The Truth About Evolution and Religion

Hi again dkroemer, I wonder what you hope to accomplish here. Were you "called" here to spread falsehoods and misinformation, or were you "called" here to learn? The problem is that just disputing the statement is not enough, you need to show that the statement is false or invalid. You have not done this. Posting quotes is not refutation. Posting facts is refutation: you need to demonstrate that the facts refute the position.And thus, amusingly, you still have not shown that what I said is false or invalid, all you have demonstrated is that you can find quotes that seem (to you) to contradict it.You seem to think you are here to teach people something, and yet 17 out of the 19 posters on this thread are all in agreement that you need to learn the basics about evolution.You have titled your thread "The Truth About Evolution and Religion" and yet you are unwilling to learn the truth. You are likely unaware of just how common -- dead common -- your arguments are in the creationist community. So far you have hit all the normal creationist high notes: misrepresentation of people being quoted (quote mines), spreading misinformation about evolution, probability miscalculations, and thermodynamic misrepresentations.I was going to review your other comments since your reply to my post but I don't think there is much point unless you want to learn what evolution is really about, and so far you have demonstrated a complete lack of interest in learning the truth.I also see that other have already shown you that you are wrong in virtually every single post, and I don't need to repeat that information - either you take it to heart and start to learn, or you won't.If you want to learn, I have a couple of good links for starters:

The University of Berkeley

quote:

---

Evolution 101 - Understanding Evolution
What is evolution and how does it work? Evolution 101 provides the nuts-and-bolts on the patterns and mechanisms of evolution. You can explore the following sections:

• Definition: How is evolution defined?
• Patterns: What patterns in diversity over time are produced by evolution?
• Mechanisms: How does evolution work?
• Microevolution: How does evolution work on a small scale?
• Speciation: What is a species and how do new ones evolve?
• Macroevolution: How does evolution work on a large scale?
• Big Issues: What are the interesting questions about evolution that are currently being investigated?

​

An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

---

This is an excellent site, it is essentially a self-guided course in evolution from a university biology department that (gasp) actually teaches evolution, and it allows you to learn at your own pace, and focus on parts that are of interest.I recommend you spend several hours reading it before you post any more nonsense about biology and evolution, as it can save you from making more mistakes (I'd say embarrassing mistakes if I thought you would be embarrassed about saying foolish things - your posts demonstrate that you aren't).

The University of Michigan

quote:

---

The Process of Speciation
Definitions of Biological Evolution
We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?

​

• Definition 1:
  Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
• Definition 2:
  The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity

​

Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.

​

A full explanation of evolution requires that we link these two levels. Can small, gradual change produce distinct species? How does it occur, and how do we decide when species are species? Hopefully you will see the connections by the end of these three lectures.

---

This page then goes on to explain the process of speciation and the development of diversity and the descent from common ancestor populations:

quote:

---

Speciation results in the splitting of an ancestral species into two (or more) descendent species. This process, continued indefinitely, results in a sequence of speciation events extending over great expanses of time, resulting in a branching tree of historical relatedness. Imagine if we had complete and certain knowledge of such a tree -- it would tell us the evolutionary relatedness among living things, the pathways of divergence, even the timing of separation.

---

Both these websites show that common ancestry is a result of speciation, and thus the common ancestry evident in the fossil record can be explained by evolution. Amazingly, evolution (the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities) via mutation (introducing new genetic variations) and natural selection (allowing mutations that are adaptively beneficial within the ecology to spread in breeding populations relative to mutations that are deleterious) and various other mechanisms (including neutral\genetic drift, etc) is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, and from prehistory; from archaeology, paleontology, geology, physics, chemistry, genetics and even astronomy.Evolution explains adaptation to ecologies, both long term adaptation to stable ecologies and new adaptations to new ecologies or to changing ecologies.Speciation explains descent of new species from common ancestor populations, and evolution explains both how speciation occurs and the increasing divergence of the daughter populations after speciation.Evolution is an observed fact of life.Speciation is an observed fact of life.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.It is that simple.Enjoy.

