this test."
You respond, "So, if it brings good luck, then I need to rub it so that my mom's cancer will go away, and my dad will get a new job, and our family will win the lottery.

In this example, the argument in the form: 'if I rub surface of a thing - desirable outcome will happen'... is obviously 'absurd', since everyone knows that subjecting the surface of a thing to pressure and friction is physically unrelated to events at other places and times.

But, when evolutionists resort to this kind of argument they are not doing it because the statement they oppose leads to a ridiculous or absurd conclusion, but because this statement leads to a conclusion that evolution is false. And since by definition evolution cannot be false - then every argument against evolution is absurd by definition. Hence, all evolutionary responses are boiling down to this:

If an argument shows that evolution couldn't have happened, then something must have happened in the past that is in line with evolution. Therefore, something did happen in the past, and the argument in question is absurd or false.

So for example, we have an observation of functional gears in the planthopper insect. Given this observation evolutionist will immediately presuppose the existence of the small steps that were leading up to the gear, because given all the possible spatial arrangements that particles comprising the gear can adopt, it is physically impossible for the particles to adopt this specific gear structure. But, can the evolutionist show instances of 1 percent functional gear, 5 percent, 10, 20, 60... No, of course he can't. Can evolutionist provide a reasonable explanation for gradual, selective development of gear function? No, of course he can't. All that evolutionist can do is to presuppose the gradual development of gears because otherwise evolution would be false. And since by definition evolution cannot be false - then of course - gears were developed via step by step process and each and every argument against this position is absurd or false. This kind of behaviour is of course the textbook example of dogmatic reasoning.

herebedragons writes:

Your faulty requirement is that each of these systems need to come into existence from nothing, poof! One day it's a bacterium the next day it's a leaf hopper insect.

This is not my faulty requirement. This is a straw man you created just because you don't have the proper response. I never talked about one day jumps, one day resources, but about all the resources(10e43) that were available during a time span of more than 4. 5 billion years. All these resources were insufficient to turn a bacterium into a planthopper insect. In order to disprove evolution there is no need to clam that one day it's a bacterium the next day it's a leaf hopper insect. Instead, on the basis of the empirical evidence we can claim the following: one day it's a bacterium, in the next 4.5 billion years... it's a bacterium.

herebedragons writes:

But you have not established this as a fact. You simply lifted the number from a paper out of context. 1 in 1063 is only for a particular function. There is nothing about other functions that the arrangement might take on. I don't know how I can explain this any better to you..


Let me get this straight. I lifted the number out of context because I claimed that a particular bio-function - the gamma repressor fold - is an exceedingly small fraction of the total number of possible 92 AA sequences. Hence, I lifted the number out of context because I claimed that bio-functions are specific. Well, can you then explain to me how can you catalyse the transfer of electrons from NADH to coenzyme Q10 with the gamma repressor for example? My argument is that wehen the structural niche is opened that requires the ubiquinone oxidoreductase enzyme, we are left with an exceedingly small fraction of the total number of possible sequences that amino acides comprising this enzyme can adopt, just like in the example of the gamma repressor fold. "Other" functions are complety irrelevant in that context. In reality, specific solutions are needed in order to fulfil specific structural on environmental niches. So what exactly and how did I take out of context?

herebedragons writes:

You can't take data from a source out of context and claim it is evidence of another context. Which is what you did with the 1 in 1063 number and your claim of only 1043 mutations since life began. Both taken out of context and used to support a different (opposite) context. It's not the opposite position that's the problem, it is taking the data out of context and pretending it means something it doesn't. The sources you cited do not support your claim and the way you are using the information in them is not honest. Just read the paper and you will see what I mean.


Here you just repeated the same mantra: out of context, out of context , out of context.. but you didn't provide the evidence for your accusations. Can you please do that? Thanks.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by herebedragons, posted 04-05-2017 3:47 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Larni, posted 04-06-2017 8:06 AM forexhr has responded
 Message 86 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2017 8:22 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 106 by herebedragons, posted 04-07-2017 8:39 AM forexhr has responded
 Message 110 by herebedragons, posted 04-07-2017 9:00 AM forexhr has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18619
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 83 of 293 (803975)
04-06-2017 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by forexhr
04-05-2017 3:04 PM


Selection works. Breeders prove it all the time, and nature is constantly employing natural selection.

Variation exists within all populations. Some have thicker fur, some have darker coloring, some are faster, some are bigger, some are smaller, etc. Selection is responsible for differential reproductive success operating upon normal variation. Over time any favorable mutations that happen to arise will also be selected for and gradually spread through the population.

Commercial fishing has an interesting example of selection. They only catch fish above a certain size, and so adult fish now grow smaller so as to escape capture.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by forexhr, posted 04-05-2017 3:04 PM forexhr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 04-06-2017 8:05 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31096
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 84 of 293 (803976)
04-06-2017 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Percy
04-06-2017 7:58 AM


Percy writes:

Commercial fishing has an interesting example of selection. They only catch fish above a certain size, and so adult fish now grow smaller so as to escape capture.

That led directly to the concept of slot fish in sport fishing, where only a mid range of many species are kept and those larger or smaller than the standard keeper range for that species must be released.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 04-06-2017 7:58 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3984
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 85 of 293 (803977)
04-06-2017 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by forexhr
04-06-2017 5:17 AM


Hi Fox, this is an interesting discussion!

