Unrealized Genomes as the Ultimate Falsification of the Theory of Evolution

Contradiction · Mar 5, 2019

sfs said:
I did. "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." and "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." That's saying the same thing in different words. Maybe you should slow down and try to understand people.

Okay, let's not, since that's not generous at all. Let's say that you have 4^1615 possible distinct genes, each of which has a large number of possible versions (the latter of which you've covered by allowing 60% of of sites in the full size genes to vary with no effect). That's 10^972 distinct genes. What you're now saying is that you're being generous to evolution by allowing that 1 distinct gene per 10^960 might contribute to the same phenotype. That's not generous -- that's insanely restrictive.

I suspect your problem is that you're going by intuition here. Allowing for a trillion possible genes that could contribute to a phenotype sounds like a big number to you. But it's not a big number when it's compared to the really, really, really big number of possible proteins.

Regardless, all you've done here is come up with another meaningless, unjustified number and assumed it's an accurate reflection of protein evolution. Manipulating numbers that you made up without any factual basis is not a way of learning anything about the real world.

ETA: technically, I should have written 4^1615 distinct gene sets, since we're treating the sequence as being broken up into 3 genes, but it makes no difference to the calculations whether it's one or three genes.

I don't know if you are deliberately ignoring what I say and misinterpreting me, but I am not allowing for a trillion possible genes that could contribute to a phenotype, but 10^1,458 such genes. On the other hand, I am allowing a trillion possible instances of structural similarity (a phenotype that can occupy the same ecological niche) without sequence similarity. And in every such instance I again allow 10^1,458 possible genes, which gives 10^12*10^1,458 = 10^1,470 possible genes that could occupy the same ecological niche (forest niche whose occupation requires primitive insect wings).

So, could you please stop misinterpreting my arguments in a self-centered attempt to prove yourself right?

Justatruthseeker · Mar 5, 2019

Jimmy D said:

Really? Seriously? You are trying to imply that Lucy is the ancestor that split to become human and ape?

Lucy's Story

“The term hominid refers to a member of the zoological family Hominidae. Hominidae encompasses all species originating after the human/African ape ancestral split.”

And hence these claimed common ancestors are all still “missing”.

Jimmy D · Mar 5, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
Really? Seriously? You are trying to imply that Lucy is the ancestor that split to become human and ape?

Lucy's Story

“The term hominid refers to a member of the zoological family Hominidae. Hominidae encompasses all species originating after the human/African ape ancestral split.”

And hence these claimed common ancestors are all still “missing”.

Read my post. Read your post that I quoted. I implied nothing of the sort.

From our previous discussions you know very well that I don't think that "Lucy is the ancestor that split to become human and ape" so save your inane strawmen.

As far as I'm aware there is no such example in the fossil record of the last common ancestor of humans and the African great apes.

But you said...

"for EVERY SINGLE CREATURE IN EXISTENCE......

Could overlook your missing a few hundred thousand, but you are missing EVERY SINGLE ONE. Because they never existed...."

Which is just plain wrong.

However, I am fully aware that you reject the existence of transitional fossils, which is your perogative.

Justatruthseeker · Mar 5, 2019

Jimmy D said:
Read my post. Read your post that I quoted. I implied nothing of the sort.

From our previous discussions you know very well that I don't think that "Lucy is the ancestor that split to become human and ape" so save your inane strawmen.

Just another example of your dishonesty in action.

As far as I'm aware there is no such example in the fossil record of the last common ancestor of humans and the African great apes.

But you said...

"for EVERY SINGLE CREATURE IN EXISTENCE......

Could overlook your missing a few hundred thousand, but you are missing EVERY SINGLE ONE. Because they never existed...."

Which is just plain wrong.

And yet you can’t show me a single “common ancestor” where theses claimed splits occurred for any creature on any single tree, just as I said...

Instead you attempt to show me one after this claimed split as if that settles the issue.

Had you one single common ancestor that supposedly split to become different things you would have presented it without hesitation and not tried to make the false claim I’m asking for any ancestor....

But you keep thinking I believe a poodle should look like the wolf it originated from, thinking something that looks different than us somehow proves evolution.

