Unrealized Genomes as the Ultimate Falsification of the Theory of Evolution

[Tanj]

One that requires insect wings.

You will have to explain to the mushrooms, squirrels and oak trees how they need insect wings for their forest niche. While you are there, also explain it to the ants and other non flying forest dwelling insects.

 

[sfs]

First you were complaining that I didn't include structurally distinct insect wings into my calculations.

No, I didn't do that. I complained that you didn't include structurally distinct proteins in your calculations, since you should have done so.

Now, after I included a trillion of them, although observation shows that there are not even a thousand, let alone a trillion of structurally distinct ways to occupy a particular niche, you complain that this number is not justified.

How could observation possibly show that there are not even a thousand different proteins that could contribute to insect wings? According to the theory you're attacking, insect wings have evolved exactly once. That means we have a single sample of the possible proteins that could have been involved. Where are these other observations coming from?

Of course the number is justified, and not only justified, but also way too generous towards your theory.

Sorry, but saying "it's justified" isn't a justification. Have you ever done any kind of scientific research yourself? You seem not to know what constitutes scientific evidence or how scientists actually justify things.

It is just that your a prior commitment to darwinism can't allow this theory to be false, so you are inventing all sorts of excuses as to why my calculations are wrong.

Horsefeathers. Inventing motivations and assigning then to me is just as futile as inventing numbers and doing calculations with them; in neither case do you have any basis for your claims. Why would I have a prior commitment to "darwinism"? I was raised as a creationist and I was trained as a physicist -- neither entails any commitment to evolution. I accepted evolution because it works, as an explanation and as a way of predicting new data. I reject your argument because I'm quite capable of recognizing bad arguments in my field of professional expertise.

Regarding you complain about evolving a particular gross morphology. Like I have said, it is gross morphology what occupies niches in nature. For that reason, gross morphology is required to occupy a forest niche.

I'm not complaining that you're considering gross morphology. I'm complaining that you have no idea how different gross morphologies translate into what you're calculating, which is the number of proteins possible. One gross morphology can result from many different proteins, and many different morphologies can result from the same proteins. You've made no attempt to connect to real biology at all. How many new proteins are actually involved in insect wings? Are any? The wings are basically just layers of chitin, which already existed in insects.

And no, I see no reason to move on to a different set of equally baseless numbers.

 

[sfs]

...and then you cite a paper demonstrating that far less than the 200 proteins are necessary for function.

Exactly. The point of that paper is that the system could have evolved from a far simpler RNA-based system.

 

[xianghua]

What makes you think that?

the fact that it has no connection? we can estimate the chance to get a new part. it has no connection to the population. is just a simple data.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

the fact that it has no connection? we can estimate the chance to get a new part. it has no connection to the population. is just a simple data.

I think you don't understand how to estimate the chance to 'get a new part' or how it is directly related to population size. For example, here's a paper that calculates the number of generations to evolve a camera eye from a patch of photoreceptors, which gives the relevant considerations and calculations: A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve.

 

[Job 33:6]

yet again, I find myself grossly disappointed in creationists attempts to debunk evolution. Perhaps even moreso by the blatant denialism and intellectual dishonesty displayed while attempting to do so.

 

[tas8831]

That means we have a single sample of the possible proteins that could have been involved. Where are these other observations coming from?...

I'm not complaining that you're considering gross morphology. I'm complaining that you have no idea how different gross morphologies translate into what you're calculating, which is the number of proteins possible. One gross morphology can result from many different proteins, and many different morphologies can result from the same proteins. You've made no attempt to connect to real biology at all. How many new proteins are actually involved in insect wings? Are any? The wings are basically just layers of chitin, which already existed in insects.

This guy's line of 'argumentation' seems similar to those of "Towerwatchman", who has made appearances at a couple of different forums (to include this one, I think) espousing a completely unsupported assertion that any new structure REQUIRES at least 1 brand new protein, which in turn REQUIRES at least 300 "new mutations".
When asked for a justification for either of those claims, one is met with ridicule, condescension, and goal post moving, but never any actual evidence.

Seems the norm amongst them.

 

[xianghua]

I think you don't understand how to estimate the chance to 'get a new part' or how it is directly related to population size. For example, here's a paper that calculates the number of generations to evolve a camera eye from a patch of photoreceptors, which gives the relevant considerations and calculations: A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve.

1) this paper (that i already seen in the past) has no connection to what i said (calculating the number of mutations for a new part).

2) this paper doesnt show how the eye could evolved. they just assume it. they dont even give a calculation at the genetic level. they just talking about steps but not about mutations. even a single step (out of their 1829 steps) like adding a lense may need many amino acids at once. they also starting with a working eye. so even the first step is too complex.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

1) this paper (that i already seen in the past) has no connection to what i said (calculating the number of mutations for a new part).

2) this paper doesnt show how the eye could evolved. they just assume it. they dont even give a calculation at the genetic level. they just talking about steps but not about mutations. even a single step (out of their 1829 steps) like adding a lense may need many amino acids at once. they also starting with a working eye. so even the first step is too complex.

OK, I'm clearly not following quite what you're after, so I'll disengage until I can summon a bit more enthusiasm.

 

[xianghua]

OK, I'm clearly not following quite what you're after, so I'll disengage until I can summon a bit more enthusiasm.

what?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

what?

I've lost interest in trying to figure out what you're really asking, so I'm going to let someone else have a go.

 

[tas8831]

Even if the gross morphology is the direct result of the gene expression....

Wait... REALLY? Golly, in my undergrad and graduate cell biology and genetics classes, including the one I teach, I have totally NEVER heard that????!!!!! Wow, it explains so much! Thanks computer graphic tech dude!

It is the "gross morphology" in which all fossils forms are classified, and that morphology changes not at all for the entire existence of any creature until it goes extinct.

Well sure, unless you are looking at, say humans.

In fact they confused those changes in "gross morphology" from baby to adult as separate species..

Really? Cool - you must have a bunch of examples of this.

... The only connection they have between forms is those claimed "missing common ancestors", imagination and wishfull thinking. Along with incorrect classifications.....

Evolution is indeed one of the most nonsensical ideas in the thought process of human history. Worse than Flat Earth, at least they try to base their belief upon what they see....

OK bro. Whatever you fantasize about.

Still waiting on your evidence-supported mechanism whereby mating creates new alleles.

 

[tas8831]

It's a start, now you can also concede that there exists none for any creature. That its all based upon imagination....

You are referring to your dust-to-Dan creation myth, right?