Evidence for entropy in virus genome

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
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.

You can argue about where your side moved the goalposts till you are blue in the face, I don't care. Until it is shown we came from any other species it is just a dream. Apes then common ancestor of apes, it matters not, there is no proof.

My argument is entropy makes evolution impossible. It cannot be ignored or explained away, it is a law of Physics.
The amount of information added to the genome by natural causes is miniscule over the billions years timescale compared to the amount lost through entropy, and the gene counts show evidence of this.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Yet evolution still doesn't care how genetically complex or simple it makes a species. Sometimes simpler is more efficient, other times the opposite is true. The premise of your thread is all wrong and you came at it in the wrong way.

Why are you so afraid of evolution? God and evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive, they can easily compliment one another. The only reason I can see someone disregarding nearly a hundred years of research is them believing in a book that supposedly has all the answers yet doesn't mention evolution.

We should let our knowledge grow, not let it stagnate in a dirty pool of water. Stagnant water can become deadly to the drinker, letting your knowledge flow and change course is where the answer is. Seek and you will find. And yes, evolution is one of the answers to the bigger picture.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

My argument is entropy makes evolution impossible. It cannot be ignored or explained away, it is a law of Physics.

The law you are misunderstanding is the second law of thermodynamics.

That law states that in a closed system (that is a system where no new energy is introduced) the system tends toward entropy. But the Earth is not a closed system, we have new energy constantly added by the SUN, which has enough fuel to last another 3-4 billion years before entropy runs its course.

You are laughably misunderstanding grade school science and making yourself look bad.

a reply to: AnuTyr

No he doesnt because the process of evolution is not linear. Mutations can add or subtract from the total genome. His point is fundametally invalid.

a reply to: AnuTyr

In terms of scale, 30,000 years ago was a blink of an eye. By way of contrast, the extinction that killed off the last of the dinosaurs happened roughly 66,000,000 years ago and the first modern humans were already extant about 200,000 years ago.

As it happens viruses are a good case study for evolution because of the fact that they are highly mutagenic and adaptive. This fact also provides clues as to why this virus happens to have so much genetic information - and might well yield clues to as to how viruses jump species - for example.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Yet evolution still doesn't care how genetically complex or simple it makes a species. Sometimes simpler is more efficient, other times the opposite is true. The premise of your thread is all wrong and you came at it in the wrong way.

Why are you so afraid of evolution? God and evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive, they can easily compliment one another. The only reason I can see someone disregarding nearly a hundred years of research is them believing in a book that supposedly has all the answers yet doesn't mention evolution.

We should let our knowledge grow, not let it stagnate in a dirty pool of water. Stagnant water can become deadly to the drinker, letting your knowledge flow and change course is where the answer is. Seek and you will find. And yes, evolution is one of the answers to the bigger picture.

When the sudden explosion of the Cambrian is sufficiently explained to exclude an intervention, I will listen. Until then the observations are only that of the processes put forth by a timeless Creator. Sure birds changed beaks and feathers and features as did all species over time to cope with environment, but the information was there or the possibility for the mutation in the possible environment was there from the beginning. I see a super Creator that accounted for all possibilities. More credible than a stance of slow crawling entropy restrained evolution impossibly erupting in the Cambrian.

a reply to: Titen-Sxull

Thank you, I knew there was something wrong with his entropy argument I just couldn't put my finger on it.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

So you believe in evolution now? Because birds changing feathers and beaks to suit their environment is what evolution is all about. Birds with different features than other birds are called different species of bird, birds changing those features to form new species is evolution.

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: TinfoilTP

My argument is entropy makes evolution impossible. It cannot be ignored or explained away, it is a law of Physics.

The law you are misunderstanding is the second law of thermodynamics.

That law states that in a closed system (that is a system where no new energy is introduced) the system tends toward entropy. But the Earth is not a closed system, we have new energy constantly added by the SUN, which has enough fuel to last another 3-4 billion years before entropy runs its course.

You are laughably misunderstanding grade school science and making yourself look bad.

If life was the fabled impossible free energy vehicle that never lost a smidgen of energy ever, then your argument would hold valid. But since life is not 100% energy efficient, it is subject to entropy.

Look at Mars, it had the same sun shining on it yet it has not oceans left, so much for the sun canceling out entropy.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

When the sudden explosion of the Cambrian is sufficiently explained to exclude an intervention, I will listen.

