Unrealized Genomes as the Ultimate Falsification of the Theory of Evolution

[Contradiction]

Unrealized Genomes as the Ultimate Falsification of the Theory of Evolution

The linked article examines the fundamental assumption behind the theory of evolution by which, just because each new organism has subtly different genome than its parents, this will eventually lead to genomes with information for previously nonexistent, functional and niche occupying structures, such as organs. For that purpose, first it compares two libraries. One library contains ‘realized genomes’ — i.e. all genomes that could have been formed during the entire history of life on Earth. Another library contains ‘unrealized genomes’ — i.e. all possible genomes that a genome of a certain size allows, reduced by the number of realized genomes. Finally, it calculates the waiting time required for finding the genome with information for a single and super primitive bio-structure and it concludes that it would take 10^871 years for that to happen.

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.

 

[Nithavela]

Unrealized Genomes as the Ultimate Falsification of the Theory of Evolution

The linked article examines the fundamental assumption behind the theory of evolution by which, just because each new organism has subtly different genome than its parents, this will eventually lead to genomes with information for previously nonexistent, functional and niche occupying structures, such as organs. For that purpose, first it compares two libraries. One library contains ‘realized genomes’ — i.e. all genomes that could have been formed during the entire history of life on Earth. Another library contains ‘unrealized genomes’ — i.e. all possible genomes that a genome of a certain size allows, reduced by the number of realized genomes. Finally, it calculates the waiting time required for finding the genome with information for a single and super primitive bio-structure and it concludes that it would take 10^871 years for that to happen.

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.

This forum allows atheists and other non-christians to post, too. If you want to discuss this in an uncontaminated area, there is a evolution/creation forum on this site where only christians can post.

Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone will agree with you. After all, the vast majority of christians believe in evolution of some sort.

 

[Contradiction]

This forum allows atheists and other non-christians to post, too. If you want to discuss this in an uncontaminated area, there is a evolution/creation forum on this site where only christians can post.

Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone will agree with you. After all, the vast majority of christians believe in evolution of some sort.

In my last paragraph I referred to this forum: Science Forums

 

[Nithavela]

In my last paragraph I referred to this forum: Science Forums

You mean the one where you got banned because you allegedly used a secondary account?

That is forbidden here too, btw.

 

[Contradiction]

You mean the one where you got banned because you allegedly used a secondary account?

That is forbidden here too, btw.

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. Making generic statements about mistakes without even touching the content of the article is irrational, pointless and childish. The same is true for their "you don't understand evolution" ad hominems. But that is what people do when they have no arguments.

 

[46AND2]

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. Making generic statements about mistakes without even touching the content of the article is irrational, pointless and childish. The same is true for their "you don't understand evolution" ad hominems. But that is what people do when they have no arguments.

You don't understand evolution ad hominem.

 

[Contradiction]

You don't understand evolution ad hominem.

Ad hominem: short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. (Dr. Michael C. Labossiere (2002–2010). "42 Fallacies: Ad Hominem")

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.

Thus, you are the one who doesn't understand ad hominem.

 

[46AND2]

Ad hominem: short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. (Dr. Michael C. Labossiere (2002–2010). "42 Fallacies: Ad Hominem")

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.

Thus, you are the one who doesn't understand ad hominem.

I understand it just fine. Your knowledge (or lack thereof) of evolution is PARAMOUNT to the substance of your argument. If you understood evolution, you would know why.

 

[Contradiction]

I understand it just fine. Your knowledge (or lack thereof) of evolution is PARAMOUNT to the substance of your argument. If you understood evolution, you would know why.

Like I have already said, making generic statements about mistakes or knowledge without even touching the content of the article is irrational, pointless and childish. You are simply trolling the discussion with empty asserations.

You must quote a paragraph or sentence in the article and explain why "I don't understand evolution". So, it's pretty simple. Everything else is trolling.

 

[Shemjaza]

For e.g., in the last 300,000 years more than 110 billion humans have lived on Earth. Since due to mutations each human genome is unique, that means that human population produced 110 billion different genomes. But has this caused humans to start to develop some new, previously nonexistent and functional organs that will occupy ecological niches humans previously could not occupy? Well, obviously not. After an enormous number of different genomes produced, humans are anatomically, morphologically and physiologically practically identical, without any traces of new organs starting to develop.

While there possibly have been 110 billion individual humans, the new variety can only be a small shift from a previous generation.

And we certainly have evidence for that.

We have the variety of phenotypes in hair, eye and skin colour. We have traits like lactose tolerance and varying disease resistance.

To get a larger change in the genome you'd need each little step to be selected for, rather then the general morass of neutral traits that most mutations create.

 

[USincognito]

The argument in the OP appears to be yet another argument from probability. The problem with those arguments is we have too many observations that are consistent and often only explained by common descent that appeals to "it couldn't happen because {numbers}" fall flat.

 

[Contradiction]

While there possibly have been 110 billion individual humans, the new variety can only be a small shift from a previous generation.

And we certainly have evidence for that.

We have the variety of phenotypes in hair, eye and skin colour. We have traits like lactose tolerance and varying disease resistance.

To get a larger change in the genome you'd need each little step to be selected for, rather then the general morass of neutral traits that most mutations create.

The variety of phenotypes in hair, eye and skin color have nothing to do with their origin. The article talks about information for previously nonexistent, functional and niche occupying structures, i.e. about their origin, and not about how they vary once they already exist.

 

[Contradiction]

The argument in the OP appears to be yet another argument from probability. The problem with those arguments is we have too many observations that are consistent and often only explained by common descent that appeals to "it couldn't happen because {numbers}" fall flat.

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.

 

[46AND2]

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.

Make two other libraries. One is the library of all possible outcomes of descendants, beginning with a mating couple of ancestors of yours from 300,000 years ago until now. The other library contains you. Exactly you.

How do you think those odds would work out? Hint: it's far less likely that you exist than even what you describe here, without even taking into account countless variables.

 

[Shemjaza]

The variety of phenotypes in hair, eye and skin color have nothing to do with their origin. The article talks about information for previously nonexistent, functional and niche occupying structures, i.e. about their origin, and not about how they vary once they already exist.

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?

 

[Steve Petersen]

Looks like the same argument is going on here.

Don't need to waste any time reinventing the wheel. Whoever started that thread there was also a sock puppet and got banned there as well.

 

[46AND2]

Looks like the same argument is going on here.

Don't need to waste any time reinventing the wheel. Whoever started that thread there was also a sock puppet and got banned there as well.

It's him. He linked that discussion in the OP.

 

[Steve Petersen]

It's him. He linked that discussion in the OP.

Ahh. When he said 'linked here' I thought he was referring to CF. My bad.

 

[Contradiction]

Make two other libraries. One is the library of all possible outcomes of descendants, beginning with a mating couple of ancestors of yours from 300,000 years ago until now. The other library contains you. Exactly you.

How do you think those odds would work out? Hint: it's far less likely that you exist than even what you describe here, without even taking into account countless variables.

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?

 

[Shemjaza]

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?

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?