The Truth About Evolution and Religion

The second one more accurately simulates mutation and natural selection, and other factors as well.Here is a good online lecture that might help:

Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices

​

Online lecture by Professor Garrett Odell

​

Researchchannel.org

​

Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.

​

What this shows is that the straight mathematical calculations of odds are woefully inadequate when dealing with biological processes.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Dear RADZ:This is what you say. It is not what Gerhart and Kirshner say. They say that "these two processes" explain only adaptation. You are saying natural selection explains common descent. You don't have to read the book because I quoted from the book. If you have any quotes that supports your statement, I'd like to see it. The part of your statement that is bad biology and unsupportable is the following:"The theory of evolution is that these two processes are sufficient to explain the diversity of life ......"

Ah dkroemer, easy for you to say, but can you show me where my error is? And yet, curiously, both the adaptation to various ecologies and common descent are explained by evolution and speciation.Fascinatingly, evolution and speciation are still sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.Evolution explains adaptation to ecologies, both long term adaptation and new adaptations to new ecologies or changing ecologies.Speciation explains descent of new species from common ancestor populations, and evolution explains both speciation and the divergence of the daughter populations after speciation.Both the fossil record and the genetic record show a pattern of nested hierarchies of common descent from parent populations.They show the same pattern of nested hierarchies of common descent from parent populations.They show the same pattern of evolution and speciation that is observed in the world today. Did you quote the whole book? Actually it is what the science of evolution in particular and biology in general say. These sciences say this independent of who is involved. It doesn't matter what Gerhart and Kirshner actually say, because they are not the final arbiters of what is and is not biology or evolution: science is.Enjoy.

---

I looked up the passage and it turns out what I said previously basically sums it up. Here is what they are saying in the Section "Novelty, Time and Random Mutation":First, they raise the criticism some put forward against evolution: There wasn't enough time. (paragraph 1)Then they say that with just chance, even with something as fast a computer it would take millions of years to randomly generate even a small phrase. (paragraph 2)Then they say this would be different if variants were undergoing selection (and they even describe a 'Methinks it is like a weasel' type example, just as I did!). (paragraph 3a)Then they say that another way of doing it would be by replacing complete chance variation with 'biased' variation. Their example is instead of randomly selecting letters, randomly selecting words would accelerate the process. (paragraph 3b)They go on to suggest that if we use biased variation AND selection the two effects would have a cumulative impact resulting in vary short times for solutions to be arrived at. (paragraph 3c)Then they say that skeptics don't think this process, even with the time allowed, can result in complexity. (paragraph 4)Finally they suggest that to get a complete picture, a better understanding regarding the mapping between genotype and phenotype is required (paragraph 5).This is all fairly standard fare when scientists introduce their hypothesis to the world. You start by defining the problem 'There isn't time', then you discuss some of the solutions already proposed to the problem. Then you point out where you think the present solutions aren't complete, you introduce your idea to change that state of affairs and then you go into more detail of your actual theory.Glad to be of service.

Gerhart and Kirschner are most certainly the final arbiters. They are experts in the field. I'll repeat again their statement that natural selection and facilitated variation explains only adaptation. They do not say that natural selection explains the increase in the complexity of life. Either do you, now that I think of it. You say natural selection explains diversity:"Facilitated variation is not like orthogenesis, a theory championed by the eccentric American paleontologist Henry Osborn (1857—1935), which imbues the organism with an internal preset course of evolution, a program of variations unfolding over time. Natural selection remains a major part of the explanation of how organisms have evolved characters so well adapted to the environment. (The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma, page 247)This is another similar quote from Dawkins. Notice that there is no mention of complexity and only a mention of adaptation:"By the time Darwin came to publish On the Origin of Species in 1859, he had amassed enough evidence to propel evolution itself, though still not natural selection, a long way towards the status of fact. Indeed, it was this elevation from hypothesis towards fact that occupied Darwin for most of his great book. The elevation has continued until, today, there is no longer any doubt in any serious mind, and scientists speak, at least informally, of the fact of evolution. All reputable biologists go on to agree that natural selection is one of its most important driving forces, although as some biologists insist more than othersnot the only one. Even if it is not the only one, I have yet to meet a serious biologist who can point to an alternative to natural selection as a driving force of adaptive evolutionevolution towards positive improvement." (p. 18)

dkroemer, you rely way too much on authority. No, they are not.Facts and the scientific method are the final arbiters in science. Science does not depend on people, it depends on facts and the scientific method. Amusingly, once again we are around to your repetition of incomplete misinformation.Natural selection is not evolution per se. Evolution includes natural selection AND mutation AND neutral drift AND many other mechanisms. TOGETHER they explain the diversity of life.Together they explain the variations observed in complexity -- some organisms becoming more complex, while others become more simple.If you do not understand how the complexity of an eye forms by evolution, for example, it isn't because you haven't read just the right books by the just right authors, it is because you haven't learned the science.or done a simple googleEvolution (the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities) via mutation (forming new variations) and natural selection (causing beneficial mutations to spread in breeding populations) is sufficient to explain the evolution of the eye.Enjoy.