That's not how science works. We don't look into a mysterious explosion of bio-diversity (the Cambrian Explosion, I should mention, is not all that mysterious, its tens of millions of years long, plenty of time) and say "well I'm gonna say a God did it until someone can exclude my God."

That's a logical fallacy.

Until then the observations are only that of the processes put forth by a timeless Creator.

Can you explain or offer any evidence of these processes? How do they work? By what mechanism does God drive evolution or, if you like, create. If we take your OP as an honest reflection of your response to this discovery then you apparently think entropy is in control of the Earth and is taking viruses downhill evolutionarily speaking... is that part of God's plan, to make organisms less complex and less functional as time goes on?

More credible than a stance of slow crawling entropy restrained evolution impossibly erupting in the Cambrian.

I reread this sentence several times, can't make heads or tails of what you mean other than one big argument from incredulity, "I can't believe it, therefore I'm justified in my beliefs". Look, your beliefs are your own, whatever, believe what you want, but don't make up BS and use broken fallacious logic to hold onto them. There are plenty of people who keep science and theology as separate matters, while you seem to think scientists are trying to lie in some conspiracy to hide the fact that YOU had it right all along. You have no evidence or reasons for attacking science.

But since life is not 100% energy efficient, it is subject to entropy.

Of course, and so is your car engine, but you wouldn't tell me that your car engine can't possibly run.

As for Mars, it's farther away from the suns rays and thus colder, however there's still a chance it had life at one time or even has microbial life to this day.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: TinfoilTP

So you believe in evolution now? Because birds changing feathers and beaks to suit their environment is what evolution is all about. Birds with different features than other birds are called different species of bird, birds changing those features to form new species is evolution.

That is not evolution, that is adaptation and all life has enough variation and ability to mutate to adapt to the environment. No Kinds have ever changed by that. Unless you think red skinned Indians are a different species than white skinned Europeans? Maybe your mumbo jumbo got you too confused.

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: TinfoilTP

When the sudden explosion of the Cambrian is sufficiently explained to exclude an intervention, I will listen.

That's not how science works. We don't look into a mysterious explosion of bio-diversity (the Cambrian Explosion, I should mention, is not all that mysterious, its tens of millions of years long, plenty of time) and say "well I'm gonna say a God did it until someone can exclude my God."

That's a logical fallacy.

Until then the observations are only that of the processes put forth by a timeless Creator.

Can you explain or offer any evidence of these processes? How do they work? By what mechanism does God drive evolution or, if you like, create. If we take your OP as an honest reflection of your response to this discovery then you apparently think entropy is in control of the Earth and is taking viruses downhill evolutionarily speaking... is that part of God's plan, to make organisms less complex and less functional as time goes on?

More credible than a stance of slow crawling entropy restrained evolution impossibly erupting in the Cambrian.

I reread this sentence several times, can't make heads or tails of what you mean other than one big argument from incredulity, "I can't believe it, therefore I'm justified in my beliefs". Look, your beliefs are your own, whatever, believe what you want, but don't make up BS and use broken fallacious logic to hold onto them. There are plenty of people who keep science and theology as separate matters, while you seem to think scientists are trying to lie in some conspiracy to hide the fact that YOU had it right all along. You have no evidence or reasons for attacking science.

But since life is not 100% energy efficient, it is subject to entropy.

Of course, and so is your car engine, but you wouldn't tell me that your car engine can't possibly run.

As for Mars, it's farther away from the suns rays and thus colder, however there's still a chance it had life at one time or even has microbial life to this day.

You can never explain the Cambrian so evolution is dead.

Doesn't matter how you go about anything else, until that is settled it is all for nothing.

a reply to: Cypress

people who see themselves as dawinists would view that life gradually gets more complex because it just does. Because survial of the fittest.

Proper understanding of the concepts of evolution of life without darwinistic theology would look at evidence today and say life is only as advanced as an enviroment allows. And the dependancy of an organisms ability to develop symbiotic relationships with other species.

Life in general isn't destined to grow more advanced. Life only has a random chance of it happening and when it happens without the intervention of intelligent life it is such a small window of oppertunity it would hardly happen at all. Judging by the surrounding planets we can see just how dead the surface of nearby planets are. How about when we finally reach another solar system?

