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

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

I want to answer this but it means rereading the article and noting the parts that confuse me. I'll try to get to that. The best I can explain it at the moment is that you seem to use words and concepts in a way that is unfamiliar to me. You may be using them correctly but if I can't understand them it leaves me confused. Anyway I'll try to be more specific when I can get to it.I do want to repeat that your argument against evolution is the first one to show up here at EvC that I understand at all and I think it deserves more consideration than it is getting.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, at least I'm famous. 😀On the road right now, working my way home from a dragonfly conference in Minnesota. My laptop died so sending this with my phone.It's interesting that working scientists manage to use the theory of evolution on our jobs every day without discovering that it doesn't work. I think the creationists need to up their game a lot before the can expect to convince anyone but themselves that the theory is incorrect.

Oh but you DON'T actually "use" the ToE on your jobs, you merely assume its relevance and appropriate its terms to your work, but no, it is not actually of any real use. Unless you are merely talking about variation within the Kind, which is not the ToE. (sentence removed)Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Why is it that ignorance and stupidity are so often expressed with such arrogance?

Why is it that you can't address what I actually said?OK I'll remove the part about deceiving yourself, which I guess is the part you're objecting to. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Unfortunately your definition of the evolution theory(ToE) is not "more accurate representation of the scientific view because "phenotype" is an instance of human language and not an instance of science.Science is defined as ..." intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the natural world through observation and experiment.", while the phrase "structure and behaviour of the natural world" boils down to two things - forces and clusters of particles. These two things are essentially all that exists in the natural world. Everything else are abstractions - objects created in the human mind that do not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as ideas and abstractions and are expresed through human language.That said, your definition of the ToE, rather than being "more accurate", is actually tautological. It asserts that the ToE is true in every possible interpretation. Let's return to the "structure and behaviour of the natural world" to find out why.Outside the world of human mind there are no such things as phenotype, genotype, natural selection, life.... but only the interaction of forces and clusters of particles. In that sense, the ToE takes over once a cluster of particles, lets call it A, has one specific property that no other cluster of particles has, and that is the ability to produce cluster of particles nearly identical to itself. Let's call the product of this ability A'. IOWs, A' is an offspring of A. Given the instance of human abstractions, A' is the result of a process called 'descent with modifications'.Now, at this stage the environment (natural selection) is not important, all that is important is the ability of A to produce slightly modified version of itself (A'). The environment kicks in at the next stage. But first let's define the word "environment" 'more accurately'. Since the natural world is nothing but forces and clusters of particles, the environment is, you guessed it... cluster of particles. Let's call it E. Now, what does it mean when we say that an organism has adapted to its environment?Well, we imply that cluster of particles A' retained the abitilty to produce cluster of particles nearly identical to itself because its 'modifications' were such that they fitted E.If we now assume that A had another offspring, let's call it A'', what does it mean when we say that A'' didn't adapt to its environment? We imply that A'' didn't retain its abitilty to produce cluster of particles nearly identical to itself because its 'modifications' were such that they didn't fit E.Let's now go to your definition of the ToE:"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."When this definition is translated from abstract language into the language of natural world, here is how it looks like: The evolution theory is an idea according to which new clusters of particles are produced through the interaction of forces and clusters of particles in a process often referred to as modified clusters of particles. Or simply put: the evolution theory is an idea according to which things change in a process that changes things. Now, is it possible to refute something like that? Of course, it is not. By such definition, the ToE is true in every possible interpretation, i.e. it is a tautology.Now, here is the most scientific definition: The evolution theory is an idea according to which the interaction of forces and clusters of particles can result in such a cluster of particles which is predefined by other cluster of particles.Here is the interpretation: in the above explanation we saw that the only thing that differentiate the ability of A' and A'' to retain the ability to produce cluster of particles nearly identical to themselves is the environment E. Since the environment E is just another cluster of particles, the evolutionary idea boils down to the hypothesis that one cluster of particles can be modified into what is predefined by another cluster of particles.My model, which you avoided like the plague, simply states that this is impossible because the number of modifications in nature is insufficient to overcome the ratio between modifications which do not fit what is predefined by E and those that do.All responses in this topic, your two lengthy posts included, are just red herrings trying to distract from the fact that the whole evolution theory is just one complex tautology.

I object to everything you said. You clearly have no idea what science is or how scientists work. Your assertions are silly nonsense and the only discussion that we could have would be pointless back and forth.

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 interaction of forces and particles is the only thing that creates 'slightly modified' clusters of particles (offsprings) that are important for the ToE, because modified clusters either fit the environment E or they don't. On the other hand, phenotype is a just a word - creation of the human mind that describes the fact that one cluster of particles (genotype) resulted is another cluster of particles(phenotype). Since phenotype is what is selected for, genotype-phenotype distinction is completely irrelevant for the question whether the TEO is true, or IOWs, whether the interaction of forces and particles can result in such a cluster of particles which fits E.

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

@herebedragons
You are the one who is incapable of rational discussion since every statement of yours, which opposes mine, is a logical fallacy. You pick the one you want and I will show you what logical fallacy it falls under.

So again... ... you know better than the people who actually do the jobs. When you get on a plane, you must go up to the cockpit and tell the pilot, "You don't actually use those pedal thingies." He insists that he does, but you know better.