|
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I have already proved by citing facts and authorities that natural selection explains only adaptation, not common descent. And people have patiently explained to you that it is the theory of evolution that explains common descent. Which part of this is too difficult to grasp? Only I'm not sure that it's possible to make this any simpler for you.
This group is not interested in biology, but in justifying their immature feeling that they are more enlightened and more rational that people who believe in God: Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindues, and Budhhists. Telling dumb lies to us about what we think is not going to help you to convince us that you're right. It's going to help convince us that you're a dumb fantasist with no concern for the truth. If any further persuasion is needed.
It was understood from the very beginning that natural selection could not explain the evolution of something as complex as the human eye. And it was understood from the moment that Darwin published that the theory of evolution was sufficient to explain the evolution of something as complex as the human eye.
With the discovery of the structure of proteins and DNA it was possible to quantify the complexity of life by caculating the probability of a protein evolving by random chance. A very crude calculation is one in 20600. I pick the number 600 because that is the number of letters in a sonnet. I mention sonnets because the number of letters in the alphabet is about equal to the number of amino acids. This calculation is crude for two reasons. It ignores natural selection and it assumes that the jumping around of amino acids is what produces complexity. My layman's understanding of faciliated variation is that it is clumps of amino acids that jump around in evolution. A computer program can simulate evolution by calculating how long it would take a computer to reproduce a sonnet by randomly generating dictionary words. Dictionary words, not letters, because of facilitated variation. Natural selection is accounted for by accumulating partial reproductions of the sonnet. So far as I know, this calculation has only been done for short sequences, for example, "to be or not to be." A computer can generate a short phrase in a short length of time. Without facilitated variation and natural selection, that is, just randomly generating letters and spaces, the time is millions of years. The weakness of these calculations is that it assumes that the complexity of the primary structure of a protein is a measure of the complexity of life. In my opinion, this does not even begin to describe the complexity of life. It excludes the complex molecular machinery and the timing of biological processes. This is why the calculation is done only for short sequences of words. To do the calculation for a whole sonnet would imply that you think the primary structure of a protein describes the complexity of life. Insofar as this gibberish is meaningful, it is irrelevant, since it does not even begin to discuss the theory of evolution. --- Oh, I'm just going to quote this bit again:
This calculation is crude for two reasons. It ignores natural selection and it assumes that the jumping around of amino acids is what produces complexity. BWAHAHAHA! BWAHAHAHA! ---
Biologists, with the exception of anti-religous fanatics like Dawkins, understand that life is too complex to have evolved through natural selection. Biologists, including Dawkins, know that the mechanisms of evolution are described in the theory of evolution and that the law of natural selection is indeed insufficient to explain evolution. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
They mean high degrees of complexity can't evolve by Darwinian mechanisms. They are quite right, as I explain, yet again, in detail in detail a few minutes ago. So, you admit that the ID people disagree with biologists about biology, just like you do? Thank you. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Unlike creationists, I don't think we're in a position to calculate probabilities of even simple sequences like A, B and T, but I think your number probably represents an extremely low lower bound. I would definitely agree. I'm just using this as a hypothetical to suggest that more realistic starting assumptions show how erroneous the whole approach is as a basis to conclude anything. In fact looking back I'm not sure where my X10s came from, the numbers look more like they should be (4^55)*(4^13)*(4^48) giving a probability of 1.44890865 10^-70 which is a virtual certainty the way these probability conversations tend to run. Just to clarify, all 3 elements are required for auto catalytic replication so I think requiring all three to co-occur in a single trial is a reasonable requirement if looking for an initial self replicating sequence being produced from randomly generated sequences as a starting point for sequence evolution to kick off. It doesn't do any good if the complementary sequences are on the other side of the planet. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again dkroemer,
We don't doubt that complexity evolved. Good, but the question still remains - how do you define complexity. How do you measure whether one organism is more or less complex than another. You say that there is an observable difference between modern bacteria and monkeys -- what is it? If we assign 100 "roemers" of complexity to, say, Escherichia coli (a well known and documented bacteria in science), then how many "roemers" does a Rhesus Macaque (another well studied species) have?
