Evidence for entropy in virus genome

This has been delightful so far.

I have yet to see one attempt to explain why we find not even one virus live today that has 500 genes, let alone 2500 genes.
So far just a whole lot of lecturing on evolution is not this or evolution that, oh and the quaint attack of "there is no such thing as an evolutionist". Well whoever describes, defines, sets the parameters of the man made explanation of evolution is, to your regret, an evolutionist.

How about the facts as observed in nature? There is a ceiling today of 200 genes in all live viruses, not so in the past. This follows the Laws of Nature that state there will be entropy. You cannot get from lifeless disorder to highly complex order and still have entropy. But there entropy is, in the simplest form of life even, we are not even at the cellular level here.

originally posted by: Hefficide

States that viruses have undergone drastic mutations over a fairly short period, comes to the conclusion that this evolution disproves evolution...

My head hurts.

Mutations actually follow the Laws of Nature and is a source of entropy they do not add to the whole. They damage genetic information and only some of the damage gets passed on. That the passed on mutation is beneficial or not is of no consequence as overall dna information was lost not gained.

Oh man, I guess the more genes the more advanced right?

Wrong.

Complexity ever in the eye of its beholders, the animal with the most genes -- about 31,000 -- is the near-microscopic freshwater crustacean Daphnia pulex, or water flea. By comparison, humans have about 23,000 genes. Daphnia is the first crustacean to have its genome sequenced.

Source

So a microscopic crustacean is more genetically complex than humans are.

The number of genes an organism has has no bearing on evolution whatsoever. Sometimes evolution discards genes, other times it adds them.

This is a really weak argument.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Since evolution goes from the simple to the complex, this contradicts the model.

This is an incorrect assumption on your part. It is a common misconception amongst creationists.

Evolution is not a ladder

The evolutionary ladder has never been a scientific concept, and Darwin talked of common descent, yet even this 1998 reprint of On The Origin Of Species shows a (rather giant) leap from a modern looking monkey to a reconstruction of a relatively recent possible human ancestor. Yet, despite the fact that the evolutionary ladder has never been a scientific theory, lay people seem to think that it is. When a fossil skull, named Touma�, was found in Chad in 2002 an article in Nature (Whitfield, 2002) which stated that the fossil prompted a rethink of human evolution was jumped on by creationists as the end of evolutionary theory altogether (Yahya, 2002). The reason was that when scientists were asked to comment about the fact that the find did not fit with the evolutionary ladder their response was that the evolutionary ladder is not a scientific theory and is baseless. The creationists jumped on this because to them the evolutionary ladder is evolution, or even if they don't think that, it's still convenient to pretend that the evolutionary ladder is the prevailing evolutionary theory when there are scientists attacking it.

Get out of town!

Primordial soup to YOU. Was that soup more complex than you?

a reply to: TinfoilTP

If you start out with invalid assumptions you will end up with an invalid conclusion, every time. Put garbage in, get garbage out. No wonder you are confused.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

You are not understanding entropy. By your standard this:



Should be vastly superior to this:



When, in fact, the opposite is absolutely true.

OP give up you are just embarrassing yourself.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Oh man, I guess the more genes the more advanced right?

Wrong.

Complexity ever in the eye of its beholders, the animal with the most genes -- about 31,000 -- is the near-microscopic freshwater crustacean Daphnia pulex, or water flea. By comparison, humans have about 23,000 genes. Daphnia is the first crustacean to have its genome sequenced.

Source

So a microscopic crustacean is more genetically complex than humans are.

The number of genes an organism has has no bearing on evolution whatsoever. Sometimes evolution discards genes, other times it adds them.

This is a really weak argument.

You are comparing across species, apples to alligators. Common trick, won't work here.

We see viruses here, viruses from approx. 30,000 years before and viruses that are in the wild today.

Find a water flea from 30,000 years ago and compare it to todays water flea then come back and have an honest discussion.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: TinfoilTP

You are not understanding entropy. By your standard this:

Should be vastly superior to this:

When, in fact, the opposite is absolutely true.

