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

That is because you really don't know how genetics works. You are basing your ideas on an antiquated model of genetics where gene = trait. The human genome has 20,000+ genes, yet only a dozen or so can be identified as functioning as gene = trait. Most genes function in a network, meaning they affect a diverse set of traits, not always closely related traits either. Or it means that it can take multiple genes to form a biochemical pathway, meaning that changes in any gene in that pathway can affect the final outcome and alter the product produced and thus the phenotype.Genes make RNA and some of that RNA is translated into protein. These become the building blocks that form the phenotype. These building blocks interact with one another and with stimuli from the environment to build structures, generate energy, respond to said stimuli through the modification of internal systems, and provide necessary nutrients and cellular processes.Even the change of a single DNA base pair can alter the function of the gene product. It can change what molecules the product interacts with or even how strongly the interaction is. Some molecules have very strong affinity for one another others are weaker. This basically means how close the molecules need to come to one another to interact. If the affinity between two molecules is reduced, the interaction will happen less frequently and so the product or outcome of that interact will be reduced.Major changes in traits (such as the types you are thinking of when you talk about changes in phenotypes) are thought to come not from changes in coding regions, but from changes in regulatory networks. How gene products are regulated and distributed throughout the cell and turned on or off throughout the different tissue types are fundamental to the phenotype. There are numerous factors that control where and when gene products are produced and what the ultimate fate will be for those products. Some gene products can be used for one purpose in a particular cell type, but for a wholly different purpose in another cell type. Regulation is key.There is really no point in giving you a lecture on molecular biology. The point is, Mendelian genetics is merely introductory material and is only briefly discussed in genetics courses to provide a basic foundation for understanding inheritance. It really is not very useful in molecular genetics. But Mendelian genetics is pretty much the limit of your understanding when it comes to genetics. Genetics is much more complicated that Mendel ever could have dreamed.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.2. Changes to the sequence of a gene product that alters its affinity or specificity to target molecules.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.HBD

Do you want to play with the big kids and bring down evolutionary theory? Or do you just want to fool the ignorant? Genetics is complicated and extremely involved. People study these topics for their entire careers and you think that your overly simplistic ways of thinking about it can better describe what is happening? No, if you want to destroy evolutionary theory using genetics, you have to understand genetics. How could you possibly know that? If I were to show you the primary literature where the evidence is presented, would you even read it? Could you possibly even understand it? There is certainly evidence about how gene regulation can change where (spatial) and when (temporal) genes are expressed. If you change where and when genes are expressed, novel phenotypes can be produced. It seems rather obvious. I explained affinity... and specificity seems obvious. That's fine. You can just continue on with your misunderstandings of genetics and simply dismiss those who study this stuff in depth. I'll admit there is quite a bit of jargon in my post. But first of all, those are the terms used in genetics. If you don't understand a term such as "post-translational modification", you can either look it up or ask specifically. And secondly, this is always your excuse, the terminology is too difficult to understand therefore you must be right and geneticists are deceived. Right. You can't understand genetics therefore, I am bamboozled. How about putting the effort into learning about genetics and forego the insults. Being able to understand the terms used in genetics will go a long way. Is this the kind on "non-jargonized" statements you want me to make... statements that make no sense? Are you saying the phenotype has to do with the actual functioning? What is genetic stuff that makes it function? You complain about me using jargon, but you’re just using jargon yourself, it’s just Faith jargon that only you know the meaning of. I certainly can’t tell what you mean by genetic stuff. You do the same thing in geology discussions; make up your own terminology that no one else is privy to. Learn the language of the subject you are trying to discuss. There were some issues when I was posting that message, maybe something got messed up. It looks like it is fine though.HBD

How about giving a couple examples of antibiotic resistance or fungicide resistance and describe what is happening on a molecular level. Then describe how that fits with what you are describing. What about duplications, where the original gene can continue to function and the duplicate can take on new characteristics. Can't you just modify existing traits? I mean what is the difference between an arm and a wing other than a series of genetic modifications that result in changes in where and when the genes are expressed?HBD

