Unrealized Genomes as the Ultimate Falsification of the Theory of Evolution

Contradiction · Mar 5, 2019

sfs said:
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.

So in essence, I am assuming 10^12 distinct insect wings, i.e. different types of such wings and for each I allow 10^1458 gene variants. You then ask, why choose that number, rather than 10^40, or 10^100, or 10^900 distinct insect wings? Well, the reason is simple. There are no 10^900 ways to fly, or to see or to pump blood to the organs just as there are no 10^900 ways to semantically express the fact that Steve is older than Mark by 4 years. And observation confirms that. For e.g. we have the two major types of eyes — simple eyes and compound eyes, and not a million, or a trillion although 96% of animal species have eyes. So, assuming 10^12 different types of insect wings is indeed generous to the theory of evolution.

Contradiction · Mar 5, 2019

Jimmy D said:
C'mon, don't be coy.

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

Please stop trolling.

pitabread · Mar 5, 2019

Contradiction said:
You then ask, why choose that number, rather than 10^40, or 10^100, or 10^900 distinct insect wings? Well, the reason is simple. There are no 10^900 ways to fly, or to see or to pump blood to the organs just as there are no 10^900 ways to semantically express the fact that Steve is older than Mark by 4 years. And observation confirms that.

If you're making an argument about the number of viable genotypes for something, the only way observation could confirm this is if you'd first mapped out the entire genotype space for all possible combinations and their resultant phenotypes.

Nobody has done that and indeed such a thing probably isn't even possible. Therefore, it's not something you could have observed.

sfs · Mar 5, 2019

Contradiction said:
So in essence, I am assuming 10^12 distinct insect wings, i.e. different types of such wings and for each I allow 10^1458 gene variants. You then ask, why choose that number, rather than 10^40, or 10^100, or 10^900 distinct insect wings? Well, the reason is simple. There are no 10^900 ways to fly, or to see or to pump blood to the organs just as there are no 10^900 ways to semantically express the fact that Steve is older than Mark by 4 years. And observation confirms that. For e.g. we have the two major types of eyes — simple eyes and compound eyes, and not a million, or a trillion although 96% of animal species have eyes. So, assuming 10^12 different types of insect wings is indeed generous to the theory of evolution.

I'm sorry, but you've offered no justification at all here for your number. "Types of eyes" is not a statement about possible proteins -- it's about gross morphology. In short, you have indeed made up a number based on nothing but your gut feeling.

Justatruthseeker · Mar 5, 2019

Bungle_Bear said:
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.

Please, let’s talk about intellectual dishonesty while your own experts can’t find a single solitary common ancestor that supposedly split. It’s why you can’t find any to post in defense so make ad-hominem attacks.

I understand the game well, when check mated sling the prices and claim you were cheated.....

Justatruthseeker · Mar 5, 2019

Jimmy D said:
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.

Oh stop with the PR already.

My request is perfectly reasonable. You have animals you claim came after, animals you claim came before, but NEVER any of the ones you claim split. Not one..... Sure I understand we might miss a few hundred thousand, just as we don’t have every T-Rex fossil in existence. But you can’t show a single one.

You got nothing but claims forms are related by “missing common ancestors”.

Your best claimed evidence was “imagined” to have flippers and a fluke. Instead legs and feet were later found. But facts didn’t get in the way of theory in the least. Didn’t even skip a beat.... regardless that it was believed to have had flippers and a fluke due to its claimed place in the lineup not feet and a tail.... but don’t let what they imagined it to be get in the way of what it really is..... not even close to what they thought it was.....

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

I know, you prefer the fantasy of theory to facts, much easier to manipulate.....

Justatruthseeker · Mar 5, 2019

sfs said:
I'm sorry, but you've offered no justification at all here for your number. "Types of eyes" is not a statement about possible proteins -- it's about gross morphology. In short, you have indeed made up a number based on nothing but your gut feeling.

pitabread said:
If you're making an argument about the number of viable genotypes for something, the only way observation could confirm this is if you'd first mapped out the entire genotype space for all possible combinations and their resultant phenotypes.

Nobody has done that and indeed such a thing probably isn't even possible. Therefore, it's not something you could have observed.

He’s got a valid point you all are simply rejecting because you don’t want to admit his point.

Regardless of how many ways mathematically a protein can be expressed, observations show it has only been expressed in two ways for eyes.... a few ways for wings, a few ways for every feature which in the end is the expression of those proteins.....

You can talk about all the myriad hypothetical possibilities you like, but reality says otherwise....

If I believed in evolution I would say your law of natural selection has precluded the other countless possibilities..... as non-viable and unfit.....

Bungle_Bear · Mar 5, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
Please, let’s talk about intellectual dishonesty while your own experts can’t find a single solitary common ancestor that supposedly split. It’s why you can’t find any to post in defense so make ad-hominem attacks.

I understand the game well, when check mated sling the prices and claim you were cheated.....

Lol. Your response to "please stop the dishonesty and misrepresentation" is a dishonest misrepresentation?

You are priceless.

pitabread · Mar 5, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
He’s got a valid point you all are simply rejecting because you don’t want to admit his point.

No, he doesn't and based on what you wrote you don't appear to understand the problem with it any more than he does.

Regardless of how many ways mathematically a protein can be expressed, observations show it has only been expressed in two ways for eyes.... a few ways for wings, a few ways for every feature which in the end is the expression of those proteins.....

You're equating genotypes with broad categorization of phenotypes. That's not how it works.

On top of that, this still doesn't get away from the fact that the only way to make an argument about the relative viability of genotypes for a particular *thing* is to map out all of the possible genotypes and resultant phenotypes for that *thing*.

