The Truth About Evolution and Religion

No, I can't. There is however an analogy. Suppose we are in a jungle and we see a pretty flower. Suppose you say: Prove to me the flower is not an illusion. That would be the sign of a deep thinker.But if we see a tiger, such thinking is irrational and irresponsible because we have to decide which way to run.We have to make a decision about revelation. If we make the wrong decision we might end up howling. The nickel and dime arguments you use to refute my arguments are irrational.

Deep thinker? I think it's a bit stupid to demand of someone else to prove the flower is not an illusion. There's no way he can do that. Hell, I couldn't even prove to myself that flower isn't an illusion. So? Revalation? Do you mean reality? Yes. However, we don't just know the "right" decission, that's arrived at after waying the evidence. How the hell does that follow from what you said before? And please show how they are irtrational. Will you final start answering questions, or will even more mumbo jumbo follow?

Hi, Roemer. At this point, I need to ask again what you mean by complexity.If you read the 2007 PNAS paper I linked in my last message, you will see that Gerhart and Kirscher argue that several major core processes arose via evolution at four different turning points in evolutionary history. You will then read how they believe that mutations to these core processes and their sub-processes are largely responsible for all the diversity of life.This, to me, sounds like they are proposing evolution to explain the complexity of life. But, perhaps you mean something different by complexity, something other than the core processes and all their variations; in which case I ask you to explain what you mean.This, dear sir, means that they attribute everything about life’s form and function to naturalistic evolution. You could wave it off as mere concessions to the humanist-atheist big men who rule the scientific world in order to get facilitated variation published (as you have), but then you’d be resorting to irrational conspiracy theories to rationalize a personal belief that contradicts observable facts.Edited by Bluejay, : The number four.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

The Total Energy is conserved, not just the kinetic energy. And we know that kinetic energy is transered into heat energy because we can measure the temperature of the body and see that it has gone up. Like, your tires getting hot after driving on them... where do you think that heat comes from? Hell, just rub your palms together and you can feal the warmth.Are you just jerkin' my chain here? This is unbelievable. Then the calculation is worthless. It doesn't represent anything in reality. Proteins would not have just randomly assembled. There's other factors involved.So, to repeat:You're mistaken about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, it doesn't have anything to do with evolution, and evolution does not violate it.Also, you're calculation of the probability of a protein forming is worthless and has nothing to do with evolution.

Really? Here is an abstract from a paper where they use evolution to explain the complexity of eyes.

quote:

---

BMC Evol Biol. 2010 Apr 30;10(1):123. [Epub ahead of print]

​

Gene duplication and the origins of morphological complexity in pancrustacean eyes, a genomic approach.

​

Rivera AS, Pankey MS, Plachetzki DC, Villacorta C, Syme AE, Serb JM, Omilian AR, Oakley TH.

​

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Duplication and divergence of genes and genetic networks is hypothesized to be a major driver of the evolution of complexity and novel features. Here, we examine the history of genes and genetic networks in the context of eye evolution by using new approaches to understand patterns of gene duplication during the evolution of metazoan genomes. We hypothesize that 1) genes involved in eye development and phototransduction have duplicated and were retained at higher rates in animal clades that possess more distinct types of optical design; and 2) genes with functional relationships were duplicated and lost together, thereby preserving genetic networks. To test these hypotheses, we examine the rates and patterns of gene duplication and loss evident in 19 metazoan genomes, including that of Daphnia pulex - the first completely sequenced crustacean genome. This is of particular interest because the pancrustaceans (hexapods+crustaceans) have more optical designs than any other major clade of animals, allowing us to test specifically whether the high amount of disparity in pancrustacean eyes is correlated with a higher rate of duplication and retention of vision genes. RESULTS: Using protein predictions from 19 metazoan whole-genome projects, we found all members of 23 gene families known to be involved in eye development or phototransduction and deduced their phylogenetic relationships. This allowed us to estimate the number and timing of gene duplication and loss events in these gene families during animal evolution. When comparing duplication/retention rates of these genes, we found that the rate was significantly higher in pancrustaceans than in either vertebrates or non-pancrustacean protostomes. Comparing patterns of co-duplication across Metazoa showed that while these eye-genes co-duplicate at a significantly higher rate than those within a randomly shuffled matrix, many genes with known functional relationships in model organisms did not co-duplicate more often than expected by chance. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, and when accounting for factors such as differential rates of whole-genome duplication in different groups, our results are broadly consistent with the hypothesis that genes involved in eye development and phototransduction duplicate at a higher rate in Pancrustacea, the group with the greatest variety of optical designs. The result that these genes have a significantly high number of co-duplications and co-losses could be influenced by shared functions or other unstudied factors such as synteny. Since we did not observe co-duplication/co-loss of genes for all known functional modules (e.g. specific regulatory networks), the interactions among suites of known co-functioning genes (modules) may be plastic at the temporal scale of analysis performed here. Other factors in addition to gene duplication - such as cis-regulation, heterotopy, and co-option - are also likely to be strong factors in the diversification of eye types.