Typical.Bottom line is you don't understand what is going on at a molecular level and you have clear misconceptions about how genetics works so there is just no way you can accurately pontificate about what mutations to a gene can or cannot do.If you think you can... describe an example of antibiotic or fungicide resistance and explain how a mutation that confers that resistance destroys the previous function. So you want me to agree with something that is obviously wrong? Or at best so overly simplistic as to be misleading? Of course you can't modify something that isn't there. But a modified trait is still a new trait. Here is an image that shows the skeletal structure of the appendages from 4 different mammals: Describe the "genetic stuff" needed for each structure. How is the "genetic stuff" different in each example? Each has a humerus, radius, ulna, carpals, metacarpals and phalanges. Don't you think there is a humerus gene and a radius gene and a carpals gene? Isn't there a gene that controls each bone?Perhaps you could describe the genetic differences between those four phenotypes. But since you don't know how the genotype is converted into the phenotype and you don't know how mutations would affect that process, you are in no position to speculate as to whether it could be done or not. If genetics worked the way you seem to think it does, you would probably be right, that mutations could not accomplish it. But since genetics works much different that you imagine, you cannot make an honest judgement on the subject.Come to think of it... I think much of this misunderstanding comes from the common analogy relating the information in the genetic code to the words in a book. It gives the impression that the instructions for building an organism is written out in genetic code just like instructions for making a cake are spelled out in a recipe book. But this is not the way it works at all. In reality, "words in a book" is a terrible analogy. I'm not sure there IS a good analogy that describes how genetics really works. But if you are going at this with the idea that the genome is a recipe for building an organism, that would explain a lot of your misconceptions.HBD

Name all the known cases of one gene = one trait.Here is some reading for you. From Genes to Traits:

quote:

---

One often hears news reports about discoveries of a "gene for X", e.g., gene for alcoholism, gene for homosexuality, gene for breast cancer, etc. This is an incorrect way of thinking about genes, as it implies a one-to-one mapping between genes and traits.

​

This misunderstanding stems from historical precedents. The very first genes were discovered decades ago with quite primitive technology. Thus, the only genes that could be discovered were those with large, dramatic effects on the traits.

---

HBD

Melanin is not a protein, it is a pigment. It is not produced by a gene. The enzymes that catalyze the chemical reactions in the biosynthetic pathway are produced by genes. Below is the biosynthesis pathway: How could this process be controlled by a single gene? Nope. A gene produces a protein. How does the gene determine "what the protein does in the phenotype?" What does that even mean? Why do you think telling the truth about things and trying to straighten out misunderstandings is evasive? You think there is a cat ear gene? LOL. Oh, wow...There is no cat ear gene. Features like that would be a quantitative trait; controlled by multiple genes. Think about it... how many different proteins are used in the formation of a cat ear?HBD

I am not attacking your intelligence. I think you are very intelligent. The problem is you're arrogant... you have a cursory knowledge of a subject and embrace a plethora of misunderstandings yet when people who are knowledgeable about the subject disagree with you, you berate them, call them brainwashed, ignore their comments, etc.It's your arrogance and pride that people attack.HBD

