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

Please bear in mind hat he hasn’t got around to presenting an argument here, his last attempt was horribly mistaken, and that mistaking an analogy for a straw man doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in his ability to argue a case.

quote:

---

Please just acknowledge that an allele changed by mutation can at best only change whatever that gene governs, so if it's a gene for fur color the mutation is only going to affect fur color.

---

The only thing that a gene directly governs is the protein it codes for.
Change the gene and you (usually) get a slightly different protein.It’s not obfuscation to point out that the reality of how you get from genes to phenotypic traits like hair colour is not simple and you can’t be sure that the protein doesn’t have other uses which might be affected. Melanin, for instance is involved in skin and eye colour but also has other effects.

quote:

---

YES YOU DO. But that protein produced in a particular gene, a particular segment of DNA, that governs a particular trait, WHICH IS A WELL KNOWN FACT, will only produce a version of whate4ver that trait is.

---

Which is a common misunderstanding, not a fact. Consider the various functions of melanin.

quote:

---

WHO SAID THE PROCESS IS SIMPLE?

---

You seem to think it is a simple matter of one gene, one trait. It isn’t.

quote:

---

I'm not sure antibiotic resistance is a normal circumstance

---

Given that antibiotics do occur naturally (remember how penicillin was discovered) I’d be surprised if it wasn't.

quote:

---

but mostly you are just avoiding the simple point that if a gene governs a KNMOWN TRAIT, you are onlyt going to get variations on THAT PARTICULAR TRAIT. Ifr it ALSO governs OTHER traits, unknown ones, about which you are wildly spe3culating, then if that was known all you can gtet is variations on those other traits as well.

---

You mean that all the known functions of melanin are wild speculation ? And how can we only get variation in one trait and get variations in other traits too ? Come to that, what is a trait ? Isn’t the ear fold in Scottish Fold cats a new trait ?

quote:

---

This suggests you are talking about melanin as a protein produced by different genes? If so it produces different traits according to which gene is producing it. I'm sure many genes produce the same protein but the gene itself determines what the protein does in the phenotype.

---

The point is the complexity of the system. Melanin (or melanins - there are variants) is produced in the body over a great range of species and used in a number of ways. And it isn’t even directly produced from genes.But you are being a bit silly about the idea that many genes produce the same protein. While gene duplication does occur it’s more usual to end up with specialised variations than for two genes to produce the exact same protein. But the idea that there are separate genes producing the exact same protein exclusively for particular parts of the body is not exactly likely.

quote:

---

It is a new form of ear produced by a mutationj to the gene that governs the structure or form of cat ears. The trait is cat ear form or structure, different alleles control different variations on the cat ear.

---

Really ? Do you know that or are you just guessing ?

quote:

---

The point is still that a mutation to that gene cannot do anything outside of what the gene does.

---

What a gene does is provide a template for producing a protein (sometimes more than one).That’s it.In the context of the whole system it may have particular effects but there is a lot more to that then the gene sequence.Until you understand that you really are going to struggle with this.

quote:

---

the evasion is absolutely remarkable.

---

It’s not evasion, it’s a fundamental fact. And you will never understand how genes actually work until you get it.

quote:

---

An allele/gene for fur color will produce a protein that brings about a certain fur color.

---

Speaking of it as an allele for fur colour is not strictly true. Genes are not a blueprint for building a body.All you can say is that the allele happens to produce a particular fur colour in a particular context but how it does it and whether that is all it does and what it might do in a different context are simply unknowable without a deeper understanding.

quote:

---

I know you don't want to acknowledge this because it is evidence against the ToE.

---

There you go inventing motives. Something you have complained about others doing to you - even when they weren’t doing it.Now maybe you should consider the possibility that we are disagreeing with your erroneous ideas because they are erroneous.I asked you about the genetics of the Scottish Fold cat and I note that you didn’t answer, so I will ask again. Do you really think that there is a gene for ear shape involved ? And if you do, why ?

quote:

---

WQhat you are all claiming is really that there is no such thing as a gene at all

---

Mendelian genes are a theoretical construct (Mendel just did breeding experiments - he had no idea of what a gene was or how it produced the effects he saw).Now we do know what genes are, what they do and a part of how they do it (it IS complicated and regulatory sequences are very, very important even though they aren’t genes)

quote:

---

...it doesn't matter where it occurs on the DNA strand.

---

Nobody is saying that that doesn’t matter.

quote:

---

So there is no such thing as a gene. Is that really what you mean?

---

There are genes but they aren’t what Mendel thought they were is more accurate.

quote:

---

So according to that idea it would be possible for a mutation to so alter the sequence that a protein that makes fur color could show up on a gene that normally makes eye color?

---

That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, but I’ll make some points that seem relevant.Eye colour is affected by a number of genes - and I think it quite likely that some would also affect fur colour (some genes that affect human eye colour also affect skin colour). The genes don’t directly make the colour anyway. They may, however, influence the making of the cells that do make the colour.

quote:

---

I don't know if there is a gene for ear shape, but there is a gene for something a mutation to which causes a curled cat ear.

