Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You're wasting your time arguing against a fictional version of evolution - which suggests that either you don't understand evolution and its implications, or you do understand it but are deliberately misrepresenting it. Either way, it's a waste of time.Then why keep ignoring that variation that leads to the variation being the same species? If people stop ignoring what is right in front of their eyes and keep claiming missing ancestors split to become separate things, I wouldn't need to keep bringing up reality to counter the fantasy.....
Don't complain about what people bring upon themselves from ignoring the reality we see around us....
But it needn't be dogs. We can talk about deer remaining deer, bears remaining bears, squirrels remaining squirrels, bacteria remaining bacteria, humans remaining humans, take your pick....
In all cases of actual observation no new organs have formed. So yes, if you would like we can speculate all we like, as long as when we are through with our flights of fantasy we come back down to reality....
What makes you think that?indeed. but again: i talked about the chance to get a new oragn part. it has no connection to evolution in population.
Great -- go ahead and calculate the probability of evolving a particular gross morphology. Before you do, though, it would be nice if you could address the problem with your current calculation, which is involves the number of possible proteins that could contribute to a particular phenotype. That's the number you made up and the number you haven't offered a justification for. Want to try offering something relevant this time?It is gross morphology what occupies niches in nature and every instance of scientific observations shows that there are no even a thousand, let alone a million or a trillion of distinct ways to occupy a particular niche.
Hmm. We use evolution all the time to learn real things about real biology. So we've got actual scientists actually using evolution, and some guy on the internet who knows nothing about biology saying they can't. Bit of a head-scratcher here.That is why my assumption is way too generous to the theory of evolution. You simply ignore the reality and refuse to see the truth that the theory of evolution is the most nonsensical idea in the history of human thought.
Foundational to modern biology? Are you saying that we cannot study living organisms and their morphology, physiology or anatomy unless we assume something which has never been observed - that mutational change of their genomes will result in previously non-existent organs and organ systems? Are you serious? Where do you even pull this nonsense from?
Great -- go ahead and calculate the probability of evolving a particular gross morphology. Before you do, though, it would be nice if you could address the problem with your current calculation, which is involves the number of possible proteins that could contribute to a particular phenotype. That's the number you made up and the number you haven't offered a justification for. Want to try offering something relevant this time?
I didn't think so. I'm sorry, but you have nothing useful to say on this subject.
Hmm. We use evolution all the time to learn real things about real biology. So we've got actual scientists actually using evolution, and some guy on the internet who knows nothing about biology saying they can't. Bit of a head-scratcher here.
Yes, it really is foundational to modern biology. If you don't know why, then my suggestion to you like anyone is to take a real course in the subject. There are a number of free University level courses on evolution. For example:
Duke: Introduction to Genetics and Evolution | Coursera
Yale: Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior | Open Yale Courses
You can find out what the ToE is all about, how it is supported, and how it is integrated with the rest of biology. This is especially the case with being able to understand how things like organs and biological systems can evolve, and how that has its basis in genetics and evolution.
Even if you ultimately still degree with the ToE, all of this understanding is still important in explaining why the modern ToE is relevant to biology.
First you were complaining that I didn't include structurally distinct insect wings into my calculations. 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. Of course the number is justified, and not only justified, but also way too generous towards your theory. It is just that your a prior commitment to atheism can't allow this theory to be false, so you are inventing all sorts of excuses as to why my calculations are wrong.
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. The same is true for niches within the organism, for e.g. those that require RNA splicing system. This system consists of at least five sub functions: to recognize pre-mRNA molecule and its intron-exon boundaries, to cut it, to rearrange the cut parts, to join these parts, and finally, to release the mRNA molecule. Only when genes that code for all five subfunctions exist, only then a pre-mRNA molecule can be properly processed to an mRNA molecule, and only then the RNA splicing system has an adaptive feature upon which natural selection can act. In other words, a niche that requiers RNA splicing system cannot be occupied until all requisite components of this system are in place, which is the equivalent of "gross morphology". Regarding the number of these components, splicing function consists of over 200 proteins - Protein-free spliceosomal snRNAs catalyze a reaction that resembles the first step of splicing
Let's now move away from our hypothetical and primitive insect wings and calculate the time required to find the genome with information for RNA splicing system.
If we again assume 60% replacement tolerance... NO. Let's assume 90% replacement tolerance, which means that given the average eukaryotic gene size of 1,346 bp, when our 200 genes code for functional RNA splicing system, 242,280 of their 269,200 nucleotides can undergo random replacements and this would still not be detrimental for the function. So, with 90% replacement tolerance, we get 4^(200*1,346*0.9) or ≈10^145,867 DNA sequences that will code for functional RNA splicing system, and ≈10^162,067 that won't. Meaning, for every functional sequence there are ≈10^16,200 nonfunctional ones.