I would call this characterization of evolution to be somewhat misleading because it represents your biased spin on the subject rather than the scientific view.First, can produce previously non-existent biological functions. Granted this is kind of the implication of the theory, but to me, the way you put this statement makes it sound as if the theory predicts that new biological functions will just pop into existence with no predecessor. A more accurate representation of the scientific view is:The evolution theory is an idea according to which new phenotypes are produced through the evolutionary processes of mutations, gene migration, natural selection and genetic drift in a process often referred to as descent with modification.Second, there was only one biological function reproduction, i.e. that life began with a simple molecule that could reproduce itself. This statement ventures into the more uncertain realm of abiogenesis. Strictly speaking, the theory of evolution takes over once life is established. Yes, some do talk about pre-biotic processes in an evolutionary way, but the ToE doesn’t really explain how life came to be in the first place. The ToE starts with living organisms; how those organisms came be - whether by abiogenesis, intelligent design, creation ex nihilo or panspermia - is irrelevant to the ToE.Early life would include more biological functions than just reproduction. I would also argue the evolution would require a system of inheritance that is passed on by reproduction, such as DNA/RNA. So these life processes needed to be in place before the ToE begins to explain the diversification of life. Again, misleading; not really representative of what the ToE theorizes, but a statement that attempts to capture the perceived irrationality of the ToE in a reduction of the theory to a ridiculous statement. Basically a reduction ad absurdum. While I respect this type of argument and often use it myself to show the absurdity of the consequences of a position, I don’t think the statement accurately describes the ToE.1. The processes of evolution are observed facts. You yourself admit this. These processes have been demonstrated to bring about novel phenotypes and new biological functions. This is what is often referred to as microevolution by ToE opponents (I say opponents because scientists define microevolution slightly different). But anyway, these processes are observed.2. The earth is very old and its history has been recorded in geological formations and can be studied. I know that some deny the earth is old and use Noah’s flood to explain all geological features including fossil evidence, but this is hardly a scientific position. That the earth is old and fossils represent a record of the history of life on earth is considered a scientific fact by the scientific community.3. The history of life on earth shows a progression of forms that are increasingly different from modern forms the further back in time you go. This progression demands an explanation. In addition, the current distribution of organisms in the environment is highly dependent on the history of that species and its interaction with other species and the environment. Having a framework within which to explain HOW life came to be diversified can help answer questions about current species distribution.And finally, the part you are actually attacking...4. The scientific consensus is that the Theory of Evolution is currently the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. HOW life came to be diversified and structured like it is can be adequately explained by the ToE without resorting to unobserved, unsupported process (such as intelligent design or creation ex niliho).In short, the ToE is a framework that is used to explain how and why life on this planet is so diverse. The ToE doesn’t require molecules to Mozart nor is it one of the premises or assumptions of the ToE. The ToE is a model, a framework that is used to explain how life on this planet has come to be diverse. For example, there is no requirement that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. But, the ToE provides a framework within which to understand and explain the observations that have been made that indicate that chimps and humans do indeed share a common ancestor.What doesn’t seem to be clear to ToE deniers is that even if it was discovered that all kinds of creatures were created ex niliho only 6,000 years ago, the ToE would still remain solid. It would still be the best explanation for how life on earth has become diversified. We would have to tweak it somewhat, but the core principals would remain. It is observed facts.(note: I think if you used your math skills to analyze the probability that life diversified from a small number of kinds that were created 6,000 years ago, that would also prove to be impossible - for example, even for a genus like Drosophila to diversify into what it is today would require mutations at a rate that is completely untenable. Of course, you could speculate, as Faith does, about a super-genome that existed at creation, but that is way more unrealistic than anything the ToE proposes) 1. In your last thread about this mathematical proof, I pointed out how you lifted the values for your parameters out of context from the papers you cited without addressing their arguments or conclusions. This is dishonest within a scientific context. Unless the paper you are presenting here addresses those issues I brought up previously, there is really no need for me to go further with this.2. How evolution occurs at a molecular level requires more than 2 parameters to model it. It is not just the make-up of genes that determines an organism’s phenotype, but the interaction of those genes with each other and with the environment. You have no parameter in your model for interactions.3. You seem to be under the misconception that genes are the blueprint for a trait, but reality is not that simple. Yes, genes determine phenotype, but there is no such thing as an arm gene or wing gene. You model assumes that in order to produce a biological structure, the gene needs to provide the blueprint or recipe for that trait. That is an overly simplistic way of understanding how the genotype determines phenotype. Your model does not take this into account. Your model assumes, incorrectly, that new biological features just pop into existence where they previously did not exist. This is not how the ToE predicts that new biological functions arise. New biological functions arise through modification of existing functions. The processes involved are: duplication, gene regulation, epigenetic modifications, environmental interactions, developmental processes, and changes to protein sequence. Your model only considers that latter process.4. At best, your model could cause us to rethink how the evolutionary process occurs. It may indicate that there is a process in the long term scheme of evolution progress that we have overlooked or underestimated. I myself tend to think that there is something additional going on that the ToE has overlooked. If I had to choose a category within to place my particular position in this EvC debate (which I am uncomfortable doing), I would consider myself to be a theistic evolutionist. Thus I would not preclude the intervention of God in the evolutionary process. However, this would be very difficult, if not impossible to examine scientifically and so, at this point, remains just a personal belief and not a scientific position.5. Without an alternative model, the ToE will not be abandoned. Scientists would abandon the ToE if a better model comes along, although the adoption of an alternative model would be very hard fought. The reason is the ToE works, very well I might add, to predict and explain a wide range of biological and ecological phenomenon. It simply works. It is the best model/framework for studying biological systems we have. BAR NONE. There is no competing model (not even a close second) that can serve to explain the diversity and relationships of life on this planet. No, intelligent design is NOT a competing model. It has little to no explanatory power. No, creationism is NOT a competing model; it is in direct contradiction to accepted scientific facts. There just is NO competing model. It is fine to challenge the premises of the ToE, but without a functional model that explains the facts better, there is no real point in proposing that the ToE should be scrapped. What is it about your model that explains the facts better?The rest of your post is just trash-talk and taunting. Ignoring...HBD

A Brief critique of your thesis

quote:

---

Since these four processes are factual, i.e. they are known by actual experience or observation, we can use the scientific method to test whether they really can do what the evolutionary idea holds they can do, and in that way determine whether the evolution theory is a valid scientific theory or a pseudoscientific myth equivalent to the flat Earth theory.

---

Except you are not technically using the scientific method to address this issue; you are developing a model. You do not present empirical observations of your conclusions.

quote:

---

The vast majority of these structures are biologically nonfunctional, while only a tiny fraction of them are biologically functional.

