Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9084 total)
113 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 111 visitors)
Newest Member: evolujtion_noob
Post Volume: Total: 897,408 Year: 8,520/6,534 Month: 1/1,588 Week: 358/430 Day: 1/46 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
Taq
Member
Posts: 8612
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 213 of 248 (837081)
07-26-2018 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by forexhr
07-26-2018 4:29 AM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
forexhr writes:
In Lenski's experiment, one pre-existing biological thing (which enables citrate utilization) was moved from one location to another near the switch (pre-existing biological thing ) that is active under oxic conditions. So, no new biological thing appeared in Lenski's experiment.
That is wrong. The changes resulted in an arrangement of particles that had never existed before, so that counts as a new function under your definitions.
I 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.
This claim is falsified by the simple fact that there are millions of species, all with different genomes. Obviously, it doesn't have to be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by forexhr, posted 07-26-2018 4:29 AM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by forexhr, posted 07-27-2018 5:49 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8612
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 217 of 248 (837127)
07-27-2018 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by forexhr
07-27-2018 5:49 AM


Re: Ridiculous nonsense.
forexhr writes:
The changes in Lenski's experiment resulted in a different location of pre-existing arrangement of particles, . . .
A different arrangement of parts that has never existed before is a new function according to your own definitions.
If you had actually read what I said in above comments then you'd know that specificity requirement means that the general arrangements of particles that result from the interaction of forces and particles, won't provide biological functions, but only specific ones.
There are many, many arrangement of particles that do provide biological function, so you are wrong.
Millions of different species are not millions of different general arrangements of particles but millions of different specific arrangements of particles.
Every single genome is a different arrangement of parts. Your thesis is just wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by forexhr, posted 07-27-2018 5:49 AM forexhr has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8612
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 219 of 248 (837137)
07-27-2018 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by forexhr
07-27-2018 12:55 PM


Re: Bad form, false premises
forexhr writes:
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.
This claim isn't supported by any science and is just a bare assertion.
I have only one assumption, that of 50 percent deformation tolerance, which is both empirically founded and way too generous for the evolution theory.
What empirical measurements back this claim?
We can see that the bat wing is ultimately derived from the fins of bony fish, and there is way more than a 50% change in that limb. Your claims just don't hold up to reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by forexhr, posted 07-27-2018 12:55 PM forexhr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by forexhr, posted 07-28-2018 4:28 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8612
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 242 of 248 (837340)
07-30-2018 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by forexhr
07-28-2018 4:28 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises
forexhr writes:
Well, you can keep repeating that if it makes you happy. But you cannot refute an argument by repeating like a mantra that it is not based on science.
The point is that you haven't presented any science that backs it.
So, we observe two biological things, the same as we observe man made things, for e.g. Ferrari 458 and Lamborghini Aventador. And these things have similarities. Now, what these observations have to do with the deformation tolerance? Or in other words, what a certain degree of similarity between things have to do with the fact that a certain degree of structural deformation of these things will destroy their ability to perform functions? Well, obviously nothing. The fact that Ferrari 458 and Lamborghini Aventador are similar won't magically make them resistant to damages.
So, what are you trying to say with this kind of statements? They don't make any sense. You can't just throw random sentences here and think that this somehow challenges my arguments. It doesn't. It just demonstrates your inability to engage in meaningful discourse.
Where is your scientific evidence that a physical feature can not tolerate more than a 50% change?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by forexhr, posted 07-28-2018 4:28 AM forexhr has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8612
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 247 of 248 (837386)
07-31-2018 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by forexhr
07-31-2018 6:17 AM


Re: Bad form, false premises, bad conclusions continued ...
forexhr writes:
So guys, it seems you don't have emotional, physical, intellectual or mental capacity to provide your numbers for the deformation tolerance.
We are not the ones who put a limit on the amount of change that can occur for a physical feature. You did. Therefore, it is up to you to provide the numbers. Without those numbers, your claims fall flat.
Melting down a mechanical watch or randomizing all nucleotides that code a biological thing would constitute a 100 percent deformation of the thing. Now, do you need "science" to know that this would destroy the ability of the thing to perform its previous function?
I can find two functional proteins that differ by more than 50%. So where did you get the limit of 50% from?
The reason you guys are so vehemently opposed to provide values for this tolerance, is because you know that every realistic estimate would destroy your dogmatic beliefs.
The chimp and human genomes differ by a few percent. You ignore this fact because it destroys your dogmatic beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by forexhr, posted 07-31-2018 6:17 AM forexhr has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022