The Truth About Evolution and Religion

The 1969 paper from Nature does a calculation of the probability of getting a 300 amino acid protein by random mutations. This type of calculation is the base of the second law of thermodynamics, which is a statistical law. The bell-shaped curve, for example, is derived from the approximation that log N! = N Log N.

Again, we've posted the same truth at the same time.One of us is clearly superfluous. One of us could point out the bleedin' obvious, and the other ... well, did you know that there's pictures of naked women on the Internet? Really, no kidding.

Just to clarify what Dr. A is saying, you say ... but the quote you provided from Miller says ... So since Miller questions Behe's ability to know where to place the line how can you claim that they agree on the location?TTFN,WK

Does it say anything about natural selection?Really, if you want to be a halfwitted creationist liar, I'd advise you to pick one undeniable aspect of reality to deny and stick with it. Of course you'll still be ludicrously wrong, but only in comparison with reality --- whereas at present you are making yourself look like an idiot.

They both agree that Darwinism does not explain the increase in the complexity of life. It is an unsolved scientific mystery, like the origin of life and the big bang.

Great minds think alike, eh? But they have cooties!

quote:

---

The 1969 paper from Nature does a calculation of the probability of getting a 300 amino acid protein by random mutations.

---

Random mutations of what ? I suspect that you mean the probability of producing a specific 300 amino acid protein by random assembly. Which is not really relevant given that we know that genes are NOT as unique as thought in 1969 (look up gene families) and that today's scientists do NOT believe that DNA was the genetic material of the original life (look up RNA world).And I will note that this is a long way away from your assertion that thermodynamics is about complexity and not about energy flows. Perhaps you would like to go back and explain how the sun decreases in complexity (including your measure of complexity) and how this alleged decrease in complexity enables plants to grow, if not by the transfer of energy from the sun to the plant.

Good question. I forget. The paper certainly doesn't try to do a realistic calculation of the probability. But the calculation includes the area of Earth and the number of organisms.This is done by Krishner and Gerhart for "to be or not to be." It takes a computer milliions of years to reproduce this epigram by producing letters at random. But with natural selection and by using dictionary words, it can be reproduced in a short length of time.My point is that Krischner and Gerhardt don't even try to do the calculation for a larger sequence because they are not trying to show that Darwinism explains complexity.

Nothing in the passages you quoted supports this, and a lot of things Miller has said clearly contradict it.TTFN,WK

Of course not. Evolution explains that.

Would you like to consider my counterpoint that there is absolutely no reason for them to do what you have suggested in the book you were referencing.Would you also like to consider the counterpoint that the calculation is highly contingent on the precise method of selection chosen. You could create a program now and calculate the time it takes if you want. I suspect it wouldn't be very long if we choose strict selection mechanisms ala Methinks it is like a Weasel.But if we grant that in the section you refer, they are not trying to demonstrate that {whatever} explains complexity...what does that matter?It is their view that:

quote:

---

Nor is it correct to say that the greater the complexity of the organism, the harder it is to explain its evolution. Just the opposite. The special nature of the complexity is at the heart of the capacity to generate variation

---

If you actually have the book, why don't you look up where they talk about where complexity comes from (how it is explained)? That would seem to me to be a more relevant quote to find. (You might be surprised at what they say).

It does, it makes the assumption that only 1 unique 1000bp sequence is a suitable target for natural selection.Of course a rudimentary knowledge of molecular biology shows how flawed this approach is since even simply taking the degenerate nature of the genetic code into account you already reduce the uniqueness by a 3rd. Allowing also that several amino acids can be functionally identical we have to further doubt the likelihood of the 1000bp unique sequence as a reasonable target for these sort of calculations.Even the more permissive version of his calculation is based on allowing variation at only 166 nucleotides when we know that the degenerate nature of the genetic code will allow us to vary at least 333 nucleotides without changing the amino acid sequence at all.Salisbury himself acknowledges at least some of these factors and realises that the 'specificity' of the gene is the most vulnerable aspect of his argument.TTFN,WK

See post #61. That shows how wrong you are.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Are you saying that natural selection explains the complexity of life? Are you saying the 1969 paper has been refuted? My understanding is that along with a greater understanding of molecular biology has come a greater understanding of the complexity of life. For example, the complex molecular machinery that ID advocates talk about and developmental biology.

No. He is saying EVOLUTION explains the complexity of life. How many times do we have to tell you this? Yes. So?