What if we could count the number of solar systems with life without hands who have not had intervention in our galaxy? And i don't mean micro-organisms but lizards and birds. We have absolutely no idea how common something like this is out there. It could be common or rare.

I don't think it really matters though because it's alredy proven that teraforming a planet is a very real concept.

Evolution may be a process of life adapting to the enviroment and the nutrient and energy availability. But advanced life can control and maintain those processes through technology.

People will have to view life as something that is programable now. Thinking simplistically on natural mutation as the source of all life and following it religiously will only adapt to the fact that life can be created.

This opens doors for time to also start life but also consiousness itself can start life from consiousness. A creator of a species is now entirely plausible. and well within the realms of possiblity. If humans make it to the stars. Then Teraforming will be a goal. And all life thereafter will be created and seeded. There's almost a type of spirituality in such an action as spreading and creating life on barren worlds in space.

Expecially in a universe that is infite in size, where if you go in one direction you could keep going forever never running out of galaxies to visit. You coupld drop life off at each one and have sucessors doing it for infinity and just spread across space and time for all eternity. As a species anyways with the aid of technology.

It boggles the mind.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Life has been chugging along for millions of years now on this planet, becoming more and more complex physiologically as time has gone on. Our brains are more physiologically (nothing to do with genetically) complex than ever before. Where is the entropy in that?

Also, Mars was once closer to the sun than it is now, every planet is constantly moving away from the sun a little bit at a time. Mars doesn't have oceans anymore because it is no longer close enough to the sun to have them.

Mars is not entropic, if it ever had life on it then it is less "disordered" now than it was then. That's what entropy is, moving away from the ordered to the disordered. If anything evolution is a steady progress TOWARD order.

a reply to: TinfoilTP


You appear to have no desire to learn or be corrected about even very basic science such as thermodynamics and when cornered on a topic you change the very subject under debate.

The Cambrian explosion was 80 million years long... if you don't think that's long enough for all those lifeforms to evolve then get a science degree and search for the answer yourself OR at least write emails to the actual scientists who study this stuff.

Don't huff and puff about how you're happy with your ignorance and evolution is dead, you come off as petulant and not interested in learning anything.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Evolution IS adaptation.

SMH

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: TinfoilTP

If anything evolution is a steady progress TOWARD order.

That right there is impossible in this universe and you should know it.

The universe itself will fizzle out to a cold end where no electrons orbit their elements. The ultimate end of entropy.

To start, the first virus were larger because they weren't "optimised". To put it in image; Imagine you got to find a new mixture that protect you against a poison. You can only drink once, so you will mix full of thing together hopping that your mix save you. You are lucky it work, but the problem is that you cannot alway use this mix because it's asking alot of energy. So, you put out one thing at the time and in the end you will have the single product that saved your life. The first virus followed this simple "evolution" strategie. They had many proteins and alot of genetics to survive the best, and with time, those with a better and less demanding system survived.

To add, evolution is the survival of the fittest. Human can be wipped out by something and cockroach survive. The fittest would be the cockroach and not the human. It's sad, but "evolution" is not going toward "your ideal" but the environnement "ideal".

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: TinfoilTP


You appear to have no desire to learn or be corrected about even very basic science such as thermodynamics and when cornered on a topic you change the very subject under debate.

The Cambrian explosion was 80 million years long... if you don't think that's long enough for all those lifeforms to evolve then get a science degree and search for the answer yourself OR at least write emails to the actual scientists who study this stuff.

Don't huff and puff about how you're happy with your ignorance and evolution is dead, you come off as petulant and not interested in learning anything.

You come off as unhappy that not everyone is accepting your house of falling cards.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

As a former creationist I am very unhappy to see someone deny science in favor of embracing and celebrating their own ignorance.

Some of the things you've said remind me very much of myself when I was a sixteen year old Bible believing Old Earth creationist. I used to say things like, 'yeah well until evolutionists explain the Platypus to me I'm not buying it'. I thought I was being clever. Really I was being petulant and willfully ignorant. When defenders of science talked I didn't listen, it was in one ear and out the other and JUST LIKE YOU I would change the subject to some other non-controversy that I thought was knock down evidence against evolution.

The difference is I eventually gave evolution the fair shake it deserves and it did not disappoint, it is an enriching reality to know that we are a part of nature and are a product of every fit survivor that came before us.

If you want a simple video series that can be easily digested but which uses real scientists to advise it I recommend Stated Clearly on youtube