Another simple magicians slight of hand trick.

All you showed in your two pictures was an example of non equal scales. If the computer at the bottom was scaled to the upper computer it would dwarf it and show that it is obviously more complicated.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

You got me here. I conce....

Oh wait...

Humans LOST DNA as they evolved: Early species had the equivalent of thousands more genes than we do now

By analysing the DNA of 125 human populations around the world, the scientists have produced the most detailed map of human genetic diversity yet produced.

They found humans appear to have lost around 15.8 million base pairs after separating from apes early in our evolutionary history in Africa, around 13 million years ago.

There you go, the same species showing less genetic complexity as it evolved.

You should really research things before you post them. Your conclusion was wrong because you started out with a faulty premise.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

All you showed in your two pictures was an example of non equal scales. If the computer at the bottom was scaled to the upper computer it would dwarf it and show that it is obviously more complicated.

What does this even mean? Are you saying that if the computer on the bottom was changed to be bigger than the one at the top then it would be bigger? Well, no duh. Thing is, the computer on the bottom at its current/simpler scale is more efficient and better than the one at the top. You can't just make your own rules.

The OP is a classic case of not understanding how evolution works. Like I said, evolution doesn't follow any set parameters genetically, it adds and subtracts genes based on their viability with the new environment.

Genome size can increase by duplication, insertion, or polyploidization. Recombinationcan lead to both DNA loss or gain. Genomes can also shrink because of deletions.

A famous example for such gene decay is the genome of Mycobacterium leprae, the causative agent of leprosy. M.leprae has lost many once-functional genes over time due to the formation of pseudogenes.

An example of increasing genome size over time is seen in filamentous plant pathogens. These plant pathogen genomes have been growing larger over the years due to repeat-driven expansion.

Source

This literally took less than 5 minutes of Googling.

Like I said, at least try to understand the subject matter before posting absolutes about it.

I fear nothing will be learned on the OP's part though.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
OP give up you are just embarrassing yourself.

You guys are embarrassing yourselves by not being able to compare, so you cannot even get off the starting blocks.

The only comparison here is 30,000 year old viruses to todays viruses.

Not old wire and tube computers to modern desktops that require a creator for complexity, crustaceans to humans or any other ridiculous non relevant comparisons.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

How about the comparisons of early humans having more genes than modern ones?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: TinfoilTP

You got me here. I conce....

Oh wait...

Humans LOST DNA as they evolved: Early species had the equivalent of thousands more genes than we do now

By analysing the DNA of 125 human populations around the world, the scientists have produced the most detailed map of human genetic diversity yet produced.

They found humans appear to have lost around 15.8 million base pairs after separating from apes early in our evolutionary history in Africa, around 13 million years ago.

There you go, the same species showing less genetic complexity as it evolved.

You should really research things before you post them. Your conclusion was wrong because you started out with a faulty premise.

First of all that is an unproven assumption we came from an ape.

Second of all you proved my point and showed entropy in humans, which is the opposite of evolving into something else. We can never evolve into another species over a billion years if we lose a percentage of our dna like that over millions. There simply would be nothing left of the genome over great amounts of time.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

And therein lay the heart of the issue. Evolution does not assert that humans came from apes. Evolution asserts that we and apes share a common ancestor.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

So now you're reneging on your OP's premise? That loss of genes disproves evolution? Because I've just shown how genetic complexity has no bearing on the validity of evolution. Evolution adds and subtracts genes all the time based on the environment. We are more evolved than neanderthals yet we have less genes than they did. Other species have more genes than their ancestors. I fail to see the point of the OP now, or are you abandoning it and moving the goalposts?

Also, we didn't come from apes, we share a common ancestor with them. Yet another example of you not understanding how evolution works.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: TinfoilTP

All you showed in your two pictures was an example of non equal scales. If the computer at the bottom was scaled to the upper computer it would dwarf it and show that it is obviously more complicated.