Supposing that Lucy is an ancestor, (which she isn’t) why would it mean anything other than if you incorrectly classified the Poodle as a separate species from the wolf? But it wouldn’t show wolves split off from rodent like creatures except in the imagination......

And let’s clarify your mistake in your other post.

Lucy degenerated into an ape because she was one, not a human..... She looks slightly different than an ape because a poodle looks different than a wolf.... They have just chosen to include her in the human line instead of the ape line where she belongs.

But you think incorrectly in the reverse. All things degenerate over time as mutations build up. It’s inevitable. The genome goes from near perfect to full of accumulated errors and large portions become non-coding that were once capable of doing so.

We got all the races because it was once more variable, as the wolf genome contained all the variation of dog breeds within it. But the Poodle is even more limited in its available variability as information was lost. You know this.... to pretend otherwise is folly.

Bungle_Bear · Mar 5, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
And yet you can’t show me a single “common ancestor” where theses claimed splits occurred for any creature on any single tree, just as I said...

Instead you attempt to show me one after this claimed split as if that settles the issue.

Had you one single common ancestor that supposedly split to become different things you would have presented it without hesitation and not tried to make the false claim I’m asking for any ancestor....

But you keep thinking I believe a poodle should look like the wolf it originated from, thinking something that looks different than us somehow proves evolution.

Supposing that Lucy is an ancestor, (which she isn’t) why would it mean anything other than if you incorrectly classified the Poodle as a separate species from the wolf? But it wouldn’t show wolves split off from rodent like creatures except in the imagination......

And let’s clarify your mistake in your other post.

Lucy degenerated into an ape because she was one, not a human..... She looks slightly different than an ape because a poodle looks different than a wolf.... They have just chosen to include her in the human line instead of the ape line where she belongs.

But you think incorrectly in the reverse. All things degenerate over time as mutations build up. It’s inevitable. The genome goes from near perfect to full of accurate errors and large portions become non-coding that were once capable of doing so.

We got all the races because it was once more variable, as the wolf genome contained all the variation of dog breeds within it. But the Poodle is even more limited in its available variability as information was lost. You know this.... to pretend otherwise is folly.

I know I've explained about intellectual honesty to you before, so it's rather sad that you still haven't taken it on board.

You claim that none of the fossils we have are transitional or common ancestors. Can you support that claim?

What scientists say is that we cannot know if the fossils are direct ancestors or not, so they don't make the claim that they are. What they do claim is that something similar, possibly even that specific species (but we cannot be sure), was an ancestor. Your failure to understand the honesty here and insist on dishonest representations speaks volumes about you.

sesquiterpene · Mar 5, 2019

Contradiction said:
I don't know if you are deliberately ignoring what I say and misinterpreting me, but I am not allowing for a trillion possible genes that could contribute to a phenotype, but 10^1,458 such genes. On the other hand, I am allowing a trillion possible instances of structural similarity (a phenotype that can occupy the same ecological niche) without sequence similarity. And in every such instance I again allow 10^1,458 possible genes, which gives 10^12*10^1,458 = 10^1,470 possible genes that could occupy the same ecological niche (forest niche whose occupation requires primitive insect wings).

So, could you please stop misinterpreting my arguments in a self-centered attempt to prove yourself right?

I don't know if you are deliberately ignoring what has been said, but you are going on about fictional properties of imaginary genes. Do you really think that will falsify evolutionary theory?

There are actual experimental studies looking at finding function in sets of randomly generated peptides. Why don't you look at some of them?

Contradiction · Mar 5, 2019

sesquiterpene said:
Like many creationist probability calculations, you seem to be just making up numbers and multiplying them together. When you are criticized, you just make up a different number and repeat your error.

You are calculating the odds of creating genes de novo, and ones that have a very specific sequence. You seem to have missed sfs' point completely, that there was no sequence specificity at all for two genes with the same function. Your calculation is assuming massive sequence specificity. What do you get when you substitute 0 for 1615 in your calculations?

There were no errors in my calculations that would change the absurdity of evolutionary assumption. Regardless if the time required to find information for super primitive insect wings is 10^871 or 10^847 years, assuming this was accomplished in few million years or so, is still absurd to the point of ridicule.