---

Specifically, you. Though of course if you believe the ludicrous gibberish you come out with, it is not technically a lie, which implies intent.But it's still fairly contemptible that you should dribble out trash like this when a few minutes' research would have showed you how wrong you are. If you are not, strictly speaking, a liar, you are at least a bullshitter. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I read the interview of Gerhart and Kirschner and it supports the point that I am making about the limitations on Darwinism and natural selection. The way I am putting it is that natural selection explains only adaptation, not common descent."The question is ongoing of what really occurs within the animal when it generates innovations. Our theory of facilitated variation is but a plausible sketch of how it might occur, and the theory reflects a direction in research, not a verdict reached.""For open-minded doubters of Darwinian evolutionary theory, this book can shed light on variation, the most mysterious part of the theory. They will find evidence and arguments that evolutionary innovations are not too complicated, perfect and incomprehensible to attribute to natural causes, and they will learn that the causes reside much more within the animal than previously thought. These readers can weigh for themselves whether plausibility has been reached."Notice in the second paragraph the phrase "natural causes." The authors are in favor of "natural causes" as opposed to "supernatural causes." This is why they are not more forthright about the limitations of Darwinism. They are afraid that advocates of intelligent design will say there are "supernatural causes." They don't want to be accused of promoting intelligent design. In any case, nowhere in their book or the interview do they say "natural selection and facilitated variation explains the increase in the complexity of life."

Except that, since they are biologists, they neither say nor imply that there are any. And Gerhart and Kirschner, in common with the rest of the scientific community, know that you are wrong. How can they be "forthright" about the fantasy world in your head? They don't have the dubious privilege of inhabiting it. Nowhere in your posts do you say: "2 + 2 = 4". Therefore, we can deduce that you don't believe that two plus two is four. That's logic! Well, it's your logic.

As I said, Salisbury's position was the result of understandable ignorance since he was writing before the advent of sequencing. Unless Nature manages to get time-traveling reviewers from the future then the reviewers would have been in the same position of ignorance. At the time he was writing it wasn't known how unique functional gene sequences were, now we have a much better idea and the answer is a lot less unique than Salisbury's argument assumes.There is a reason why 40 year old articles do not offer the best critiques of the current status of modern scientific theories. An awful lot of molecular genetics has only been discovered in that intervening time. It is the same reason why no-one goes to Darwin's writings for an explanation of modern genetics, Darwin simply didn't know any modern genetics.TTFN,WK

I just looked over quickly the paper
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...df/HJFOA5-000003-000328_1.pdfThe paper says:"Long standing debates about the roll of natural selection in the growth of biological complexity..."It goes on to discuss the problem of explaining complexity from natural selection. At no point does it say Darwinism totally explains the complexity of life. The paper seeks to justify Darwinism.

Quotes are irrelevant, I asked you to demonstrate it, not quote people who repeat what you said. Have they demonstrated it? Then produce their work. Until then, it's just an argument from incredulity.

As numerous people have endlessly repeated, no one has claimed 'Darwinism' totally explains the complexity of life, other factors come into play. There certainly isn't anything in the complexity of life that seems unamenable to explanation by natural explanations, with Darwinian evolution being one of the principle ones.TTFN,WK

You don't need any background to understand why God exists, as my video explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKaF8vX6HXQSince we have free will and conscious knowledge, we are unified with respect to ourselves and different from other beings. Hence, we are finite beings. But a finite being needs a cause. If all beings in the universe needed a cause the universe would not be intelligible. Hence, and infinite being exists. QEDIntelligent design is irrational because it is like saying God caused the Big Bang. The Big Bang could have been caused by an angel. It is not good science or good metaphysics. The Big Bang however is a reason to believe in the Bible because the Bible says God created the world ex nilhilo.

I looked at the lessons on evolution from Berkeley and U. Michigan. The Berkeley lesson clearly states that natural selection produces complexity, but the U. Michigan one does not. The Berekely lesson is not signed. It is not peer reviewed. It may have been written by an anti-religious fanatic trying to show that intelligent design is irrational. ID is irrational, but there are honest ways this can be explained.

What I am saying is that there is no disagreement about evolutionary biology between Kenneth Miller (pro-Darwin) and Michael Behe (anti-Darwin). The way to determine if this is true is by comparing their written statements. I do this in my review of Miller's book, which was published by OrthodoxyToday.org:http://www.dkroemer.com/page4/page4.html

Will you stop linking to your video and just present your arguments here? It's against the forum rules to use links to do the arguing for you. How do you know this? So, an infinite being cannot have free will and conscious knowledge? We do have a cause, they're called parents. How do you know? QED nothing. You're making assertions. Show them to be the case. And so do many other religious texts, should we believe them as well? The Quran comes to mind.

My point is that we don't know what the other factors are. The increase in the complexity of life is a scientific mystery, like the origin of life and the big bang.

How do we know we have free will? People who say we don't live their lives as if they had free will. They fell guilty when they do something wrong, they apologize, and they promise not to do it again.

Of course there is. This is why Miller testified against Behe in the Dover trial. If he had agreed with him, he wouldn't have done that. Again, stop posting links and present your arguments here. This is against the forum rules.Also, What does all this have to do with demonstrating that life is too complex to have evolved? You still haven't presented anything that shows this to be the case. Don't change subjects.