The Truth About Evolution and Religion

We can assume that the increased in complexity of life does not violate the second law because we know the second law is true. What shows a lack of understanding of statistical mechanics is the idea the the complexity of life came about by random mutations and natural selection. As I said, no respectable biologists say such a thing. It is said only by amateurs and fanatics like Richard Dawkins.Why is this so difficult to accept? Is there an explanation for the Big Bang? For the origin of life? Why not admit that there is no explanation for evolution.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you ... creationism! I shall ask you again. Would you please quote the next paragraph of that essay?Apparently you place a great deal of significance on what von Bertalanffy has to say. It seems that this guy who I've never heard of is very important to you. You seem to hang on his every word. So please tell me what he said next.Thank you.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You have yet to show why this is. The differences between a complex and less complex species is due to differences in DNA. Random mutations changes the DNA and produces those differences. Natural selection filters those changes based on fitness. Where is the problem here?

Yes, you did say that.You actually did. You just said it again.You are actually trying to pretend that this absurd lie is true.Now, the question I always want to ask people like you is this --- whom do you hope to deceive? When you come out with flagrant falsehoods such as this, who the heck do you think that you might fool?

Yes, but that's precisely my point. You are using terms that apply to a closed system for a system that is largely open. Therefore it is irrelevant to your most basic premise. I can appeal to authority too and post a thousand quotes that refute this. That's not an argument though.But really, consider the fact that if 2LoT is an issue for evolution, why would it not be a problem for all genetics? More to the point, why wouldn't it apply to all biological systems if it's so problematic? If 2LoT presents a problem for evolution then by the same premise, life itself violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics... And yet we know that it doesn't.But now you've piqued my interest. Can you explain to me why natural selection violates the 2LoT?

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

No. No. Because I am not a insane lying ignorant halfwitted religious fanatic, and for this reason I do not tell stupid and contemptible lies.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

We can assume that the increased in complexity of life does not violate the second law because we know the second law is true. What shows a lack of understanding of statistical mechanics is the idea the the complexity of life came about by random mutations and natural selection.

---

Then perhaps you can explain what the problem is. Because on the evidence here, it seems pretty clear that you don't have a good understanding of anything you are talking about. Including the quotes you use to try to convince us.

What then is your explanation for increased complexity?

---

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

Define "complexity" as you mean it in this context. You appear to be using it as some sort of explanation, but the word itself does not explain anything at all. Is a grain of rice more or less complex than a human being? Note that rice has orders of magnitude more genes than human cells.If by "complexity" you mean "the total number of features possessed by an organism, including expressed and unexpressed genes," then mutation can very obviously increase complexity, and has been directly observed to do so. Mutation is, after all, nothing more than a simple copy error; where AATG was supposed to be copied, instead you get ATAG or AATCG or ATTCGG or ATG or any other combination. The cumulative effect of these iterative copy errors results in a different genetic code with more, fewer, or simply different genes than the parent organism, and these differences taken as a whole comprise a net increase in variety.Note that this does not imply that more "complex" organisms are any better or worse than less "complex" organisms. Again, rice has orders of magnitude more genes than humans do, and by the above definition would qualify as far more "complex." There is no evolutionary ladder; there is only variety.If you mean something else when you use the word "complexity," please define it, and share how you can quantify whether "Complexity" is lost or gained. Red herrings. They have nothing to do with evolution, which is a process that only occurs when life already exists, and of course life could not exist without the Universe itself. The accuracy or inaccuracy of the Theory of Evolution in modeling the process by which life changes over time is completely separate from these topics.

I should like to add a point.Creationists like to pretend that thermodynamics and evolution are somehow in conflict.They are, of course, not telling the truth.But suppose for a moment that they were telling the truth. Suppose that the two ideas were genuinely in conflict.Then given the weight of the evidence for evolution we'd have to say that thermodynamics was wrong, wouldn't we?If in some magical fantasy world creationists could prove that there was a conflict between thermodynamics and evolution, then the concept we'd put in the trash would be thermodynamics. The things that we know to be true by observation smack down any theory, no matter how beautiful.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So an hour is too much time to spend to possibly learn something. I think I understand you better now.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

No they're not. Random mutations are the cause of the difference in inherited characteristics you mentioned in part 2. Part 3 is the result of natural selection on those random mutations. No, it's called evolution. Although there are some other mechanisms involved in that as well. But for this example, I'd call it evolution.

There are two problems: 1) This point of view is not supported by reputable biologist. Only popular writers and non-biologist say such a thing. 2) Life is too complex to be explained by such a process. Question: How long would it take a computer to generate "to be or not to be" by producing 18 letters and spaces randomly? Answer: Millions of years.

I put this question to a panel of experts on evolution and I called them liars for not agreeing with me. One of us is lying.

Because life is too complex to have evolved in 3 billion years with so few living organisms.