The Truth About Evolution and Religion

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.

Hi, Dave. No, it doesn't: their only major changes from the classical Theory of Evolution are (1) giving mutations to the regulatory genes (as opposed to the protein-coding genes) center stage in evolution; and (2) increasing the importance and prevalence of phenotypic plasticity in adaptation of organisms to their environment.They also seem to favor a punctuated equilibrium pattern in evolutionary history, and hint at the idea that phenotype has some sort of feedback effect on future evolution (though I admit my own inability to fully grasp what, exactly, they mean by this).----- And, in doing so, you are not accurately representing what Gerhart and Kirschner propose.In a 2007 PNAS paper, they outline their theory as a four-step process:

quote:

---

First, as widely accepted, genetic variation arises from recent mutations and rearrangements of the genome and from standing genetic differences arranged in new combinations by
sexual reproduction.

​

Second, particular genetic variations then lead to regulatory changes...

​

Third, these regulatory changes impact ... the large set of conserved core components functioning in the animal’s development and physiology. New regulation specifies new combinations, amounts, and functional states of those components to act at particular times and places in the animal.

​

And fourth, the altered combinations, amounts,and states of the conserved components function to develop and operate a new trait on which selection acts.

​

Reformatted and snipped for easier reading

---

Pay particular attention to step four: this is ultimately identical to the classical Theory of Evolution, except that it emphasizes the role of regulatory genes in evolution.Like all evolutionary biologists, Gerhart and Kirschner recognize adaptation---via mutation and natural selection---as the vehicle of speciation and diversification. This flies directly in the face of your arguments here.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

I'd be grateful if you commented on my remarks about the lessons on evolution given by 1) Berkeley and 2) U. of Michigan. It really states the whole issue we are discussing in a nutshell:
1) Berkely is lying and 2) U. of Michigan is telling the truth.Berkeley states that natural selection explains complexity. I consider it dishonest because I can spell out their motive. They are trying to discredit intelligent design, not for rational reasons, but to promote atheistic humanism.

We can assume that evolution does not violate the second law since the second law is clearer even than the first law of thermodynamics. Saying evolution violates the second law implies that the universe is not intelligible. What scientists are doing is trying to find an explanation of evolution that is consistent with the second law.

As human beings we have a drive to know and understand everything. Some things we don't understand, like the big bang and the origin of life. The big bang is a mystery. Another mystery is this: What is the relationship between ourselves and our bodies? What are mental beings? What is conscious knowledge?

This is the best you found? There is nothing here which says: Natural selection explains the increase in the complexity of life from prokaryotes to chimps.

They never say that facilitated variation explains the complexity of life. The quote I gave in my video specifically limits facilitated variation to adaptation. Why do they use the word "adaptation" instead of the word "common descent". Why did they not do the calculation for a sonnet that they did for "to be or not to be"?The reason they don't is that if they did the calculation for a sonnet it would sound like they were claiming they understood common descent.

Bullshit!The conservation of energy is way clearer than the concept of entropy.Are you even capable of describing entorpy without using the word "order"? What do you mean? How so? No, they're not. Thermodynamics ain't got shit to do with the changes in biological organisms. Its about the movement of heat... Thermo.... Dynamics. Duh

I wouldn't call it a conspiracy. I call it a scam debate between advocates of ID and Darwinists. The motivation of ID advocates is to promote religion and the motivation of Darwinists is to promote atheistic humanism.When I asked a panel of experts if evolution applied to the soul no one answered. Why? Because they can't deny humans have souls. But they can't admit it either for career reasons.

Not in the slightest. You're crazy. What a stupid question...Evolution applies to biological organisms. Or do you think non-human life also has souls?What in any way could the evolution of, say, bacteria have to so with souls?ABE: I took a college biology course on evolution and they never once mentioned atheism nor humanism...If you're right, then that must mean that they're keeping it hidden. That would make it a conspiracy.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

The first law of thermodynamics is considered to be the the law of conservation of energy. But there is no such thing as the conservation of energy. The history of physics is that whenever it appeared that energy was violated, physicists were able to invent a new kind of energy that kept energy conserved.The second law, on the other hand, can be understood from probability theory and statistical mechanics. It is true that the mathematical formulation of the second law involves defining entropy. However, biologists don't need to know this much. All a biologist needs to know about the second law is that the chance of getting a protein by random mutations is the reciprocal 20⁶⁰⁰.

If the question was so stupid, why didn't they answer by accusations:Emailed and faxed to:
Discovery Institute
208 Columbia Street
Seattle, WA 981042776 South Arlington Mill Drive, #813
Arlington, VA 22206Attn: Steven Buri, Howard Ahmanson, Tom Alberg, Charles Barbo, Christopher Bayley, Bruce Chapman, Robert Cihak, Skip Gilliland, Slade Gorton, Richard Greiling, Patricia Herbold, Bob Kelly, Bryan Mistele, Byron Nutley, James Spady, Michael Vaska, and Raymond WaldmannNational Center for Science Education
420 40th Street Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2688Attn: Kevin Padian, Elizabeth Stage, Jack Friedman, Robert West, Brian Alters, John Cole, Barbara Forrest, Martha Heil, Duane Jeffery, Michael McIlwrath, Andrew Petto, Frank Sonleitner, Lorne Trottier, Bernard Winograd, and Eugenie ScottOn November 24, 2009, I attended an event honoring Charles Darwin that included a question and answer period with Gerald M. Edelman, Paul Ekman, and Terrence Deacon. The program can be see at
150 Years of the Origin of Species - THIRTEEN ForumAfter telling the panel of experts I made a video on YouTube titled The Truth About Evolution and Religion at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKaF8vX6HXQ
I said: 1) Evolution applies only to the bodies of humans, not their souls. 2) Natural selection only explains the adaptation of organisms to their environment, not the increase in the complexity of organisms as they evolved from bacteria to mammals (common descent).The panel did not respond to the first point. The panel’s answer to the second point gave the many school children in the audience and web conferences the impression that natural selection was indeed a scientific explanation for adaptation and common decent. My question is 2 hours, 21 minutes, and 43 seconds into the video.Six minutes before my question, a young woman in the audience pointed out that there was no scientific definition of consciousness, a word that the panel was bandying about. The panel avoiding commenting on this point and the implication that human beings are indefinabilities or embodied spirits. I discuss the mind-body problem in my review of The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Richard Dawkins, at
http://www.dkroemer.com/page81/page81.html
Mr. Dawkins is another one overstates the applicability of natural selection.In my opinion, the panel’s responses were disingenuous and served to disseminate misinformation about evolutionary biology. This misinformation is harmful because it serves to dissuade children from believing in religion. I’m writing to the executives and members of the boards of the Discovery Institute and the National Center for Science Education because I feel these two organizations propagate the same kind of misinformation about evolutionary biology that the panel propagated.If you have any questions about my analysis of evolution and criticism of your organizations, don’t hesitate to call or write.Very truly yours,David Roemer

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.