The Truth About Evolution and Religion

I have already proved by citing facts and authorities that natural selection explains only adaptation, not common descent.

This group is not interested in biology, but in justifying their immature feeling that they are more enlightened and more rational that people who believe in God: Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindues, and Budhhists.

It was understood from the very beginning that natural selection could not explain the evolution of something as complex as the human eye.

With the discovery of the structure of proteins and DNA it was possible to quantify the complexity of life by caculating the probability of a protein evolving by random chance. A very crude calculation is one in 20⁶⁰⁰. I pick the number 600 because that is the number of letters in a sonnet. I mention sonnets because the number of letters in the alphabet is about equal to the number of amino acids.This calculation is crude for two reasons. It ignores natural selection and it assumes that the jumping around of amino acids is what produces complexity. My layman's understanding of faciliated variation is that it is clumps of amino acids that jump around in evolution.A computer program can simulate evolution by calculating how long it would take a computer to reproduce a sonnet by randomly generating dictionary words. Dictionary words, not letters, because of facilitated variation. Natural selection is accounted for by accumulating partial reproductions of the sonnet.So far as I know, this calculation has only been done for short sequences, for example, "to be or not to be." A computer can generate a short phrase in a short length of time. Without facilitated variation and natural selection, that is, just randomly generating letters and spaces, the time is millions of years.The weakness of these calculations is that it assumes that the complexity of the primary structure of a protein is a measure of the complexity of life. In my opinion, this does not even begin to describe the complexity of life. It excludes the complex molecular machinery and the timing of biological processes.This is why the calculation is done only for short sequences of words. To do the calculation for a whole sonnet would imply that you think the primary structure of a protein describes the complexity of life.

This calculation is crude for two reasons. It ignores natural selection and it assumes that the jumping around of amino acids is what produces complexity.

Biologists, with the exception of anti-religous fanatics like Dawkins, understand that life is too complex to have evolved through natural selection.

They mean high degrees of complexity can't evolve by Darwinian mechanisms. They are quite right, as I explain, yet again, in detail in detail a few minutes ago.

Complexity is a measure of the amount of knowledge there is about the particles making up a system.

Intelligent design is pseudo-science. Any quote that criticizes intelligent design and considers it an alternative to science is irrational. I'm sure your references, unless they are crackpots like Dawkins, do not say natural selection explains the complexity of life.

The quesiton is not what I am saying, it is what Richard Dawkins is saying. He says natural selection + mutation + genetic drift + facilitate variation explains the complexity of living organisms.

I explain why Darwinism is inconsistent with the second law of thermodyamics in post # 326.

Dear PhD in Physics:What is wrong with my argument? Do you agree that there is no explanation for the big bang, the origen of life, and common descent? Isn't true that the problem with explaining the evolution of life from random mutations comes from of the second law of thermodynamics? Doesn't the second law state that it is impossible to get four perfect bridge hands in 13 billion years?

Yes, you increased the knowledge of the location of the cards. When you shuffle the deck, there will be less knowledge, less order or more entropy. If you claim that upon shuffling the deck for a few years many thousands of times a second by a computer that you got back the original order you started with, you would be violating the second law of thermodynamics.

The chance of getting four perfect bridge hands is 52 factorial. If everyone on Earth played bridge for 3.5 billion years, the chance of getting a perfect bridge hand is less than 0.0000000001 percent. This is the kind of calculation you have to understand in order to do statistical mechanics and thermodynamics. This is the basis of the second law of thermodynamics.

Darwinists--not trained biologists--

say evolution comes about because of chemicals jumping around chemically.

Just like a deck of cards.

Even with the filtering, there is no explanation for the increase in the complexity of life. The relevance of this is that you are being deceived by atheistic humanists. Atheistic humanists are people who think they are more rational and enlightened than those who believe in God.

One of the reasons to believe in God is the big bang.

There is more than speculation about the cause of evolution ...

Evolution is the object of study of evolutionary biology.

Common descent is also called macroevolution

Adaptation refers to the ancient observation that species adapt to their environment.

Theory of evolution is an out-of-date term that was relevant in the 19th and early 20th century.

Natural selection includes random mutations, survival of the fittest, etc.

Facilitated variation is an improvement over natural selection and is considered a refutation of intelligent design.

Second law of thermodynamics states that a system of particles tends towards a state of greater disorder.

However, non-biologists and crackpots who say there was so much time and so many organism and so many mutations that common descent is explained by natural selection are violating the second law of thermodynamics.

So you admit that the theory of evolution has limited abilities to explain living organisms.

There seems to be some confusion about terminology. I'v been reading about evolution since 1970s and have had book reviews published about evolution.

Dkroemer is prone to inaniloquency on the subject of thermodynamics and this results in much cachinnation and exsibilation aimed in his direction. But as a fellow aeolist I have some sympathy with his predicament and I think he has a future as a competent adoxographer.

OK you win the smartass of the thread award. I tried - and failed.