---

No. I know for a fact that there are lots of people who don't understand the theory of evolution. I've met lots of people who don't understand the theory of evolution.So it is quite possible that there is at least one person in the world who misunderstands the theory of evolution in the specific way you're talking about. Let's call him "John Doe", since we haven't identified any specific person who misunderstands the theory of evolution in the precise manner that you're talking about.So, let me stipulate that the existence of John Doe, though unproven, is at least probable.Where do we go from here? What's your point?

You are repeating again the statement I am disputing. You are saying things biology textbooks and peer reviewed journals do not say. You are saying things that Kirschner and Gerhart do not say. You simply can't believe you are mistaken on this point because you have read it from unreliable sources and because you have believed it for so long. You are saying:Natural selection + random mutations + genetic drift + billions of years + chemistry + etc explains the complexity of life.When I refute this by quoting experts, you say you can't go by authority. Or you say, I don't understand evolution. Wake up. This is another quote:"Considered thermodynamically, the problem of neo-Darwinism is the production of order by random events." (Ludwig von Bertalanffy, Chance or Law, in Beyond Reductionism: New Perspectives in the Life Sciences, The Macmillan Company, 1969, page 76)

And this is what the scientific community says en masse. If you think differently, this would be a good time to produce some evidence for your point of view. Could you please quote the next paragraph of this essay?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Since I always try to think the best of everyone, I have so far interpreted your posts as charitably as possible; and the confusion and obscurity of your language has given me ample leeway to do so.Nonetheless, I think that the nature of your delusion is becoming clear. You are trying to pretend --- are you not? --- that scientists don't believe in the theory of evolution.If that is the ridiculous falsehood that you are trying to communicate, please man up and come right out and say it.Then we'll prove that you are wrong and laugh at you. Try to look on this as a learning experience.

Oh, splendid. And as they are evolutionists, and you accept them as the final arbiters, doubtless you are now a staunch evolutionist. No, he didn't.Please try to get into your head that the law of natural selection and the theory of evolution are two different things. The latter incorporates the former but is not identical with it. And? I could quote a zillion paragraphs from creationist halfwits that don't mention complexity. This does not prove that they think that their beliefs don't explain complexity, it just means that they don't mention complexity in every paragraph they ever write.Here's another quote from Dawkins: And here's another: Are you really going to try to pretend, on the basis of one single paragraph in which Dawkins doesn't mention complexity, that Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in common ancestry? Only if you are I'm going to have to think up some physiological response which goes beyond rolling about on the floor laughing.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Many scientists, mostly non-biologists or popular writers like Dawkins who are trying to promote atheistic humanism, think natural selection (please don't waste space by giving a lecture on natural selection) explains complexity. There are even quotes from Dawkins where he does not propagate such nonsense.The evidence that natural selection can't explain the complexity of life is the evidence supporting the second law of thermodynamics. There is a tendency in nature for systems of molecules to go towards a greater state of disorder. An example is the free expansion of a gas. There is less order in the expanded gas because there is less knowledge about the location of the gas molecules.Another reason is that there is no evidence at all that natural selection can produce the complex molecular machinery in living organisms. The following quote is from Michael Behe:"P. falciparum, HIV, and E. coli are all very, very different from each other. They range from the simple to the complex, have very different life cycles, and represent three different fundamental domains of life: eukaryote, virus, and prokaryote. Yet they all tell the same tale of Darwinian evolution. Single simple changes to old cellular machinery that can help in dire circumstances are easy to come by. This is where Darwin rules, in the land of antibiotic resistance and single tiny stepsThere is no evidence that Darwinian process can take the multiple, coherent steps needed to build new molecular machinery, the kind of machinery that fills the cell." ( page 162 of The Edge of Evolution )

I suppose by the "theory of evolution" you mean the mechanism that caused mammals to evolve from bacteria. The theory of evolution applies only to adaptation. It does not apply to the increase in the complexity of life.I'm aware of the fact that advocates of intelligent design say that this is a matter of controversy with Darwinists taking one side and non-Darwinists the other. What I am saying is that there is no controversy. All knowledgeable biologist understand the limitations of natural selection.

Ecewpt for, you know, snowflakes. You know, where chaotically arranged water molecules spontaneously arrange themselves in an organized fashion, all without violating the laws of thermodynamics?That's just one example. There are others, beginning with all other crystals, all the way up to galactic superclusters. Complexity and order are perfectly natural.

How about mutation and natural selection, along with other factors such as genetic drift, founder's effect, isolation, etc.?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.