Darwin's Illusion

[leroy]

Wow! The same claim that you have made endlessly about how more positive than negative mutations are needed. That only shows a total lack of understanding of natural selection.

No no no quote my actual words / claim

 

[leroy]

That is not exactly what you have been claiming.

Then what is it that I was claiming???? Could it be that you made a strawman?

 

[leroy]

First you have to agree, then you're allowed to ask questions.

Jajaja yea Internet atheist are certanity a very strange and unique sect

 

[Subduction Zone]

No no no quote my actual words / claim

There have been too many variations. Every time that people try to explain to you how you are wrong you do minor rewording.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then what is it that I was claiming???? Could it be that you made a strawman?

No, that is your specialty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jajaja yea Internet atheist are certanity a very strange and unique sect

No, others are on to you. You have to show a minimal amount of honesty to make demands. Any person that values honesty is going to get tired of your techniques after a while. Change your debating technique and people will be more than happy to respond.

 

[leroy]

Allele frequency changes continuously. Alleles are variants of the same genes that already exist. There is no mechanism that creates new genes. I’ll clarify further below.

A gene is analogous to a statement that conveys a meaning, even if you randomly substitute all letters of the statement, it doesn’t mean that you now got a new statement, it means you transformed the statement into random junk.

A gene is distinct segment of the strand of DNA with specific length/sequence (a statement in a paragraph) that constitute a unique code to perform a specific function such as encoding the configurations of the three-dimensional protein structures to direct specific purposes in the body. Each gene is a unique code for function. Even if you randomly substitute all bases, it doesn’t mean that you now encoded a new function; it only means that you damaged the existing code. The more the random bases you substitute, the more the damage till you reach the point that original code can no longer perform its function.

A pile of random junk is not a new gene. a new gene is about encoding a new meaningful function not merely a random/purposeless new sequence.

The sorites paradox is about “when X can no longer be defined as X”. the answer is simply when the definition of X no longer applies.

The only way you can apply the sorites paradox to the specific context of my argument (with respect to the alleged process of gradual change to the gene), is to ask, “when the gene would no longer be a gene?", simply when the sequence can no longer perform its coded function. Random mess is not a new gene.

It’s a construction of a historical narrative (Geisteswissenschaften ) as Ernst Mayr said. Mere imagination based on false interpretations of observations. The problem is not the observations but rather the false interpretations emerging from prior false suppositions. There is no route that gives rise to the new genes that are necessary to encode for new complex functions, (random scrambling of base pairs doesn’t give rise to these codes, it’s really a ridiculous idea), you may imagine or insist that there is such route, but the fact remains, there is not. it’s mere imagination.

The MS as scientific theory is already disproved, and the proposed new paradigm (EES) is not agreed upon. That is “yesterday” not “tomorrow”. See #7947

Darwin's Illusion | Page 398 | Religious Forums

The dilemma is what is “naturalistic”. How do you define it? Is it an entity within your domain of perception and intellect? What if an aspect of reality is beyond that limited domain? Or can’t be explained through limited knowledge from that domain? Does it mean that such aspect doesn’t or can’t exist? Is that logical?

You don’t understand what “naturalism” means. the essence of naturalism is the principle that naturalism is intended/promoted as a “posteriori” view. It's not and should not be a commitment in advance to certain ontology. It’s not an absolute commitment but rather a provisional commitment that should be open to revision even for what may be perceived as a radical kind of entities, forces or relations.

You want to exclude what you consider as non-naturalistic. But what are the criteria that define the “non-naturalistic”? Is it being unknown, unseen, or being of a nature that cannot be understood? Isn’t this exactly the case with all natural forces? How is it different from the so-called “supernatural”? Is there such thing as “supernatural”? Or is it simply another “unknown”?

The question to you is why should the explanation be within your direct domain of perception/intellect?

Do you understand how/why/what it means that time emerged from a reality with no time, or space emerged from a reality with no space, or a universe from nothing? Do you have a naturalistic or can you have a naturalistic explanation for a domain without time, space or physical matter? The fact is that you don’t, you only have observations and logic that tells you that time, space and the universe happened/started regardless of your inability to understand how it came into reality. How the beginning of life is different or why should it be different? Similar to time, space and the entire universe, Life did happen, it’s fact even if the so-called naturalistic explanation doesn’t exist or doesn’t apply.

Naturalism (as a posteriori view) should accommodate any conclusion driven by data no matter how radical it appears to be. No assumption of any kind should be established as a priori tell the data is first examined.

Naturalism is not a classification of entities being natural or not, such classification is only a conception or rather a misconception that tries to impose imaginary confinements on reality. Naturalism is only about data logically pointing to conclusions, that’s all there is.

Let’s not confuse evolution and abiogenesis. Even so both are about “change” but the process is different. The cells/molecules of a living system may get replaced but the context was abiogenesis, I said that the nonliving organic molecules can’t persist long enough to sustain the hypothesized change towards a complex macromolecule and eventually complex living system without getting disintegrated very early in the process.

Yes, living cells regenerate/replace damaged or dead cells, but the nonliving organic molecules may only disintegrate very quickly without any chance for the alleged very slow increase in complexity as postulated by abiogenesis.

You don’t understand the fallacy; I’m not the one who is claiming a view to be true on the basis that it was not proven false. You are.

Regardless, you’re not making any sense! "no known route" necessarily means that the route is unknown, " The precise pathways haven't been elucidated and may never be” also means that the precise pathways are unknown. Hence your notion is merely a choice to believe and defend what you don’t know.

The first is a claim of knowledge; the second is an acknowledgment of a lack of knowledge. You acknowledged that the route is not known.

Thanks for your contribution. I enjoyed reading your post.

Now prepare for 100+ post of semantic games and zero refutations for your cliams.

You will get these type of responses.

"Gene duplicación has been observed, see there is you example of new genes"

 

[leroy]

No, others are on to you. You have to show a minimal amount of honesty to make demands. Any person that values honesty is going to get tired of your techniques after a while. Change your debating technique and people will be more than happy to respond.

You: support you claim

Me: what claim ?

You: no no , I will not tell you what claim


Who do you think is being dishonest and inmature?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for your contribution. I enjoyed reading your post.

Now prepare for 100+ post of semantic games and zero refutations for your cliams.

You will get these type of responses.

"Gene duplicación has been observed, see there is you example of new genes"

And that shows how scientifically illiterate that you are. If you understood what was wrong with his claims, trying to quote mine scientists is one of his favorite techniques, you would be face palming furiously and saying "with friends like this who needs enemies?"

 

[metis]

I am open to be corrected, but as far as i know that is very very very uncommon

Depends on how one deals with "uncommon" as there's no magic rule as how long the match could take place. But remember that evolution of species takes a very long time, plus the size of the gene pool also is a factor. Either way, it happens.

 

[leroy]

And that shows how scientifically illiterate that you are. If you understood what was wrong with his claims, trying to quote mine scientists is one of his favorite techniques, you would be face palming furiously and saying "with friends like this who needs enemies?"

Well can you quote a mistake made by @LIIA in that post? .... perhaps just a few semantic mistakes , nothing relevant

 

[Subduction Zone]

You: support you claim

Me: what claim ?

You: no no , I will not tell you what claim


Who do you think is being dishonest and inmature?

And there you go with a strawman argument again.

Your arguments can only fool other fools. It does not work on anyone that can reason rationally and knows the rules of debate. You have put yourself in the position that you are in. Only you can get you out,.,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well can you quote a mistake made by @LIIA in that post? .... perhaps just a few semantic mistakes , nothing relevant

Read the responses to his posts. If you did not understand the first time around what makes you think that you will understand if someone does so for you again?

You need to quit playing this silly game.

 

[leroy]

Depends on how one deals with "uncommon" as there's no magic rule as how long the match could take place. But remember that evolution of species takes a very long time, plus the size of the gene pool also is a factor. Either way, it happens.

Can you quote an example where that was obverved in popluations that reproduce sexually?


Sure it happens but that mechanism cant be an important contributor.....it is so rare and so unlikely that is not relevant.


I have arround 3 billion base pairs in my genome

So imagine that I was born with a neutral mutation in base pair number 1,000

And imagine that a mutation in base pair number 2000 would also be neutral by itself .... but the combo of the 2 mutations would resoult in a bebefit.

What are the odds that me or any of my descendents have a random mutation in that specific spot?

The mutation rate is about 100 mutations per generation.

So you have 100 shots and you have to hit a specific target amoug 3Billion posibilities.

The probability is 3,000,000,000 / 100 = 30,000,000

Since the first mutation is neutral, it is unlikely to survive much, (genetic dirift will remove it)


So sure it can happen , but not very often

 

[leroy]

And there you go with a strawman argument again.

Your arguments can only fool other fools. It does not work on anyone that can reason rationally and knows the rules of debate. You have put yourself in the position that you are in. Only you can get you out,.,

I am asking what claim should I support....what "rules" of debate am I breaking?


Ohhhh yea you have your own language.....maybe debate means something else in your language

 

[leroy]

Read the responses to his posts. If you did not understand the first time around what makes you think that you will understand if someone does so for you again?

You need to quit playing this silly game.

You are accusing @LIIA for making mistakes and you are not even willing to quote such mistakes.......that is arrogant dishonest and inmature

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you quote an example where that was obverved in popluations that reproduce sexually?


Sure it happens but that mechanism cant be an important contributor.....it is so rare and so unlikely that is not relevant.


I have arround 3 billion base pairs in my genome

So imagine that I was born with a neutral mutation in base pair number 1,000

And imagine that a mutation in base pair number 2000 would also be neutral by itself .... but the combo of the 2 mutations would resoult in a bebefit.

What are the odds that me or any of my descendents have a random mutation in that specific spot?

The mutation rate is about 100 mutations per generation.

So you have 100 shots and you have to hit a specific target amoug 3Billion posibilities.

The probability is 3,000,000,000 / 100 = 30,000,000

Since the first mutation is neutral, it is unlikely to survive much, (genetic dirift will remove it)


So sure it can happen , but not very often

I am not sure if I agree with Metis, but your math is terribly wrong. You need to study lotteries a bit more. Lotteries do not have just one person entered at a time.

Let's consider again. Yes, we acquire about 100 mutations per generation. Those do not just "disappear". Your two parents had 100 mutations each and you had 100 from them combined, the same applies to all of the generations before you. You are the most recent edition of an ever increasing number of mutations. So it is just not those two mutations that could combine and work together. There are countless possible matches. I would hate to try to calculate the odds. But with more players there is a greater chance of a winner.

Your mistake is looking at just John J Smith of 111 Main st. winning the lottery when you should be looking at the odds of someone winning the lottery.

 

[metis]

Can you quote an example where that was obverved in popluations that reproduce sexually?

I did my graduate studies in anthropology at Wayne State University whereas there's on-going studies on this process using fruit flies as they reproduce rather rapidly. By keeping the gene pools smaller, a new type of fruit fly will emerge roughly 10 years that is a different species. Selective breeding can shorten that process but the time it takes is not uniform.

BTW, no genetic engineering is used in that study.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are accusing @LIIA for making mistakes and you are not even willing to quote such mistakes.......that is arrogant dishonest and inmature

No, there was no "accusation". I stated facts. There is a difference. And you were told how to find out how he was wrong. And if the explanations were beyond you then it would do no good to quote what you cannot understand once again. Pay me some money and I will do it. I do not work for free.

 

[Ostronomos]

No, there was no "accusation". I stated facts. There is a difference. And you were told how to find out how he was wrong. And if the explanations were beyond you then it would do no good to quote what you cannot understand once again. Pay me some money and I will do it. I do not work for free.

This coming from a deluded atheist of all things.