But those calculations are not the main point of my argument. The crux of the argument is this: just because some isolated population of wingless insects produced (realized) a couple of million of different genomes, it is absurd to assume they were able to find information for previously nonexistent, functional and niche occupying organ(wings), which is hidden in the library of 10^54,787,459 possible genomes.

Jimmy D · Mar 5, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
And yet you can’t show me a single “common ancestor” where theses claimed splits occurred for any creature on any single tree, just as I said...

Instead you attempt to show me one after this claimed split as if that settles the issue.

Had you one single common ancestor that supposedly split to become different things you would have presented it without hesitation and not tried to make the false claim I’m asking for any ancestor....

Your request is not reasonable. What we do have examples of are transitional fossils and we can even observe particular traits developing over time in the fossil record.

Justatruthseeker said:
But you keep thinking I believe a poodle should look like the wolf it originated from, thinking something that looks different than us somehow proves evolution.

I don't think that, what a bizarre statement.

Justatruthseeker said:
Supposing that Lucy is an ancestor, (which she isn’t) why would it mean anything other than if you incorrectly classified the Poodle as a separate species from the wolf? But it wouldn’t show wolves split off from rodent like creatures except in the imagination......

I didn't incorrectly classify a poodle nor I have ever imagined wolves splitting from rodents.

Justatruthseeker said:
And let’s clarify your mistake in your other post.

Lucy degenerated into an ape because she was one, not a human..... She looks slightly different than an ape because a poodle looks different than a wolf.... They have just chosen to include her in the human line instead of the ape line where she belongs.

It seems I did make a mistake, expecting a response that didn't involve dogs..... always with the dogs.

We all know your beliefs about poodles, wolves etc, you don't have to try to crowbar them into every post you make on evolution.

Justatruthseeker said:
But you think incorrectly in the reverse. All things degenerate over time as mutations build up. It’s inevitable. The genome goes from near perfect to full of accurate errors and large portions become non-coding that were once capable of doing so.

Yes, yes, back to the old perfect genome. Got any evidence of this yet?

Justatruthseeker said:
We got all the races because it was once more variable, as the wolf genome contained all the variation of dog breeds within it. But the Poodle is even more limited in its available variability as information was lost. You know this.... to pretend otherwise is folly.

Aaaand, we're back to your particular favourite subject.

I have no desire to go over this ground again, life's to short.... and it's gone way off topic.

Contradiction · Mar 5, 2019

sesquiterpene said:
I don't know if you are deliberately ignoring what has been said, but you are going on about fictional properties of imaginary genes. Do you really think that will falsify evolutionary theory?

Refuting someone's claim is not ignoring the claim.

There are actual experimental studies looking at finding function in sets of randomly generated peptides.

So?

Jimmy D · Mar 5, 2019

Contradiction said:
There were no errors in my calculations that would change the absurdity of evolutionary assumption. Regardless if the time required to find information for super primitive insect wings is 10^871 or 10^847 years, assuming this was accomplished in few million years or so, is still absurd to the point of ridicule.

But those calculations are not the main point of my argument. The crux of the argument is this: just because some isolated population of wingless insects produced (realized) a couple of million of different genomes, it is absurd to assume they were able to find information for previously nonexistent, functional and niche occupying organ(wings), which is hidden in the library of 10^54,787,459 possible genomes.

So what is your theory as to the origin of insect wings?

sesquiterpene · Mar 5, 2019

Contradiction said:
Refuting someone's claim is not ignoring the claim.
So?

Well, you could try discussing actual properties of actual genes. I suspect you are more comfortable with your fantasies than doing something that might resemble science.

Contradiction · Mar 5, 2019

sesquiterpene said:
Well, you could try discussing actual properties of actual genes. I suspect you are more comfortable with your fantasies than doing something that might resemble science.

Actual properties of actual genes have nothing to do with the evolutionary assumption that just because some isolated population of organisms scanned through a couple million of different genomes, they were able to find information for previously nonexistent, functional and niche occupying organs, which is hidden in the library of 10^54,787,459 possible genomes. Your appeal to "actual properties of genes" is therefore your technique to distract from this irrational and absurd assumption.

Contradiction · Mar 5, 2019

Jimmy D said:
So what is your theory as to the origin of insect wings?

I have no such theory.