---

It is unclear what you mean by biologically functional. Is lead biologically functional? How about phosphorus? or carbon?

quote:

---

For this reason, the comparison of E.coli and human evolution only through generations is imprecise and it goes in favor of the evolution theory. But we will use it anyway to give the advantage to the theory.

---

One of the sources you cited, (Van Hofwegen et al, 2016) showed that this promoter capture could occur in as few as 12 generations. Why did you not mention that?

quote:

---

this processes resulted in a total of 0 — zero new functions.

---

Cit+ utilization IS a new function.

quote:

---

So, all that needs to happen is to move the citrate transport gene close to a promoter that is actually active under oxic conditions. Once this is done, citrate will enter the bacterium and be used for energy. And, this is exactly what happened. Nothing structurally new needed to be evolved.

---

Moving the gene closer to the promoter is a structural change in the DNA. The genome did undergo structural alteration.

quote:

---

So, we have an enormous discrepancy between the knowledge acquired through the scientific method and the evolution theory — the scientific method clearly shows that the four processes of evolution cannot do what the evolution theory holds they can do.

---

Misrepresentation. This statement is biased opinion, not the conclusion of the scientific method.

quote:

---

Since the difference between humans and chimp is negligible in comparison to the difference between a terrestrial and a fully aquatic mammal,

---

This is not inherently obvious.

quote:

---

and it would require thousands of new functions to form

---

citation needed.

quote:

---

And all this would have to happen in species whose degree of evolvability is much lower than that of E. coli since bacteria have large population sizes and thus produce orders of magnitude more variations in the gene pools than mammals.

---

This is not true. Bacteria are haploids that reproduce by clones - meaning exact duplicates of the parent. Mammals are diploids that reproduce by sexual recombination. Bacteria have compact genomes with selection pressure to purge unnecessary baggage. Mutations with even slightly negative fitness are quickly weeded out. Mammals have large genomes with lots of extra stuff that is not under selection pressure. Mammals can survive quite well with mutations that are moderately deleterious. Bacteria generally live in a very restricted environment, with very specific niches and environmental parameters. Mammals live in much more diverse conditions and are more capable of responding to changes in environmental conditions. There is little comparison between bacteria and mammals in this context, particularly not to say that bacteria have a higher degree of evolvability.

quote:

---

The empirical observation of the actual capabilities of evolutionary processes demonstrated clearly and without a doubt that this processes could not have produced those transformations.

---

You don’t cite any empirical observations in mammals, only bacteria. For reasons cited above, this statement is an unsupported leap in logic.

quote:

---

it is obvious that an enormous number of variations is required in order for gills to form.

---

Again, not inherently obvious. How many variations are required to form gills? You have no idea... but obviously it must be an enormous number.

quote:

---

Let’s give another advantage to the evolution theory and suppose a really primitive and simple gills which are coded with only one average eukaryotic gene. Its size is 1346 base pairs or nucleotides ( Yubo Hou and Senjie Lin, 2009).

---

There is nothing in this reference about a gill gene. And the reference to 1346 base pairs should be 1346kbp for the average eukaryotic gene. You call it giving the advantage to the ToE, but you are really just making stuff up that might have a lower value than reality.ABE2: This average size of a gene was bugging me so I followed the references to the original source. 1,346 base pairs is correct. In the reference I read they wrote it as 1.346kbp and I read it as 1,346kbp. I mean who writes 1.346kbp???? Anyways, strike out my correction on the average size of eukaryotic genes. /ABE2

quote:

---

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... 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.

---

Again, giving every possible advantage to the evolutionary theory but just making stuff up. You have no indication what it really takes to make gills and what genes are required. You have no idea what this deformation tolerance actually is. If you want this argument to be considered empirically derived, then these numbers need to be empirical, not just made up to favor evolutionary theory.

quote:

---

The researchers put the maximum possible number of variations in the gene pools during the entire history of life on Earth at 10^43 (David T.F Dryden et al. 2008).

---

This is what I called you on previously for citing a number out of context without addressing the author’s arguments and conclusions. Their abstract states:

quote:

---

We suggest that the vastness of protein sequence space is actually completely explorable during the populating of the Earth by life by considering upper and lower limits for the number of organisms, genome size, mutation rate and the number of functionally distinct classes of amino acids. We conclude that rather than life having explored only an infinitesimally small part of sequence space in the last 4 Gyr, it is instead quite plausible for all of functional protein sequence space to have been explored and that furthermore, at the molecular level, there is no role for contingency.
  —2008

---

How do you respond to their work?ABE: Oh and I just realized that the 10^43 number is for amino acids while your "functional space size of 1.54x10^405 is based on base pairs. There is 1/3 the number of amino acids in a protein as there are base pairs plus you have to calculate in degeneracy. /ABE

quote:

---

Majority of people believe this myth because they are not familiar with the mentioned fact.