That information doesn't exist.

Justatruthseeker · Mar 5, 2019

pitabread said:
No, he doesn't and based on what you wrote you don't appear to understand the problem with it any more than he does.

You're equating genotypes with broad categorization of phenotypes. That's not how it works.

On top of that, this still doesn't get away from the fact that the only way to make an argument about the relative viability of genotypes for a particular *thing* is to map out all of the possible genotypes and resultant phenotypes for that *thing*.

That information doesn't exist.

No, what it doesn’t get away with despite all your protests, is the fact that the genotypes have only expressed themselves in a limited phenotype.

Yet you can map all you like and yet the phenotypes will remain restricted to certain aspects as seen in real life regardless of your billion possibility maps..... life will ignore all your attempts to diverge it and creatures will remain as they are with minor adaptations as they do in the fossil record across their millions of years of existence.

Then despite this you’ll continue to propose “ missing ancestors” to explain your non-existent splits.....

All because you ignored that regardless of the myriad of possible genetic combinations, they have only expressed themselves through phenotypes in a very limited way.

Because regardless of the mathematical possibilities eyes must function in specific ways to be useful, as wings must operate within specific parameters under specific physical laws and so their expression is limited.... hence non-viable.

That information doesn’t exist because it’s useless information..... count up the myriad possibilities, and when you are through they will still express themselves in only a few basic ways to comply with the laws of physics......

pitabread · Mar 5, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
That information doesn’t exist because it’s useless information.

Wow, claiming that the information required to validate the argument being presented is "useless".

You're just hilarious.

All because you ignored that regardless of the myriad of possible genetic combinations, they have only expressed themselves through phenotypes in a very limited way.

Even if this is true, it still doesn't change the fact that the OP is pulling numbers out of their posterior. And that an argument made based on such numbers is never going to be particularly compelling nor valid.

Your attempts to defend such an argument though are providing much needed amusement.

Justatruthseeker · Mar 6, 2019

pitabread said:
Wow, claiming that the information required to validate the argument being presented is "useless".

You're just hilarious.

Validate what argument. That there are countless possibilities of expression and yet everything is only expressed in a handful of ways?

Apparently something is wrong with your argument, not the observational fact we only see limited expressions of those genes...

Even if this is true, it still doesn't change the fact that the OP is pulling numbers out of their posterior. And that an argument made based on such numbers is never going to be particularly compelling nor valid.

Your attempts to defend such an argument though are providing much needed amusement.

And yet the numbers based upon your all claims fails to match what is expressed in a very limited subset.....

Nobody’s numbers match and they are all being pulled out of posteriors.

The only numbers that matter are the observational reality of those limited expressions.....

Nothing else has been observed, it is all hyperbole....

I’m glad you find ignoring the reality of what you see around you amusing..... people that tend to ignore reality are often amused by their own fantasies...

xianghua · Mar 6, 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.

we can get a good estimation base on what we see in reality. there are about billions of humans today. and we never seen someone who evolved something like a new organ part (say a feather or a horn etc). so we can estimate that the chance to get a new part is about less then few billions mutations. do you agree?

VirOptimus · Mar 6, 2019

xianghua said:
we can get a good estimation base on what we see in reality. there are about billions of humans today. and we never seen someone who evolved something like a new organ part (say a feather or a horn etc). so we can estimate that the chance to get a new part is about less then few billions mutations. do you agree?

Thats not how evolution works.

pitabread · Mar 6, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
Validate what argument.

Perhaps you should re-read the OP and the various responses to it thus far, since you don't appear to be following what has been discussed.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 6, 2019

Justatruthseeker said:
My request is perfectly reasonable. You have animals you claim came after, animals you claim came before, but NEVER any of the ones you claim split. Not one..... Sure I understand we might miss a few hundred thousand, just as we don’t have every T-Rex fossil in existence. But you can’t show a single one.

You seem to have no conception of just how rare hominin fossils are - for example, there's evidence of two distinct lineages besides Neanderthals (and contemporary with them) in our own genome and for one of them (Denisovans) we've only found a single finger bone, and for the other we have no fossils at all.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Mar 6, 2019

xianghua said:
we can get a good estimation base on what we see in reality. there are about billions of humans today. and we never seen someone who evolved something like a new organ part (say a feather or a horn etc). so we can estimate that the chance to get a new part is about less then few billions mutations. do you agree?

For the umpteenth time, evolution happens to populations, not individuals.

Ophiolite · Mar 6, 2019

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
For the umpteenth time, evolution happens to populations, not individuals.

And xinghua's consistently wrong posts demonstrate that it doesn't happen to individuals. (Or at least not to some of them.)

Justatruthseeker · Mar 6, 2019

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
You seem to have no conception of just how rare hominin fossils are - for example, there's evidence of two distinct lineages besides Neanderthals (and contemporary with them) in our own genome and for one of them (Denisovans) we've only found a single finger bone, and for the other we have no fossils at all.

Let me repeat.... not one for any creature on any single tree where any claimed split is said to have occurred.

Why do you feel it necessary to try to whittle it down to only hominin?????? As if that was ever what I said or implied????

Try to change the goalposts often?

Justatruthseeker · Mar 6, 2019

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
For the umpteenth time, evolution happens to populations, not individuals.

Oh please, it is the individual that in your theory gets a mutation and then passes his genes onto the next generation which eventually overtake the less fit and become the population..... it is the individual that evolved. It simply passed its genome to the next generation.....

Or is this the part where you claim hundreds of thousands to millions magically get the same random mutation?

Unrealized Genomes as the Ultimate Falsification of the Theory of Evolution

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Whoot!

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

A nihilist who cares.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency