Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 55 (9054 total)
98 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 97 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,178 Year: 5,824/14,102 Month: 410/335 Week: 16/83 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 24 of 248 (836142)
07-11-2018 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by forexhr
07-08-2018 9:47 AM


I think it's a good start
...the general public is not familiar with the empirical or mathematical knowledge about the actual capabilities and constraints of the evolutionary processes.

I think this is true, but I also think nobody here is getting what you are saying either, and there's little hope they ever will. I find it a little hard to follow you but I think you've done a pretty good job of being clear anyway and it's just my lack of familiarity with your reasoning processes that makes it hard for me, In fact I think you are making more sense than most creationists who come here and I'm impressed. But even if you got it said to absolute perfection they won't get it.

But once this knowledge is revealed, the mythical nature of the evolution theory becomes obvious, just as in the case of the flat Earth theory.

I've only read a few paragraphs of your article, in which I suppose you mean to provide the knowledge so that the mythical nature of the ToE will become obvious, but I know from experience that nobody here will get it no matter how clear you manage to make it.

You are quite right. There are indeed four processes that are called evolutionary processes in everything I've read, which implies that those four processes should be able to produce brand new features and functions if the ToE is true and if those are in fact the processes of evolution. I've also made use of the idea of those four processes in my own arguments but in a different way.

Mutation, migration, natural selection and genetic drift are indeed offered as the Processes of Evolution. They do account for change, that is, as you put it:

...these four processes are factual, i.e. they are known by actual experience or observation...
,

they do work, they do bring about change, but only within the range of possibilities already present, they cannot produce anything new, and producing something new is essential if evolutionary theory is true.

I think you are quite right about the main point you are making but you'll never get anywhere convincing anyone here. You are right they aren't even getting the basic idea, it's all straw man misreadings. Just getting across the main outline of your point here is probably not going to happen.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by forexhr, posted 07-08-2018 9:47 AM forexhr has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2018 3:26 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 25 of 248 (836144)
07-11-2018 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by ringo
07-09-2018 11:52 AM


Re: Blogging From the Beyond
ringo writes:

forexhr writes:


I wasn't showing mathematically that the bee can't fly, but instead, that the flying function of the bee cannot result from the molecular recombinations in a gene pool of the population which lacks this function.

To spell out more explicitly what others have said: You're not showing mathematically that evolution can't happen, but instead that your strawman version of evolution can't happen.

He said something really very simple: that in a population or its gene pool that lacks the flying function, there is no way the molecular reconbinations can ever produce that function.

And it is implied from what he has said previously, that there are four evolutionary processes that supposedly account for all the changes required by the ToE, but in the example he gives here of a population/gene pool that lacks a particular function there is no way those processes could produce that function.

He says he wants to try to prove this through e coli experiments? At this rate he'll never be able to get to that part of his argument, he's just going to keep having to deal with all these straw man misreadings of what he's trying to say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by ringo, posted 07-09-2018 11:52 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ringo, posted 07-11-2018 1:21 PM Faith has responded
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-11-2018 3:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 27 of 248 (836158)
07-11-2018 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by ringo
07-11-2018 1:21 PM


Re: Blogging From the Beyond
I didn't say he was going to DO experiments, he believes experiments that have already been done prove his point.

But I may be getting him wrong so I hope he'll come back and explain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ringo, posted 07-11-2018 1:21 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 07-11-2018 3:37 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 31 of 248 (836164)
07-11-2018 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by ringo
07-11-2018 3:37 PM


Re: Blogging From the Beyond
I'm going to read his article but I haven't yet. My guess is that the people who did the experiments weren't looking for what he sees in them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 07-11-2018 3:37 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by ringo, posted 07-11-2018 3:49 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 33 of 248 (836170)
07-11-2018 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by ringo
07-11-2018 3:49 PM


Re: Blogging From the Beyond
No doubt there's a giant conspiracy of people refusing to acknowledge what one little goober could figure out with nothing but a pencil, a piece of paper and a grudge.

I don't think there is a conspiracy, I think there is a habit of thought that is reinforced from many angles. I do think you all could do better at trying to understand what this guy is trying to say instead of piling up the straw man misinterpretations, and that IS what you all are doing. He's the first creationist I've personally ever seen here who is arguing in a way I can follow and appreciate so I'd like to see him last a while. However, I also think there are plenty of creationists who have proved the ToE false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by ringo, posted 07-11-2018 3:49 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 07-11-2018 4:12 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 35 by ringo, posted 07-11-2018 4:16 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2018 2:48 AM Faith has responded
 Message 56 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-14-2018 1:22 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 37 of 248 (836217)
07-12-2018 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Dr Adequate
07-12-2018 2:48 AM


Re: Blogging From the Beyond
A lot of it true too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2018 2:48 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 40 of 248 (836224)
07-12-2018 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Taq
07-12-2018 12:48 PM


It doesn't really matter how much mutation there is. Mutation can only change the particular phenotype that is the product of the genetic sequence it alters.

I don't know why forexhr thinks this experiment proves anything, I hope he will come back and explain, but his opening statements seemed clear enough that neither mutation, nor gene migration, nor natural selection nor genetic drift has the capacity to produce new features or function, which is essential if the ToE is true.

Mutation is the only one of the four that could possibly produce change anyway, but it can't because it only changes whatever trait the genetic sequence governs that it alters. If you want to claim that something new can actually be produced you'd have to focus on major structural traits and forget about everything else, but even then it's not going to be possible to change those outside the parameters already dertermined by the range of possibilities governed by whatever sequence is affrected by the mutation.

At least that's what I got out of his opening statement.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 07-12-2018 12:48 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Taq, posted 07-12-2018 5:15 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 41 of 248 (836225)
07-12-2018 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Taq
07-12-2018 12:51 PM


Re: No New Functions?
The largest and the most important study of evolutionary processes in action has demonstrated that after more than 67,000 generations, and after billions upon billions of molecular rearrangements, this processes resulted in a total of 0 – zero new functions.

I suppose a definition of new function is needed but I think he made the point with his general statement anyway, anything new is impossible through the processes of evolution. All you can get is variations on whatever trait the gene governs.

If it's a gene that governs fur color you can only get a fur color, maybe a "new" fur color though I'd guess it was an old one that had disappeared that the mutation revived, but only a fur color, you will not get a different fur type, only a fur color if that is what the gene produces, you will not get eye color, you will not get six toes, you will only get a varation in fur color. OR nothing at all. OR the mutation if it changes the sequence too much can even just make the gene unfunctional or dead..

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 07-12-2018 12:51 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Taq, posted 07-12-2018 5:18 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 46 of 248 (836239)
07-12-2018 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Taq
07-12-2018 5:18 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Can you show an actual new phenotype from any of your many identified genetic changes? I don't mean comparisons with chimps or other creatures, I mean actual phenotypic change that is actually NEW to the creature and not just a known variation of a known trait, brought about by an actual genetic change.

If the mutation alters the sequence of a gene it could only produce a variation in whatever that gene governs; if the gene is for fur color the mutation will only produce a fur color and nothing else. Do you have any actual reason to dispute this?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Taq, posted 07-12-2018 5:18 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Faith, posted 07-12-2018 8:31 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 50 by Taq, posted 07-13-2018 4:47 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 47 of 248 (836241)
07-12-2018 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
07-12-2018 8:06 PM


Re: No New Functions?
I was just reading up on orphan genes. Formed from junk DNA I gather.; Vast majority are useless. Tiny proportion are said to produce novel phenotypes. Funny how it's always the most obscure elements that do such things as produce new phenotypes. Why not normal genes?

That article also shows how much habitual speculation about evolutionary history goes on in trying to explain various genetic occurrences. Makes me wonder what you'd all come up with if you didn't allow yourselves all that speculation, just stick to the facts within the genome you are studying.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 07-12-2018 8:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2018 9:55 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 49 of 248 (836245)
07-12-2018 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Dr Adequate
07-12-2018 9:55 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Have you bothered to follow what I said? Show me a phenotype produced by a mutation to a gene that is not normally what that gene does. If it is normally a gene for fur color, show me a mutation that makes something other than fur color out of that gene.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2018 9:55 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-14-2018 1:51 AM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 52 of 248 (836293)
07-14-2018 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Taq
07-13-2018 4:47 PM


Re: No New Functions?
It's common knowledge, or so I thought, that a gene is a section of DNA that governs or determines the expression of a particular phenotypic trait, so that mutations to that gene can only change how that trait is expressed, it can't alter the trait itself -- meaning it can't produce a different trait. So a mutation of a gene for eye color can only affect eye color, no other trait. This shouldn't be controversial, or if it is I have no idea how.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Taq, posted 07-13-2018 4:47 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by herebedragons, posted 07-14-2018 12:06 PM Faith has responded
 Message 95 by Taq, posted 07-16-2018 12:43 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 54 of 248 (836300)
07-14-2018 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by herebedragons
07-14-2018 12:06 PM


Re: No New Functions?
Yes if you add enough complicating factors you can make it impossible for me to follow you, if that's your objective.

Even the change of a single DNA base pair can alter the function of the gene product.

I know mutations CAN produce change in the phenotype, but using the gene as a model, the change can occur only within the parameters established by the gene or section of DNA in which the mutation occurs. If this weren't the case genetic inheritance would be too chaotic to produce anything identifiable at all.

Novel traits, or alterations to "the trait itself," are produced by :

1. Changes to the regulatory network that can alter the temporal and spatial expression of gene products.

Dear HBD, this is just a lot of abstract theorizing without a shred of actual evidence. What do you mean "can alter the temporal and spatial expression of gene products." Bring this down to earth please. You've got a trait that is governed by all this complexity. You say it can be altered by changes to this "regulatory network." You really need to give specific examples. WHAT trait, altered HOW?

And one point I was planning to make to Dr. A is that even if something does change a trait, that can't be beneficial for the organism in the long run if what's happening is that a new trait is replacing a trait that was hard won by evolutionary processes over millions of years. What's going on is that a trait is being destroyed, a trait is not being added, only replacing something that presumably was functional in its own way and now no longer exists in that particular organism. And if it is a strongly selected trait, which antibiotic resistance certainly is, then whole populations will lack a trait in order that this resistance be produced. Nothing added.

2. Changes to the sequence of a gene product that alters its affinity or specificity to target molecules.

Please translate into ordinary understandable examples. If you won't speak simple English and explain things in recognizable physical terms: trait changes how? you know I'm just going to ignore you, I have no choice. You'll claim victory but all you've done is bury me under a mountain of jargon. I suspect you don't even know what you are talking about in actual practical terms, you've got yourself bamboozled.

3. Modification of post-translational processing which can alter how the product is used within the cell or how it is exported and to where. Post-translational processing can even produce new products from existing products. For example, alternative splicing.

4. Duplication, rearrangement, inversions, and transposons.
I'm not convinced you really know what "phenotype" actually means and what constitutes a new phenotype... but that's another story

It certainly has to do with the actual functioning of the organism as opposed to the genetic stuff that makes it function.

Sorry it looks like something got lost here. I'll see fri I can figure out what.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by herebedragons, posted 07-14-2018 12:06 PM herebedragons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by herebedragons, posted 07-14-2018 4:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 55 of 248 (836301)
07-14-2018 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dr Adequate
07-14-2018 1:51 AM


Re: No New Functions?
One example of what you describe would be those mutations that cause antibiotic resistance. These of course do not merely change the function of a generic antibiotic-resistance gene from resisting penicillin to resisting erythromycin (for example); they alter the function of an existing gene having nothing to do with antibiotic resistance.

Antibiotic resistance seems to be produced by the destruction of some other trait or function in the organism. For that matter, any mutation that changes anything at all has to do it at the expense of whatever trait expression it replaces. This isn't necessarily a problem in single individuals, where of course the mutations occur, but if it spreads in the population it will replace that former trait or function for the whole population. Is that how you picture evolution working? I thought it had to work by adding something to the genetic picture, increasing genetic options rather than killing off some to get others.

And besides, in the discussion of the immune system way back there on the forum somewhere, a couple of things became clear to me. That system is noted for its many alleles per gene, all of which affect only disease immunity in one way or another, demonstrating my point that the gene itself determines the product or trait or function of the organism and the mutation can only alter its expression within whatever limits it sets.

Or whatever genetic substrate is involved --(since HBD is multiplying such factors to no clear purpose that I can see but at least it seems to add up to something more complicated than a gene, although even all that complexity no doubt functions in the same way: it determines the trait or function of the product so that a mutation can only alter the function or trait in ways limited by the existing structure, whether a gene or something more complicated.

Anyway the other thing I noted was that the more alleles you have for a given gene, the more scatteredin the population is the effect of that gene. If it was a gene that protected against oh name something, it originally protected all individuals from that something, but having accumulated a bunch of mutations so that there are now many alleles scattered through the population, you are only going to get SOME individuals protectd from whatever disease is targeted by the mutation.

None of this it seems to me serves the idea of evolution. Seems more destructive than positive for any organism.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-14-2018 1:51 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by herebedragons, posted 07-14-2018 4:21 PM Faith has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 504 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 57 of 248 (836303)
07-14-2018 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Capt Stormfield
07-14-2018 1:22 PM


Re: Blogging From the Beyond
I couldn't possibly anticipate all the ways my simple straightforward statements can be twisted here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-14-2018 1:22 PM Capt Stormfield has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Capt Stormfield, posted 07-14-2018 5:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021