The Truth About Evolution and Religion

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?

It's supported by more than 99% of biologists, the very ones doing primary research in biology. But that is beside the point. The accuracy of a theory is not determined by a poll. It is determined by the evidence. I need something other than your incredulity as evidence. Evolution isn't random, nor is there a set goal. Your example doesn't come close to being an analogy for biological evolution.

If you would start presenting evidence instead of logical fallacies it would sure help.

So if I know the location of all of my socks in a drawer does that make my sock drawer complex? I don't think anyone is arguing that life is not complex on a qualitative level. The hard part is quantifying that complexity. Is complexity measured by the number of parts? Is complexity measured by the number of DNA pairs? Is complexity measured by the number of cells in an organism? What is the actual measure of complexity in life? And strangely enough, that addition is completely natural.

So if humans were not around to observe proteins then life would not be complex? In fact, we didn't even know about amino acids and nucleic acids until very recently. Does this mean that life was not complex until these things were discovered in the mid-1900's?

Really? In the conclusion section I find these quotes:"Our results demonstrate a clear natural selection for complexity in a driven, biased fashion.""Thus it can be seen that, at the scale of individuals comprising a species, evolution always guides trends in complexity.""Our current simulations reinforce this notion of natural selection driving the evolution of complexity at small scales, but driving it in all directionsup, down, and stable."

Based on what evidence? Evolution is not random chance. Even more, how many functional 300 aa proteins are possible? Based on what calculations? But they do say that there is tons of evidence that demonstrate evolution is the cause.

So you are incapable of figuring out that you and your siblings share a common ancestor? Perhaps you are overstating what we don't know.The genetic evidence is irrefutable. Species share a common ancestor. Such genetic features as ERV's, pseudogenes, and introns clearly indicate common ancestry. The only one who considers it a mystery is you. In which peer reviewed article does he state this?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Evolution has little to do with the second law. All decreases in entropy on the Earth are dwarfed by the massive amounts of energy coming from the Sun.

Evolution is not random chance. Evolution includes natural selection which makes it a non-random process.

You are aware that 30-40% of biologists are theists, right? Are you saying that hundreds of thousands of people who believe in a deity are all conspiring to advance atheism?Or could it be that they are promoting good science in order to train good scientists?

Because your religious beliefs have nothing to do with the accuracy of a scientific theory.

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?