|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5085 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Truth About Evolution and Religion | |||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5085 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2326 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
dkroemer writes:
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.
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.
So?
We have to make a decision about revelation.
Revalation? Do you mean reality?
If we make the wrong decision we might end up howling.
Yes. However, we don't just know the "right" decission, that's arrived at after waying the evidence.
The nickel and dime arguments you use to refute my arguments are irrational.
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Roemer.
dkroemer writes: They never say that facilitated variation explains the complexity of life. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
When an object slides on a table and friction slows it down, the kinetic energy is lost. It is not conserved. Scientists solved the problem by inventing a new energy: internal energy or heat energy. The kinetic energy is transformed into heat energy. 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.
The calculation I gave does not take into consideration natural selection and facilitated variation. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I understand that a lot of layman think Darwinism explains the complexity of life. But biologists know better. Really? Here is an abstract from a paper where they use evolution to explain the complexity of eyes.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
The soul is not a religious belief. Yes, it is. Or have you never heard of missionaries trying to save souls?
It is a metaphysical category that biologists need to justify not including free will and conscious knowledge in their textbooks. Why do biologists need to justify your religious beliefs? Consciousness is a matter for neurobiology and it has nothing to do with souls.
Biologists only study the bodies of humans, not their souls. Biologists don't study flying reindeer, either. Do you wonder why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
you will see that Gerhart and Kirscher argue that four 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 four core processes and their sub-processes are largely responsible for all the diversity of life. 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 ...
Gerhart and Kirschner writes: Components of energy metabolism, biosynthesis of the 60 building blocks, DNA replication, DNA transcription to RNA, translation of RNA to protein, lipid membrane synthesis, transmembrane transport ... 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5085 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5085 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
I have trouble believing you don't understand what I am saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi dkroemer, still trying to remake reality?
However, it is not evolution that violates the second law. What violates the second law is the theory of natural selection. 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.
It does not violate the second law for one person at a bridge table to get 13 of a single suit. But it does violate the second law for all four persons to get perfect bridge hands. 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.
If four hands in a bridge game are perfect, the deck was not shuffled. 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.
The theory that there were four perfect hands by chance is irrational and violates the second law. And unfortunately, for you, the "theory of four perfect hands" has nothing to do with natural selection in particular or with evolution in general.
Message 248 The odds of a shuffled deck producing the same order of cards that manufacturers use are one in 52 X 51 X 50 .... The odds of getting four perfect bridge hands is less. 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. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : added more we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Wounded King.
Wounded King writes: 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. No, I'm referring to this part:
quote: Edited by Bluejay, : misplaced bolding -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi dkroemer
That is correct. I understand that a lot of layman think Darwinism explains the complexity of life. But biologists know better. 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:
quote: And, of course, we now know that this is true because you have said that UMich is telling the truth.
When I put the question to Terrance Deacon (this conversation is on the internet) he tergiversated. He knew perfectly well from the context of my remarks that I was looking for an acknowledgement of the limitations of Darwinism. He let everyone think that the question of how life got so complex has been solved. 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:
quote: quote: 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 we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You really are a comedian, dkroemer.
When an object slides on a table and friction slows it down, the kinetic energy is lost. It is not conserved. Scientists solved the problem by inventing a new energy: internal energy or heat energy. The kinetic energy is transformed into heat energy. 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. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
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, WK Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5085 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024