If we assume that organisms are able to generate new DNA sequences once every Planck time and that their number is equal to the number of atoms comprising the Earth’s total mass, the time required to find the genome with information for RNA splicing system would be 10^16,200/3.16*10^101≈10^16,099 years. If we allow for a trillion distinct RNA splicing systems, although only one exists in nature, this reduces the waiting time to 10^16,075 years.
In other words, even if every atom that comprises the Earth were an organism, reproducing extremely fast from the Big Bang until the end of the universe (when atoms and Earth no longer exist), they would still need a still far greater amount of time – more than fifteen thousand orders of magnitude longer – to have even a 1 in 10^850 chance of success. To put it another way, for a one in a trillion chance of success, there would need to be 10^16,038 Earths made of organisms. The probability of RNA splicing system is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event, and the evolution theory is the stupidest thing humans ever invented.
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.
A scientific theory is a falsifiable human idea.In your own words, what is a scientific theory?
I changed "atheism" to "darwinism".sfs is a Christian. It is against forum rules to say otherwise - I suggest an apology is in order.
But gross morphology is required for flying function.Your definition of niche is wrong, and even if it wasn't, your comment about gross morphology is also wrong. No gross morphology was required for fruit flies to evolve DDT resistance, and occupy the niche of DDT sprayed fruit.
One that requires insect wings.Really? Which one exactly? which gross morphology is required to occupy a forest niche?
A scientific theory is a falsifiable human idea.
Ok. A scientific theory is a falsifiable explanation for an aspect of the natural world.... that was sorely lacking.
Ok. A scientific theory is a falsifiable explanation for an aspect of the natural world.
Why not just look up the actual definition and post that?Ok. A scientific theory is a falsifiable explanation for an aspect of the natural world.
and the evolution theory is the stupidest thing humans ever invented.
You are still just making up imaginary properties of fictional proteins. You point to a system of 200 actual proteins yet instead of discussing their properties you make up a set of genes of an arbitrary length and imaginary properties.First you were complaining that I didn't include structurally distinct insect wings into my calculations. 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. Of course the number is justified, and not only justified, but also way too generous towards your theory. 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.
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. The same is true for niches within the organism, for e.g. those that require RNA splicing system. This system consists of at least five sub functions: to recognize pre-mRNA molecule and its intron-exon boundaries, to cut it, to rearrange the cut parts, to join these parts, and finally, to release the mRNA molecule. Only when genes that code for all five subfunctions exist, only then a pre-mRNA molecule can be properly processed to an mRNA molecule, and only then the RNA splicing system has an adaptive feature upon which natural selection can act. In other words, a niche that requiers RNA splicing system cannot be occupied until all requisite components of this system are in place, which is the equivalent of "gross morphology". Regarding the number of these components, splicing function consists of over 200 proteins - Protein-free spliceosomal snRNAs catalyze a reaction that resembles the first step of splicing
Let's now move away from our hypothetical and primitive insect wings and calculate the time required to find the genome with information for RNA splicing system.
If we again assume 60% replacement tolerance... NO. Let's assume 90% replacement tolerance, which means that given the average eukaryotic gene size of 1,346 bp and when our 200 genes code for functional RNA splicing system, 242,280 of their 269,200 nucleotides can undergo random replacements and this would still not be detrimental for the function. So, with 90% replacement tolerance, we get 4^(200*1,346*0.9) or ≈10^145,867 DNA sequences that will code for functional RNA splicing system, and ≈10^162,067 that won't. Meaning, for every functional sequence there are ≈10^16,200 nonfunctional ones.
If we assume that organisms are able to generate new DNA sequences once every Planck time and that their number is equal to the number of atoms comprising the Earth’s total mass, the time required to find the genome with information for RNA splicing system would be 10^16,200/3.16*10^101≈10^16,099 years. If we allow for a trillion distinct RNA splicing systems, although only one exists in nature, this reduces the waiting time to 10^16,075 years.
In other words, even if every atom that comprises the Earth were an organism, reproducing extremely fast from the Big Bang until the end of the universe (when atoms and Earth no longer exist), they would still need a still far greater amount of time – more than fifteen thousand orders of magnitude longer – to have even a 1 in 10^850 chance of success. To put it another way, for a one in a trillion chance of success, there would need to be 10^16,038 Earths made of organisms. The probability of RNA splicing system is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event, and the evolution theory is the stupidest thing humans ever invented.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?