The question is what were the processes? Evolution and speciation, as has been explained.
The U. Mich lessons say nothing unscientific. But the Berkeley lesson says natural selection explains the complexity of life. Can you provide the link to the actual Berkeley statement you are using for this? And then show that the process discussed on the Berkeley page is entirely missing from the UMich pages? I'm just curious why you see it this way.
The U. Mich lessons say nothing unscientific. But the Berkeley lesson says natural selection explains the complexity of life. Likewise Gerhart and Kirsner and Kenneth Miller do not say natural selection explains the complexity of life, but Richard Dawkins does. And yet all of them say that evolution as a whole explains the diversity of life. The diversity of life necessarily includes any variations in complexity, no matter how you define complexity, so explaining the all the known diversity of life necessarily includes explaining all the known complexity of life. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi dkroemer, still repeating falsified claims?
I have already proved by citing facts and authorities that natural selection explains only adaptation, not common descent. Which amusingly, does not mean that common descent does not occur and is not observed all around you. Common descent occurs through speciation, and natural selection is ONE of the mechanisms that can contribute (but doesn't have to) to the process of evolution that leads to speciation, in general, and the formation of nested hierarchies of descent from common ancestors, in particular.
This group is not interested in biology, but in justifying their immature feeling that they are more enlightened and more rational that people who believe in God: Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindues, and Budhhists. Since opponents of Darwinism tend to be religious, promoting Darwinism is an exercise in bigotry. And I'm a deist, so your claim is obviously a false opinion based on confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, rather than reason and evidence.
It was understood from the very beginning that natural selection could not explain the evolution of something as complex as the human eye. Which is also obviously a false opinion based on confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance, rather than reason and evidence, because Darwin discussed how an eye could evolve by stages in his original book, The Origin of Species, first edition:
quote: You can do a couple of simple experiments on your own:
Can you describe how each of these sensations would not have a selective advantage over an organism that did not have these sensations?
... A very crude calculation is one in 20600. I pick the number 600 because that is the number of letters in a sonnet. I mention sonnets because the number of letters in the alphabet is about equal to the number of amino acids. This calculation is crude for two reasons. It ignores natural selection and it assumes that the jumping around of amino acids is what produces complexity. My layman's understanding of faciliated variation is that it is clumps of amino acids that jump around in evolution. ... And the calculation is not only crude but totally bogus from start to finish. It is bogus because (1) it does not model how natural systems evolve, and (2) the calculation is mathematically wrong. See the old improbable probability problem for some of the basic math errors. In particular see Message 23, where I've used 2051 bonds between molecules, instead of your 20600:
quote: As you should be able to figure out, if we do this for your 20600 instead, that due to the fact that only the last one is 1/20 and that the numbers you add to the multiplication will be between 0.9269 (at the top of the list) and (your top of the list) ... =0.999999999999955 or 1 in 1.000000000000045 ... and the longer the chain the closer this first value approaches 1. In order to properly calculate the probability of an event occurring you have to model all the possible different ways the event could occur, and this has yet to be addressed by the creationists in general and you in particular.
I have already proved ... You have "proved" nothing other than an incredible misundertanding of evolution.
... by citing facts and authorities that natural selection explains only adaptation, not common descent. ... Cherry picked quote mines are not facts, and ignoring quotes by the same authors that contradict your claim is called confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias does not lead you to truth. You can find positive evidence for anything, even that the earth is flat. The problem is not that you need to find evidence to support your position, but that you cannot ignore evidence that contradicts it and have a valid claim. Calling a university that contradicts your claim "liars" is not dealing with the evidence that contradicts your claim. This is called delusion:
... This group responds by giving me lectures about evolution ... To show you the multiple errors in your misunderstanding of evolution.
