RE: How can we link science to religion?
I don't know if Evolutionism is a real Religion nor its terms. But I do read a lot about evolution and reading this post I get the feeling that you are a Creationist. If you are not maybe you should make it more clear.
The discussion if far more deep than what you make it seem in this post. For example, concerning non-coding or "junk" DNA, yes the name is unfortunate, but the full idscussion must be taken into account (the non-coding DNA wikipedia page shows both sides of this discussion). In particular I underscore this sentence:
Furthermore, much of the apparent junk DNA is involved in epigenetic regulation and appears to be necessary for the development of complex organisms.
This is a new realm for most: Epigenetics. Could be the link that is missing to get a better understanding of non-coding DNA, and is also related to the neutral mutations concept (genetic drift).
You get to the conclusion that
even so called neutral mutations are eroding our genome as time passes.
This is a bit of a stretch. Neutral mutations may well be improving our genome. Definitely not eroding. That is how natural selection works. If its a beneficial mutation the organism will probably get to live longer or reproduce more. Otherwise, the reverse will be true, and most probably that mutation will vanish in a couple of generations.
To summarise, the science we know today does not explain all, but it is not as easy to refute as intelligent design. If you like to read about this I would recommend to start with "Endless forms most beautiful" or Coming to Life
Evolution is the foundation for atheism and a materialistic worldview.
Unfortunately evolution can't explain how we got here and has no explanation for consciousness. If we really are just a random assortment of atoms how can we even trust our own thoughts? They would just be random events leading to a completely irrational world.
@rmlopes how do you explain cystic fibrosis? There are multiple mutations that have lead to it and I can't see how it benefits the host. If you have heard of a proven way it does I would like know.
Well, that is not the point. The fact that multiple mutations can lead to it just shows how intricate and complex gene regulatory networks are. But the statistics actually illustrate my point:
It is getting better for those who get the hazardous dice roll during crossover, but it shows the basics of natural selection and illustrates my point.
I am not trying to say that the chances are not high. I did not know the numbers until now and I was expecting less. But the fact that the gene is not much more spread must mean it is not beneficial.
I meant multiple independent mutations in the same gene which causes cystic fibrosis. This shows multiple events where the mutation came about and is leading to a negative selection pressure without dying out within a couple of generations like you mentioned it would.
I am not understanding how those stats support your point. People are living longer with cystic fibrosis because of modern treatment techniques not because of a positive evolutionary change to their genome.
Yes with the principles of natural selection there is going to be a increase in the number of people with the cystic fibrosis gene since more are living to reproduce but as a result it leaves their decedents weaker not stronger genetically.
That was my point exactly. The multiple mutations of the same gene that lead to conditions such as cystic fibrosis are not neutral. They cause an alteration on the phenotype (the condition). If it were not for the advances in medical science, as the stats show with life expentacy at 14 in the 80s, such mutated genomes would hardly be able to reproduce. Hence, natural selection would (in a great enough generation span) take care of it. In the end it's a numbers game influenced by factors we don't clearly understand, yet.
I agree with the principles of natural selection. Whether they are enough to create macro-evolution of organs and appendages is actually up for debate and not proven.
I think that I mainly just took exception to the
Comment since it assumes that conserved mutations are only going to be positive. And then by your definition are no longer neutral genetic drift rather positive mutations so you can't say that genetic drift is positive.
Just curious if you recognize the faith aspect of natural selection that you hold there?