---

A search for "evolution complexity" at http://www.pubmed.com returns over 3,000 hits. Perhaps you should do some reading before making such bold claims.

Yes, it is. Or have you never heard of missionaries trying to save souls? Why do biologists need to justify your religious beliefs? Consciousness is a matter for neurobiology and it has nothing to do with souls. Biologists don't study flying reindeer, either. Do you wonder why?

You won't really. While they do identify four 'turning points' each turning point has several core processes associated with it. The first turning point, around Three billion years ago, has core functional components/processes of ... ... ascribed to it.I think you are confusing the four time periods in which they propose certain conserved core component/processes arose with the four steps they outline as giving rise to viable phenotypic variation of anatomy and physiology from genetic variation.TTFN,WK

This abstract supports my contention. It says
"Duplication and divergence of genes and genetic networks is hypothesized to be a major driver of the evolution of complexity and novel features".This does not say "Duplication and divergence of genes and genetic networks explains the complexity of life." Note the word "hypothesized" and "major driver".

I have trouble believing you don't understand what I am saying.

Hi dkroemer, still trying to remake reality? Which is also not a closed system. Species survival is a matter of interactions with the whole ecology surrounding the species.The evidence that this is actually true is quite prevalent: natural selection has been observed frequently, and as such the occurrence of natural selection is a fact of reality. If indeed this violates the second law, then this simple fact invalidates the second law -- it certainly invalidates your misuse of it. Curiously, it matters not one whit of ant frass in Antarctica to entropy what the color and pattern the cards in any hand happen to be. The energy levels of the cards are the same regardless of the patterns on the cards. An ace does not have any more or less energy than a deuce. Hilarious, and also flatulently false. If the deck was not shuffle, but new out of the pack, you would not have a perfect bridge hand in any of the hands.It is also not impossible for a deck to be arranged during shuffling into one specific arrangement, having it match a pre-chosen arrangement is just a matter of probability not impossibility.You are now confusing probability with entropy, much to my amusement. And unfortunately, for you, the "theory of four perfect hands" has nothing to do with natural selection in particular or with evolution in general. Wrong, fragrantly wrong.The odds of shuffling the deck into any one predetermined arrangement is exactly the same as for any other predetermined arrangement.However, there are 4x3x2x1 possible arrangements of the deck that result in four perfect bridge hands and thus the probability of getting ONE of these arrangements is 24 times as great as for reproducing the manufacturer's arrangement.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : added more

---

Hi, Wounded King. No, I'm referring to this part:

quote:

---

And of course, protein evolution was very important in the four episodes of pre-Cambrian innovation described previously. For the most part, though, animals since the Cambrian have repeatedly reused the processes and components that had been evolved long beforehand to generate novel traits of anatomy and physiology.

​

p 8584, end of the first full paragraph

---

Edited by Bluejay, : misplaced bolding

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi dkroemer You are correct, a lot of laymen think that evolution does not explain the complexity of life. But biologists know better.Curiously, I can substantiate what I say with references that show this to be so, according to evolution, as I did in Message 235: And, of course, we now know that this is true because you have said that UMich is telling the truth. Which of course, is (amusingly) still totally irrelevant to the issue of evolution, and whether the diversity of life as we know it is explained by evolution, including all the mechanisms that cause change in the types and frequencies of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunity.From Message 235 again: Evolution explains speciation, and speciation and evolution explain the "entire diversity of life" as we know it.Curiously, this is what I have been telling you for some time now ...And again, amusingly, we know that this is true now, because you have said that UMich is telling the truth.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

---

You really are a comedian, dkroemer. Interestingly, they also measured the heat energy, verified it existed, and through experiment were able to show that this explained the loss of motion due to friction.Of course this energy never existed before these scientists invented it.Amusingly, now that it has been invented you have to put oil and coolant in your car to prevent the buildup of heat energy from friction from causing damage to the car. How much simpler it would be if they had not invented it eh?Enjoy.

---

Sorry Bluejay, your quote doesn't make things any clearer. Can you tell me what the "four major core processes" are that you talked about in Message 266 and when you think each one arose? Take my previous Message 269 as a starting point, which of the seven core processes listed there do you think they consider the 'major' one for that time period?You kept on saying there were four core processes, but I can't find anything in the paper to support that. Four rough geological periods of innovation yes. Four steps from genetic variation to viable phenotypic variation of anatomy and physiology. yes. Four core processes, no, more like 30 odd.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

Thank you for the following quote from the U. of Mich:"Over time, life has become more diverse and more complex"There is nothing here about there being an explanation for the complexity. This is not true of the Berkeley lesson. The Berkely lesson says natural selection explains complexity.