Unrealized Genomes as the Ultimate Falsification of the Theory of Evolution

[Contradiction]

Can you give an example that is posited by evolutionary theory?

A mutation creating a new skin tone and that being an advantage in certain environments seems to match all the points of fact.

In addition, I am always very leery about the term "information" as used by creationists. Can you please describe both a metric for information and an objective method of measuring it?

Information, in the context of evolution and biology is any DNA sequence whose expression results in a phenotype that can occupy a particular ecological niche.

A mutation creating a new skin tone and that being an advantage in certain environments is the formation of new information.

But, the theory of evolution is supposed to explain the origin of information for all the proteins, protein complexes, organs and organ systems that exist today but were not present in the first amoeba-like organism, not merely how a new skin tone is created by altering a couple of molecules in the genome that codes for pre-existing organ. The article at hand deals with the former, so these things you are referring to are beside the point.

 

[sfs]

Your argument is trivially incorrect. You calculate the number of ways of coding for insect wings by assuming 3 specific genes are required, and then allowing for a certain amount of slop in those genes. In reality, you have no idea how many different combinations of completely different genes would generate insect wings, but whatever the number is, it's much, much larger than the one you're using.

You're wasting people's time, including your own, with this kind of stuff.

 

[Contradiction]

300,000 years sounds like a lot, but it's the number of generations that's important.

Why should there be a unique organ? It's hardly going to be common for something that different to develop in a long lived, slowly breeding animal who has dominated its niche and environment.

What sort of new organ are you imagining is likely?

Why should there be a unique organ? Well it's simple, because the first amoeba-like organism had zero organs.

 

[46AND2]

What organs I have that my ancestors from 300,000 years ago didn't have? The article calculates the time required to find the genome with information for previously nonexistent primitive organ. You are simply stating that my ancestors had offspring. What is your point?

Specific offspring. Specific sperm. Specific eggs. To create you, all your ancestors, and all their ancestors. The library of all possible offspring which could have occurred, but didn't, is ridiculously, astronomically larger than the library containing the exact line which created you. Yet here you are.

Post-hoc probability arguments are meaningless. That's the point.

 

[Contradiction]

Your argument is trivially incorrect. You calculate the number of ways of coding for insect wings by assuming 3 specific genes are required, and then allowing for a certain amount of slop in those genes. In reality, you have no idea how many different combinations of completely different genes would generate insect wings, but whatever the number is, it's much, much larger than the one you're using.

You're wasting people's time, including your own, with this kind of stuff.

Give the ultra and highly conserved genes, my replacement tolerance od 60 percent is way to generous. In reality, number of different combinations is much, much smaller than the one I am using.

 

[Contradiction]

Specific offspring. Specific sperm. Specific eggs. To create you, all your ancestors, and all their ancestors. The library of all possible offspring which could have occurred, but didn't, is ridiculously, astronomically larger than the library containing the exact line which created you. Yet here you are.

Post-hoc probability arguments are meaningless. That's the point.

It seems you don't know the difference between probability and necessity.

In the context of these evolution debates, when probability argument shows that the odds of a specific bio-structure forming by evolution are astronomically small, an average evolutionist will make this kind of argument:

"There are roughly 10^8 sperm in an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] that makes the odds of "YOU" (the person that YOU are) 10^8 against (cos if a different sperm had fertilised the egg then "YOU" would not have been born, somebody else would have)."

But this argument has nothing to do with probability. This is called - necessity. For example, if you roll a dice 100 times it is necessary to get some numbers. If two individuals produce offspring it is necessary to get offspring with some genetic characteristics.

Probability is the measure of the likeliness of rolling 100 specific numbers that were selected before rolling. Probability of offspring with genetic characteristics xyz is the measure of the likeliness of producing offspring with genetic characteristics xyz that were prespecified before this offspring was born.

So this argument of yours is pure nonsense. It presupposes that probability is not problem for evolution because we have functional structures. This is like the situation in which one person would win the same lottery with the same numbers 100 times in a row and then, after this person and lottery organisers are suspected of manipulating a lottery, they defend themselves by saing: "Post-hoc probability arguments are meaningless."

 

[USincognito]

You can't refute an argument by labeling it and putting it into some category. You must address its premises or conclusion and explain why they are wrong. In the concrete example, the conclusion it that the waiting time required for the appearance of a single and super primitive biological structure, is 862 orders of magnitude longer than the time since Earth’s formation. Also, common descent is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Apparently you missed my point and that's my fault for not being clear.

At this point we have amassed so much evidence that evolution has indeed occurred that any calculation or appeal to statistics which claims to show evolution is impossible can be summarily dismissed.

 

[sfs]

Give the ultra and highly conserved genes, my replacement tolerance od 60 percent is way to generous.

Your response indicates that you did not understand the criticism. You're talking about allowing replacement within the same three genes. I'm asking how many completely different genes, with no relationship to the three, could have produced a similar phenotype. You have no idea what that number is.

 

[xianghua]

Your response indicates that you did not understand the criticism. You're talking about allowing replacement within the same three genes. I'm asking how many completely different genes, with no relationship to the three, could have produced a similar phenotype. You have no idea what that number is.

actually we can get a good estimation. if the chance to get a functional new part is say 1 in a billion, the chance to get any functional system (that need 3 genes) is about 10^27. unless you think that its less then 1 in a billion.

 

[Speedwell]

actually we can get a good estimation. if the chance to get a functional new part is say 1 in a billion, the chance to get any functional system (that need 3 genes) is about 10^27. unless you think that its less then 1 in a billion.

No, those are the odds of getting a specific functional system, not any functional system.

 

[sfs]

actually we can get a good estimation. if the chance to get a functional new part is say 1 in a billion

Making up a a number with no basis whatever is pretty much the definition of "not a good estimate".

 

[tas8831]

P.S. I tried to discuss this here, but that forum is corrupted with atheist fundamentalists who only hide behind science, but would in no way allow any scientific challenges to the evolution theory.

So you came here hoping to find an audience that would swallow this tripe without question?

No need to delve into this much - I will just paste a refutation of your article from that other forum:

"This appears to be a version of the idiotic "tornado in a junkyard" argument. Presumably, it is based on ignorance or misrepresentation of how genes and/or evolution works."

 

[tas8831]

The same is true for their "you don't understand evolution" ad hominems. But that is what people do when they have no arguments.

ad hominem
You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.
Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.​

If it is so, or even appears, that you do not understand evolution, is it RELEVANT to the issue at hand when you are discussing evolution.

Is it not?

It is odd that so many creationists misinterpret/misrepresent 'ad hominem.'

 

[tas8831]

Yes, the one where posters and moderators were screaming about many mistakes in the article, but none of them was able to quote a single paragraph, sentence or word in it, and explain what mistakes are present.

Huh...

This from the first page of replies:

"The argument assumes all mutations have an equal probability of being passed to the next generation, which unless the population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, is untrue. It also assumes that all mutations are equally likely, which even a rudimentary understanding of the translation of codons into amino would provide, not to mention the processes of exaptation, recombination, chromosomal duplication, gene regulation, codon usage bias, horizontal gene transfer, etc.

Honestly, the flaws in the argument are numerous, foundational and show a very poor grasp of basic genetics. I mean even in the first sentence, it describes the first life form as "amoeba-like". Amoeba are eukaryotes. "​

Seems that your depiction of the exchanges were inaccurate.

 

[Shemjaza]

Why should there be a unique organ? Well it's simple, because the first amoeba-like organism had zero organs.

I'm not denying that organisms can develop new organs. (In fact some research has been done into triggering single celled organisms to become multi celled: De novo origins of multicellularity in response to predation).

But how and why would such a change happen to something as complex and slow breeding as a human over only 300,000 years? Our generations take decades and our systems can be vulnerable to large changes, so why expect and what sort og thing would you expect?

 

[tas8831]

MY knowledge about the evolution is not related to the substance of the ARGUMENT in the article, so those people were using fallacious argumentative strategy, i.e. making an Ad hominem attack.

You mean your argument against... evolution?

 

[tas8831]

Information, in the context of evolution and biology is any DNA sequence whose expression results in a phenotype that can occupy a particular ecological niche.

And that makes it Creationist Information Definition #41.

 

[xianghua]

No, those are the odds of getting a specific functional system, not any functional system.

no since i talked about any function vs non function.

 

[46AND2]

It seems you don't know the difference between probability and necessity.

In the context of these evolution debates, when probability argument shows that the odds of a specific bio-structure forming by evolution are astronomically small, an average evolutionist will make this kind of argument:

"There are roughly 10^8 sperm in an [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] that makes the odds of "YOU" (the person that YOU are) 10^8 against (cos if a different sperm had fertilised the egg then "YOU" would not have been born, somebody else would have)."

But this argument has nothing to do with probability. This is called - necessity. For example, if you roll a dice 100 times it is necessary to get some numbers. If two individuals produce offspring it is necessary to get offspring with some genetic characteristics.

Probability is the measure of the likeliness of rolling 100 specific numbers that were selected before rolling. Probability of offspring with genetic characteristics xyz is the measure of the likeliness of producing offspring with genetic characteristics xyz that were prespecified before this offspring was born.

So this argument of yours is pure nonsense. It presupposes that probability is not problem for evolution because we have functional structures. This is like the situation in which one person would win the same lottery with the same numbers 100 times in a row and then, after this person and lottery organisers are suspected of manipulating a lottery, they defend themselves by saing: "Post-hoc probability arguments are meaningless."

No. I am not talking about necessity. ANY roll of the dice, or ANY individual produced, is a failure, unless it led to you. I'm talking about a die with at least 10^8 sides, thrown in a specific sequence over thousands of iterations.

The odds, 300,000 years ago, that the specific sequence that is you would occur, is ridiculous.

Every time a creationist responds to this type of claim, they say what you do, that SOMEBODY gets born, so the odds really aren't that bad. It's like saying, I need to roll a five to win the game. Then roll a four, and say, well SOME number had to come up, so I win. NO.

Sure, it's a necessity NOW. Because the odds that the offspring led to you improved with each successful "roll of the dice" until finally, every roll was a success, and the probability is one. That is why we can't use my aforementioned probability statistic to determine the truth of the observation that you are you. Likewise, you cannot use a manufactured probability alone to reject the data we observe that is consistent with evolution.

As for your multiple consecutive lottery wins...the guilt of the "winner" is not determined by odds alone, but an investigation into whether the event really occurred naturally. And thus far, the investigation into how we were created has failed to show any evidence that a magical being poofed us into existence, and mountains of evidence consistent with evolution.

And this is just one problem with your argument. @sfs is trying to show you how even your calculation is flawed in the first place, because you simply don't know enough about how genetics works.

 

[tas8831]

actually we can get a good estimation. if the chance to get a functional new part is say 1 in a billion, the chance to get any functional system (that need 3 genes) is about 10^27. unless you think that its less then 1 in a billion.

Cool story.

But... Shouldn't it be EASIER to get ANY functional part instead of one specific one?

I go to an ice cream shop that boasts of having 31 flavors. I really want a rum raisin cone.
Rum raisin is one flavor out of, I don't know, thousands of flavors of ice cream.

Is it more likely that I can get a rum raisin ice cream cone at this shop, or ANY ice cream cone?

Or how about this - a robot penguin wants a Carmen Ghia and so goes to a used car lot. A Carmen Ghia is one of thousands of car models. Can robot penguin calculate the odds of finding a Carmen Ghia at this car lot, as opposed to ANY car?