Speedwell · Mar 5, 2019

Contradiction said:
Actual properties of actual genes have nothing to do with the evolutionary assumption that just because some isolated population of organisms scanned through a couple million of different genomes, they were able to find information for previously nonexistent, functional and niche occupying organs, which is hidden in the library of 10^54,787,459 possible genomes. Your appeal to "actual properties of genes" is therefore your technique to distract from this irrational and absurd assumption.

What is irrational and absurd is the notion that anybody actually makes that "evolutionary assumption."

Contradiction · Mar 5, 2019

Speedwell said:
What is irrational and absurd is the notion that anybody actually makes that "evolutionary assumption."

It is impossible to deny this assumption. Starting from the first self-replicating organism, which lacked structures such as eyes, ears, lungs, joints, heart, lungs, gills, brain,.... the theory of evolution assumes that genomes with information for all these structures came into existence just because some isolated populations of organisms scanned through different genomes. And given the discoveries such as this: Genetic Megaproject Traces the Evolutionary 'Big Bang' for Birds, or the Cambrian explosion, it literally follows that just because some isolated populations of organisms scanned through a couple million of different genomes they were able to find something that is hidden in the library of 10 to the power of millions upon millions different genomes. And assuming something like that is the stupidity and absurdity never seen in the history of human thought.

Speedwell · Mar 5, 2019

Contradiction said:
And assuming something like that is the stupidity and absurdity never seen in the history of human thought.

Isn't that what I said? I'm glad we agree on something. You would do better, though, if you stopped imputing thoughts like that to people who don't actually think them.

Contradiction · Mar 5, 2019

Speedwell said:
Isn't that what I said? I'm glad we agree on something. You would do better, though, if you stopped imputing thoughts like that to people who don't actually think them.

So you basically just deny the existence of such evolutionary assumption. Well, that is your choice but
denial won't make this assumption go away.

sfs · Mar 5, 2019

Contradiction said:
I don't know if you are deliberately ignoring what I say and misinterpreting me, but I am not allowing for a trillion possible genes that could contribute to a phenotype, but 10^1,458 such genes. On the other hand, I am allowing a trillion possible instances of structural similarity (a phenotype that can occupy the same ecological niche) without sequence similarity.

No, I'm repeating back to you your own calculations, and you're failing to recognize them. Once again, slow down and try to understand what I'm saying. You are allowing for a trillion possible genes with the same phenotype but no sequence similarity. Right. I'm calling those distinct genes. For each, you allow 60% of the sites to vary, which I'm calling different versions of those genes. So for each of the 10^12 genes you allow 4^2423, or 10^1458 different versions. We agree that those are your numbers, so what I'm saying is exactly what you're saying -- no misinterpretation.

What I'm telling you, however, and what you're not hearing, is that allowing for only 1 trillion distinct genes that could contribute to a phenotype is an insanely small number of genes, given the vast number of possible genes overall (in the size you've specified). You are assuming that 10^12 out of 10^972 distinct genes could contribute to the phenotype. Alternatively, you're assuming that 10^1470 genes or gene versions could contribute to the phenotype -- out of a total of 10^2431 possible genes or gene versions. As a I wrote above, you're assuming that only 1 out of every 10^960 possible sequence configurations could contribute to the phenotype.

Now try again: what is your justification for thinking that 10^12 is a reasonable estimate for the number of distinct genes (of this size), with no sequence similarity, that could contribute to this phenotype. Why choose that number, rather than 10^40, or 10^100, or 10^900? You have assumed that a tiny, tiny fraction of all possible genes could contribute to a phenotype, and then turned around and calculated that the probability of finding one of those few is small. Well, of course it is -- you chose a tiny fraction. Since that tiny fraction is a number you picked out of the air, though, why do you think it tells you anything about reality? That's the question you haven't answered.

Jimmy D · Mar 5, 2019

Contradiction said:
I have no such theory.

C'mon, don't be coy.

You've demolished the Theory of Evolution with your logic, someone of your intellect must have some ideas.

Speedwell · Mar 5, 2019

Contradiction said:
So you basically just deny the existence of such evolutionary assumption. Well, that is your choice but
denial won't make this assumption go away.

It might, since you and a few other creationists are the only ones who hold it.

Unrealized Genomes as the Ultimate Falsification of the Theory of Evolution

Active Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Whoot!

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency