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.
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.
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?
Re: Bad form, false premises, bad conclusions continued ...
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.