If you're correct it would mean that evilution is in fact wrong and that some supreme being is providing the necessary direction for life to be the way it is.

If what you say is true it will be a great day for people of faith (specifically fundamentalist Christians, I imagine) as it would prove, if proof be need be that the God of the Bible(KJV1611) is in fact the Creator of All things.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by forexhr, posted 04-06-2017 5:17 AM forexhr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by forexhr, posted 04-06-2017 9:11 AM Larni has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 86 of 293 (803979)
04-06-2017 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by forexhr
04-06-2017 5:17 AM


forexhr, you keep on missing selection. Without including selection processes your maths are not applicable. It really is not hard to understand for anyone with an IQ of more than 2.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by forexhr, posted 04-06-2017 5:17 AM forexhr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 04-06-2017 8:25 AM Pressie has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 31096
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 87 of 293 (803980)
04-06-2017 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Pressie
04-06-2017 8:22 AM


And he still misses the point that ANY change, good, bad, neutral, is still evolution.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2017 8:22 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2017 8:47 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 88 of 293 (803984)
04-06-2017 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by jar
04-06-2017 8:25 AM


Yeah. For some reason he is just completely unable to understand the basics.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 04-06-2017 8:25 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

    
forexhr
Member (Idle past 267 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-13-2015


Message 89 of 293 (803987)
04-06-2017 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Larni
04-06-2017 8:06 AM


Larni writes:

Hi Fox, this is an interesting discussion!
If you're correct it would mean that evilution is in fact wrong and that some supreme being is providing the necessary direction for life to be the way it is.

If what you say is true it will be a great day for people of faith (specifically fundamentalist Christians, I imagine) as it would prove, if proof be need be that the God of the Bible(KJV1611) is in fact the Creator of All things.

The argument that I am talking about is just the tip of the iceberg. In practice, there are much deeper problems for evolution, one of which is the temporal and structural interdependence of cellular systems. For example, all cellular systems, processes and structures that enable the cell to live, grow and reproduce are temporaly constrained by the speed of chemical reaction that can takes place in fractions of a second or minute. Complete series of chemical events that take place in a cell leading to its division and replication generally lasts 12 to 24 hours in mammalian tissue. So, how could the bio-structures that are carriers of this events evolve over the course of many thousands or million years? Metabolic reactions, DNA replication, responding to stimuli, transporting molecules from one location to another.... all involve series of biochemical reactions that are connected by their intermediates - the product of one reaction is the substrate for subsequent reaction, and so on. So it is a continuous process that cannot be stoped or freezed in order for evolution to produce some enzyme in some random point in the future. If an enzyme is not present in the metabolic pathway when signaled by cell, resulting product will not be produced, cell will lose the ability to complete its cycle and die. In short, the effects responsible for the operation of temporarily constrained dynamical system cannot be caused by a temporarily unconstrained process like evolution.

On the level of the whole organism we also have similar paradox, that we can call - the cycle paradox, which refers to a discrepancy between the cycle in which an organism reproduce and maintains its structure(RM cycle) and evolutionary cycle(Ev cycle). RM cycle is by definition shorter than E cycle which means that in order to be able to evolve, an organism needs the ability to reproduce and maintains its structure. Now, if bio-structures necessary to execute te RM cycle are temporary interconnected in time T and Ev cycle is by definition longer than T (RM cycle < Ev cycle) that it logically follows that evolution is physically impossible. Let's use the analogy to explain why. In an engine, parts like cylinder block, cylinder head, piston, crankshaft, engine bearing, spark plug etc., work together in a cycle(En cycle) to achieve the function of converting chemical energy of fuel into mechanical energy. Now, if we say that the above mentioned parts formed gradually via 'energy transformation function' of an engine then we are at an obvious contradiction since En cycle, that is necessary to produce these parts, cannot be executed if parts don't exist.

Likewise, in an organism(e.g. human), organs like lungs, heart, blood vessels, stomach, liver, brain, nerves, prostate, penis, vagina..., etc., work together to achieve the function of reproduction and maintenance. Now, if we say that the above mentioned organs formed gradually via evolution then we are at an obvious contradiction since Ev cycle, that is necessary to produce these organs, cannot be executed if organs don't exist. It is easy to demonstrate with empirical science that deformation or removal of the above mentioned organs does not lead to some simpler mode of reproduction and maintenance but it leads to death or infertility, which means Ev cycle is not able to execute.

All this is of course for some other discussion.

Edited by forexhr, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Larni, posted 04-06-2017 8:06 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Pressie, posted 04-06-2017 9:21 AM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 04-06-2017 12:12 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 04-06-2017 1:19 PM forexhr has not yet responded
 Message 93 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-06-2017 1:39 PM forexhr has responded
 Message 121 by Larni, posted 04-07-2017 10:28 AM forexhr has responded

    
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2074
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 90 of 293 (803989)
04-06-2017 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by forexhr
04-06-2017 9:11 AM


Books full of word salads never beat even one piece of scientific evidence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by forexhr, posted 04-06-2017 9:11 AM forexhr has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019