... and by saying you can't prove you are right by quoting biology textbooks and experts in the field. ... Because quote mining does not turn confirmation bias and fantasy into reality. If you only cherry pick the bits and pieces that conform to your interpretation and ignore and deny the evidence that contradicts you (like claiming that the whole Berkely biology department are liars), then you are not proving anything.
... My YouTube video gives a very concise and easy-to-understand refuation of Darwinism. Garbage in, garbage out. Logic based on false premises is false. Repeating false assertions does not make them correct. Putting false assertions on YouTube does not make them correct. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : maths 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5085 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
Complexity is a measure of the amount of knowledge there is about the particles making up a system. A trillion gas molecules in one liter is more complex that a trillion gas molecules in two liters. A protein is more complex than a soup of amino acids because the location of every amino acid in the protein is known. A human is more complex than a fish because it has more proteins.
Just as there is no scientific explanation for the big bang and the origen of life, three is no scientific explanation for the increase in the complexity of life. The second law of thermodynamics states that nature tends towards a state of greater disorder, that is, less complexity. I know that many non-biologist say natural selection explains the complexity of life, but you shouldn't believe everything you read.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I know that many non-biologist say natural selection explains the complexity of life, but you shouldn't believe everything you read.
Given how many times you have been corrected on this, we don't believe anything you say now. Why can't you understand and accept empirical evidence? Is your mind so closed by belief that you no longer listen to, or accept evidence to the contrary, no matter how well documented? As Heinlein wrote years ago, Belief gets in the way of learning. I'm afraid you are showing yourself to be the poster child for this bit of wisdom. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi dkroemer, thanks.
A human is more complex than a fish because it has more proteins. Ah, so 1 roemer of complexity = 1 protein in an organism. Is it 1 roemer of complexity for each different kind of protein, or do two copies of the same protein count as 2 roemers?
I know that many non-biologist say natural selection explains the complexity of life, but you shouldn't believe everything you read. And every biologist should be able to explain to you how proteins evolve through mutation and drift and selection and other mechanisms of evolution. Wounded King or Taq will be happy to show you examples of this. Now that you have defined it, we know that it is something that occurs by evolution. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : 1 or 2 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5085 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
I could not follow your calculations. Why do you only do a calculation for a protein with only 50 amino acid? Proteins involve hundred of amino acids. The reason professional biologists don't do these calcuations is that the primary structure of proteins does not begin to describe the complexity of life. In my YouTube video ("The Truth About Evolution and Religion") I explain Gerhart and Kirschners calcuation for , in effect, a 15 amino acid protein.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
The second law of thermodynamics states that nature tends towards a state of greater disorder, that is, less complexity. The 2LoT says absolutely nothing of the sort. How anyone with a Ph.D. in any area of science could make this claim is completely behind me, and futher bolsters my suspicion that you are some sort of Davisonesque crank. Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
In my YouTube video ... And in the hour-long lecture by a professor of biology/mathematics at U. of Washington, that I referred you to back about post #61 or something, it is shown that you are entirely wrong. In case you missed it, here it is again: Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi dkroemer,
I could not follow your calculations. Seems well explained to me, what it calculates is the probability that each bond could not form at each stage and deducts that from 1. Take the first bond -- there are 52 molecules in the example, so there are 51 bonds that need to form to make the overall molecule chain, and the probability that NOT ONE of them will form is: Then you subtract this from 1 to find the probability than ONE of the bonds will form: Fairly certain eh? If you think about it, there are only 20 amino acids, and the probability of any two of them combining is 1 (given that they spontaneously combine by normal chemistry), so it's just a matter of any two combining matching any one of the ordered bonds in the overall molecule chain. The longer the overall molecule chain is, the more likely it is that any bond between ANY two amino acids will replicate one of the bonds in the overall molecule chain, so the longer the molecule is, the more the probability of this first bond approaches 1. When it is done for a 600 molecule chain with 599 bonds between amino acids, the probability of the first bond NOT forming is: Then you subtract this from 1 to find the probability than ONE of the 599 bonds in the overall molecule chain will form: or 1 in 1.000000000000045 Or almost certain to form, as predicted above.
