The Truth About Evolution and Religion

Helium is more complex than hydrogen because it has 2 electrons, 2 neutrons, and 2 protons. The first peer-reviewed paper to point out the shortcomings of natural selection is
"Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene" (Nature, Vol. 224, 1969, p. 342). This is the beginning of the paper:Subtitle: Conflict between the idea of natural selection and the idea of uniqueness of the gene does not seem to be near a solution yet.First paragraph: Modern biology is faced with two ideas which seem to me to be quite incompatible with each other. One is the concept of evolution by natural selection of adaptive genes that are originally produced by random mutations. The other is the concept of the gene as part of a molecule of DNA, each gene being unique in the order of arrangement of its nucleotides. If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, the it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations. There will be nothing for natural selection to act upon.

The disagreement between Miller and Behe is over intelligent design. It is not over evolutionary biology. The quote that I gave proves it. Behe is drawing a line in the sand where Darwinism works and doesn't work. Miller does not dispute the location of this line. Miller is saying it is wrong to put intelligent design on one side of the line and Darwinism on the other. I agree with Miller.

Two things:(1) There is an explanation for common descent. It's called evolution.(2) Billions of years is not a short period of time.

I shall concede the possibility that you are stupid or mad enough to believe what you are saying. For this reason I shall not call you a liar.I shall merely point out that whatever is going on in your head, you are wrong.If you want to talk retarded gibberish about what Miller thinks, then you have made one fatal mistake --- you quoted what Miller actually said.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Please quote the concluding paragraph of this paper.Thank you.For bonus points, please try to connect this paper to your blather about helium.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The chance of getting a protein by random mutations is 300 to the 20th power. A year is only a billion or trillion seconds. If everyone in the world played bridge for 13 billion years, one hand a second, there would never be four perfect bridge hands. To get a perfect bridge hand, you would have to have everyone playing bridge for 13 zillion zillion years.

First you leave random mutations out of evolution by solely talking about natural selection, now you leave out natural selection by talking solely about random mutations.Why do you do such weird things?

(1) Per?(2) Show your working.(3) What if natural selection was involved?And point (3), I think, shows up your intellectual dishonesty. You've spent post after post after post pretending that there's nothing more to the theory of evolution except the law of natural selection. And now you change your delusion entirely --- you admit the existence of mutation but you start talking as though natural selection doesnt exist.Could you at least decide which well-evidenced aspect of reality you want to run away from?

Natural selection includes random mutations. You should check out my YouTube video. There I explain evolutionary biology by quoting from mainstream sources.

I guess we were both posting at the same time.Yeah, it's crazy, isn't it?The reason is, I think, that creationists don't have a worldview.They learn that when someone points out fact A, they should respond by reciting lie anti-A. And when someone points out fact B, they should respond by reciting lie anti-B.But because they are not genuinely seeking after a consistent view of the world --- let alone the truth --- it never occurs to them that the lies they've learned to recite are inconsistent. They have just learned to recite certain falsehoods under certain circumstances just like Pavlov's dogs learned to drool when they heard a bell.

I like to compare creationists with atheistic humanists. Creationists are eccentric, but not irrational. Atheistic humanists are eccentric and irrational, which is the definition of a crackpot.

This is, of course, not true. If you are really so ignorant as to not know the difference between mutation and selection, then no, you have not explained anything. You've made a YouTube video full of pathetic garbage.As for your "mainstream sources" --- you are, apparently, incapable of understanding anything that any scientist writes. You keep quoting "mainstream sources" pointing out that creationism is ignorant crap, and for some reason you think that these quotations support your point of view.I can't even imagine what can be going on in your head when you do this.

quote:

---

Helium is more complex than hydrogen because it has 2 electrons, 2 neutrons, and 2 protons.

---

So in fusing Hydrogen to become Helium the Sun is INCREASING in complexity ? That's rather a blow to your argument.

quote:

---

The first peer-reviewed paper to point out the shortcomings of natural selection is
"Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene" (Nature, Vol. 224, 1969, p. 342).

---

There are several things that could be said. One of the most important is that this paper is likely TOO early to be of use to you. And that is because it bases its argument on ideas about gene sequences - before gene sequencing had really got going. If you are going to talk about gene sequences, start looking for papers based on more recent knowledge - the more recent the better, since the database of gene sequences is still growing.But more importantly this says nothing about thermodynamics forbidding the "increase in complexity" from bacteria to man (an increase that - I will remind you - has happened in only one lineage - there are plenty of bacteria still around). So really you are trying to change the subject.

No it doesn't. Evolution includes random mutations. If you say things like the quote above, I think you're explaining it wrong.

Your hobbies are not relevant to this thread.The fact that you like to say something stupid has no evidential value --- except, of course, as evidence of your own peculiar mental tendencies.