---

Scientists accept evolutionary theory because it is demonstrable and provides the best explanation we currently have for the diversity of life on earth.

quote:

---

Researchers in the field of evolutionary biology promote this myth because it is imperative for them to continue to secure funding and employment.

---

Nonsense. How would research collapse if evolutionary theory were overturned and a new theory that better explains observations took over?

quote:

---

And of course, all the ‘New Atheist’ crowd believes and adores this myth for ideological reasons and because this allows them to live in an illusion of ‘intellectually fulfilled atheists’. That is why there is a constant supply and demand of books, articles, movies, webpages, interviews, TV shows, lectures, and other activities and material that promote, defend and support this myth. But reality doesn’t care about personal motives and interests of these people and it puts them into the category of Flat Earthers and other individuals who hold fictional beliefs and deny easily verifiable scientific facts.

---

This just degenerates into conspiracy theory and anti-scientific name-calling. If you want your ideas to be taken seriously by scientific minded persons, then this type of tripe needs to go.HBDEdited by herebedragons, : No reason given.Edited by herebedragons, : ABE2

Uhmm... wow, what can I say... That is an utterly ridiculous equivocation. There certainly are such things as phenotype, genotype, physical properties, etc... that is what science studies; the physical properties of the universe. These interactions of force and particles take on physical properties which we can study. I specifically discussed your model in both of my posts. You responded to one minor point (and in a way that really makes no sense). So actually addressing your argument directly and going through it point by point is a "red herring?" The only thing you want to discuss is that you did the math right? It's a red herring to discuss where you got the numbers from or the assumptions you put into your model? Do you even know the meanings of the words you use?I put a lot of effort into reviewing your paper and made several comments about how you could improve the work and parts where you need to provide better support for your premises. You can only respond to one minor point with a completely meaningless, abstract, bag of hot air?HBD

Do you still stand by this statement? Message 187HBD

The ToE is the idea or the theory that the processes of mutation, genetic drift, migration and selection (which are all observable and have empirical support) are sufficient to explain the diversification of biological life without having to invoke unobservable, unproven processes.How often do you think scientists invoke unobservable or unproven processes? I am not asking if you think these processes are sufficient to explain the diversification of life on earth - I realize you do not think so. But these processes I mentioned (mutation, drift, migration and selection) are the only evolutionary processes we know of that can generate biodiversity (there may be some variations on a theme, but these are the basics). In every case where evolution is being discussed, scientists will talk in terms of these processes and how they explain the data.Do scientists invoke additional processes or mechanisms to explain biodiversity? If you think so, please present examples of such.Your issue is that you do not believe that these processes are sufficient to explain biodiversity and that there are additional mechanisms required such as the supergenome or the flood bottleneck. At this point, there is no evidence that either of these things are real. That is what you, or anyone who wants to overturn the ToE, needs to demonstrate is that these additional mechanisms or processes are real and that they are essential to explain biodiversity.So could we please dispose of this abuse of scientists and their supposed delusion regarding their use of scientific methodology? Scientists use the ToE to make predictions and explain patterns of biodiversity. You just think the theory is insufficient to do so and requires a leap of faith to explain biodiversity.HBD

What's next? Are you're going to go on about the Aether.Your numbers game does not address particles and forces; it addresses amino acids, nucleotides and phenotypes (gills).I think I am going to have to let this go, since you are incapable of rational discussion.You have my critique of your thesis. I reject your proposal.HBD

Congratulations! You have defeated me without so much as lifting an argument!!!! Impressive.

This statement proves you didn't even read my messages and/or are incapable of understanding them. Either way, it's hardly worth repeating. You can go back and actually read them if you are actually interested in a discussion. I addressed BOTH; had you read my posts you would know what I actually argued rather than just making up what I said. You didn't even read my messages did you? Hardly... I conceded defeat because you seem to be incapable of discussion and rather you simply resort to taunting, accusations of logical fallacies (when it’s not even apparent you understand the logical fallacy you accuse me of committing) and meaningless rebuttals (e.g. Message 187 and Message 191). Your argument doesn't address particles and forces; it addresses amino acids, proteins and phenotypes (e.g. gills).If you won't even read my posts, there is nothing else I can do but to mock and ridicule you and I am trying to avoid doing that.HBD