What does this even mean? Are you saying that if the computer on the bottom was changed to be bigger than the one at the top then it would be bigger? Well, no duh. Thing is, the computer on the bottom at its current/simpler scale is more efficient and better than the one at the top. You can't just make your own rules.

You do realize there are more switches in the bottom computer?
Lets say for argument that they can do the same exact work, no more no less.
How does that relate to the argument here? There is no added complexity only a difference in scale. They would have the same amount of on off switches to count the ones and zeros.

Are you proving my point by showing the past held more switches? You realize that dna makes proteins and their scale does not change and never can unless we synthesize proteins out of smaller quarks or gluons at a scale below the atom which is the only possibility but then it would be artificial life with a Creator, us.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Since evolution goes from the simple to the complex, this contradicts the model.

Does it? I don't think it does, or at least I've never heard any scientists saying that a species couldn't lose some of the extra genetic information during evolution. Of course there's the question of where these viruses even fit in the evolutionary scheme of things. I've also never heard any scientist say that all extant creatures are more complex, be it genetically or otherwise, than all of their ancestors. There's a reason that the tree of life is now called the web of life, because a long time ago scientists realized that it wasn't a hierarchy of "more evolved" or "less evolved".

There are organisms that are less complex than humans that have more genetic information than we do. Clearly the amount of genetic information is not the only factor in complexity of form, function, etc.

Evolutionists start wringing your hands and wiping off those beads of sweat on your brows, and come up with some comical malarkey to dismiss this

New discoveries like this excite the scientific world, not make it anxious or nervous. Even if a discovery turned biology on its head it would excite scientists, not frighten them off. Your conspiracy theory framing of scientists as professional liars who must make things up to protect evolution is laughable, evolution has been directly observed and vetted time and time again. But given your statements above about complexity you obviously don't have a very good grasp of evolution or natural selection.

Tin foil does make a valid point tho and all these comments seem to brush it off.

Answer it though because it's an interesting question.

If life started off more complex. How did it start off complex in the first place? If *evolution* degrades genetic information into what we have today then what evidence is there that this is all completely random?

It's kinda hard for something random yet precise to be like atcg-gct-gtc-ccg-tcg-tcg-gtc-gtc-cgt-ttgc-atc-tca-tcg-act-acg-tca-gtc-act-cat-cta-cag-gac-ttc-cct-aag-gga-ggt-cca-tat-gag-aga-gtc-agt-ctg-acg-tta-cat- tgg-atc-act-ata-ata

As apposed to what we have now act-ada-adc-ada-act-cat-tgg-ggc-gta-atc

Pretty huge difference.

And the kicker to this all is that the virus sample is from the last ice age aprox 20-30,000 years ago.

When we look at how birds devoled from having claws teeth and were dinosaurs. It would seem like life was at its most complex back then.

Which makes the assumption that if life does start of simplistic and then progressively get more complex as long as the enviroment allows so. Then something that led a perfect climate over millions to billions of years lead to the dinosaurs. And a sequence of events had a downward spiral since the perfect enviroment was lost.

If we look at the ancient astronaught theory.

It could be likely that aliens seeded this planet. Used atmospheric generators world wide to create an un-natural perfect atmosphere to superboost the eco-system. But a war or some other event triggered cataklysmic event. And what ever was maintaining teraforming of this planet ceased. So we are seeing the degeneration of genetic material as we revert through to a natural ecosystem with deminishing complexity.

If we humans somehow figured out how to beef up the atmosphere and purify soil and water supplies we could reach a stage of advanced biological complexity again. But i can't really see these things happening without intervention.

You only get the perfect *goldy locks* zone for advanced life with very specific characteristics.

Our white blood cells that defend our body from all kinds of harm themselves are viruses implanted into the human genome millions of years ago. Surely the planet has to be at least 12 billion years old or older.

So did earth have a perfect ecosystem by complete chance at one point? Having crawling animals on a planet is one thing. But giant bugs, lizards and monkies is another.