Why do you only do a calculation for a protein with only 50 amino acid? Actually it is 52 amino acids in the overall molecule chain in my calculation, not 50. Curiously, it is not the length of the chain that is important here, but the method of calculating the correct probability. Once you have the correct methodology you can apply it to any chain length. Amusingly, once you go past 52 molecules with 51 bonds, then end result is not significantly different, because the probability of the first bonds are close to 1: The probability of forming the first of 51 bonds is 0.92690227348712233718942033985896 The probability of forming the first of 599 bonds is 0.99999999999995466437910255345756 And therefore we know that all the bonds between 51 and 599 are between these values, and not 1/20.
Why do you only do a calculation for a protein with only 50 amino acid? Because the purpose is to show that the (1/20)x method of calculation is wrong. In the case of 52 molecules it is off by 54 ORDERS OF MAGNETUDE -- a pretty large error eh?
Proteins involve hundred of amino acids. There is no real point in providing such a calculation for an actual molecule, because (1) even this calculation does not model all the ways that such a molecule could form, and (2) this still does not model how proteins are made in natural processes that involve modification and selection.
The reason professional biologists don't do these calcuations is that the primary structure of proteins does not begin to describe the complexity of life. No, the reason that professional biologists don't do these calculations is because they know they do not model the way proteins are formed by natural processes that involve modification and selection. They know there is no point in doing pointless calculations.
In my YouTube video ("The Truth About Evolution and Religion") I explain Gerhart and Kirschners calcuation for, in effect, a 15 amino acid protein. Amusingly, your video is based on your opinion (which is full of misrepresentation and misunderstanding), and as such is not any kind of reference for the validity of your opinion. Do you understand the fallacy of circular logic? Your video showing your opinion is not validation for your opinion. You have misunderstood and misrepresented so much, it is highly possible that what Gerhart and Kirschners say is not accurately portrayed. Fascinatingly, it doesn't matter, because the issue is what biology in general and evolution in particular say, how things work in the real world. 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5085 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
The empirical evidence proves that the big bang occures 13.7 billion years ago and life began 3.5 billion years ago as bacteria. It then evolved into chimps.
Humans are embodies spirits, not because of empirical evidence, but because humans are rational animals. However, the bodies of humans evolved from animals. Body and soul are the metaphysical categories of form and matter. Natural selection and facilitate variation are theories that attempt to explain evolutiion. Intelligent design is not a theory, but pseudo-science. Natural selection certainly explains why species are adapted to their environment, so it has scientific validity. The idea that natural selection explains the complexity of life is propagated by anti-religious fanatics and intelligent design advocates. Intelligent desing advocates promote this idea by not quoting mainstream biologists in explaining the limitations of Darwinism. They do this to promote themselves, I suppose. My video and book reviews relies on mainstream biologists to explain evolutionary biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5085 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
Intelligent design is pseudo-science. Any quote that criticizes intelligent design and considers it an alternative to science is irrational. I'm sure your references, unless they are crackpots like Dawkins, do not say natural selection explains the complexity of life. Your quote only mentions that there is a "robust" model.
Intelligent design advocates say there is a "controversy" about evolution. There is no controversy. There used to be a controversey about the "big bang." It was true that some physicists were more in favor of it than others. But they all acknowledged that the final determination would be made by observations. When the background radiation was discovered, all accepted the truth of it. The idea that there can be a disagreement among scientists about science is inconsistent with a scientific attitude.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dkroemer Member (Idle past 5085 days) Posts: 125 From: Brooklyn, New York Joined: |
I can't understand the relevance of the probability of a bond forming? If you have two amino acids A and B, there are tw possible combinations AB and BA. The probability of getting AB is 50%.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024