---

There isn’t a relevant gene for ear shape anyway. The relevant gene affects cartilage - and it’s not localised to the ear at all.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

The point you keep missing is the idea of a phenotypic effect the gene governs is a bit problematic unless you are talking about protein structure. Genes can find multiple uses - and can find new uses without even mutating.

quote:

---

I keep repeating myself because nobody acknowledges this very simple obvious point.

---

Nobody agrees with you because you’re wrong. You should be used to that by now. At best you are presenting a hypothetical example of one gene and assuming that all genes must work the same way.It’s hardly an argument worth the effort of writing once, let alone over and over again.

quote:

---

Alleles make a protein that makes a certain fur color in a gene for fur color.

---

I think you will find that your hypothetical case is not the normal situation - certainly not for fur colour.

quote:

---

A mutation changes the sequence of an allele so if it does anything at all it can only change the fur color in a gene for fur color.

---

So if you have a gene for fur colour that can never have any other function it can only affect fur colour. And the point is ? It’s all hypothetical, not proof of anything.Even the example of citrate utilisation in E Coli should give you pause. The relevant change caused one or more genes to be active in a case where they wouldn’t have been before. While you could argue that there was no additional use in that case, it seems fairly obvious that that is a feature of that example and not something that is necessarily true of all cases.

quote:

---

You are denying the obvious.

---

Nope.

quote:

---

The point is simple. The gene, or whatever the genetic determinant is --, only does what it does

---

And what it does - at the level you are looking at - can change. It may be able to do more things - if only it was produced at the right place and time. That is one thing you need to understand.It’s not even hypothetical. We know for a fact that the location and timing can be changed. We have evidence that genes have been recruited for new functions. Gene Co-Option in Physiological and Morphological EvolutionAnd let us not forget that a major part of forexhr’s argument is the appearance of new genes. How does that fit into your argument ?

Your argument has a clear logical error in jumping from C2/P6 to P7. Biological functions need not be encoded by a single eukaryotic gene.P4 is in error because the calculation assumes that the gene must be produced randomly, rather than, for instance a new function being acquired by mutation or the gene arriving via horizontal transfer (the latter being rather important for bacteria). It also assumes a predetermined function which is also an error - you would need the probability of any useful function, not a particular one.Further I will note that the only genes even suspected of being effectively random in sequence tend to be much shorter than average anyway.(And that is not addressing the really bizarre idea of gills as a new biological function when they really only increase the surface area available to a pre-existing function).So you have both a serious problem with both P4 and the logic, invalidating your argument.

quote:

---

I already addressed this here: Message 162

---

Unfortunately for you relying on an unstated assumption does not make your argument logically valid. Quite the opposite.

quote:

---

Horizontal transfer is simply transfer of something that already existed - either functional or junk, and has nothing to do with the question of variations that are required for new functions.

---

Horizontal transfer can certainly add features that are new to the lineage, and at the least it adds to the available resources.

quote:

---

Regarding predetermined function. Underwater respiratory functions is predetermined by aquatic environment, splicing function by intron-exon structure, enzymatic function by substance that needs to be metabolized, pumping function by vascular system, sperm cell by egg cell, male sex organs by female sex organs.... In short, everything is predetermined. I explained this already:

---

And you are still obviously wrong. While it is conceivable that there might be cases where one particular function is required it is hardly likely to be the normal case.

quote:

---

Message 140

---

The fact that you chose a bad example is hardly evidence for intelligent design. It just illustrates your sloppiness. Which is why it was presented as an aside.So I guess you have no valid rebuttal. Too bad.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There are no isolated cases, but all biology is predetermined and in every case particularity is needed.

---

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.

quote:

---

As I already mentioned in this thread, all things in the natural world are only forces and particles that interact and produce various clusters of particles. What are biological things? They are simply clusters of particles with properties not present in other or non-biological clusters of particles.

---

A reductionistic view changes nothing - or if it did it would be wrong.

quote:

---

So in order for interactions of forces and particles, or in other words, variations to result in biological clusters of particles, they must result is something that is specific or predetermined

---

Which - even if it were true - is irrelevant to my point. It does more to undermine your probability calculations.

quote:

---

Finally, the number of non-biological clusters of particles is so big that it is impossible for interaction of forces and particles to result in biological things.

---

I guess if you ignore stuff like chemistry and assume all combinations must be completely random you’d come to silly ideas like that. Unfortunately for you ignoring relevant factors hardly makes for a sound argument.Anyway, thank you for your irrational babbling. It demonstrates that you can’t defend your argument most effectively.

Your comment on Lenski’s experiment is irrelevant (and obviously wrong). The point is that the changes weren’t needed.

quote:

---

Regarding the last point. Philosophical determinism has nothing to do with my claims

---

Your assertion that everything in biology is predetermined would seem to disagree.

quote:

---

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.

---

The point you are arguing against is that the appearance of new biological function simply requires the appearance of a new biological function, not some specific function.And let us note that you are still not defending your proof. We may safely conclude that it is no such thing.

quote:

---

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.

---

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 ?