A simple case for intelligent design

[Milton Platt]

Neither of us know, one of us will entertain both sides. One of us says, "I hate the Bible SO MUCH, that if even ONE of its precepts is coincident with science, I'll get ticked off!"

Who are you trying to say hates the Bible? Please point to the place in the thread where I said that............I don't give a rat's butt about it, but there is no reason to hate a collection of stories.

There aren't two sides. There is science and there is mythology, if that's what you mean.....

 

[gnostic]

Then how do you explain his unwillingness to admit that all of his claims he has made on irreducible complexity have been thoroughly refuted? He ignores the refutation to his works, that is just like a creationist. Make a ridiculous claim, when shown to be wrong pretend that it never happened.

The problem with Behe is that owed Discovery Institute a great deal, since they are the only funding him.

As a scientist, he is incompetent and egotistical, believing in the Intelligent Design, because they are the only to support his pseudoscience.

 

[gnostic]

Really? VERY VERY VERY VERY complex are the answer in each cases--BEYOND human design, BEYOND random design. That's the point.

Michael Behe was NOT a creationist when he wrote black box. He only moved toward Christianity when evangelicals embraced him, not just his work, unlike Catholic friends, when Black Box came out. I met the man, and helped host a dinner in his honor. One of "aha" moments was "the order of operations in one cell rivals that of the entire city of Chicago, all its creatures, infrastructure..."

Behe lied to the court, when he stated that his book (Darwin’s Black Box) had been “peer reviewed”.

One of Behe’s alleged reviewer, a biochemist named Professor Atchison, never read his book before it was published, so definitely not peer-reviewed. Atchison did say Behe’s editor did called him regarding to Behe’s manuscript, but no where did atchison claimed he had reviewed and analysed Behe’s work.

Either Behe is lying, or his editor had lied to him. Nonetheless, there were no peer-review on Darwin’s Black Box. And Behe finally admitted that Atchison didn’t read his book in the court (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District), much less than review as his peer.

In this court case, Behe as the expert witness, had to repeatedly backpedal what he claimed. It is example of how little Behe’s integrity is worth.

 

[leroy]

What do you mean by "No path has ever been shown to exist."?

Of course we do not have a complete path but many clear steps have been observed. Of course if a person makes unrealistic demands one can claim not to be convinced. Since you do not have video of your whole life no one should believe that your baby pictures are of you, even if you have countless pictures of you growing up.

Creationists seem to understand what would happen if they used proper debating techniques. That is why there is no real debate. There is only correction of creationist errors.

Well in order to evolve a worm-like creature in to a human you need bilions of mutations, each of them (or atleast most of them) has to be benefitial and selected by natural selection

Can you give an example of say successive 10 mutations that could have occured in the process of evolving a worm in to a human ? ..... I am not asking for a complete path. I am asking for .000000001% of the path sound reasonable?

Or provide some other evidence. Is there any robust evidence that shows that worm like creatures evolved in to humans by a proces of random mutations and natural selection?

 

[tas8831]

For that I apologize, I dindt noticed that you and ecco are different individuales



ecco (not you) was responsable for making the genetic fallacy

Understood, accepted. Thank you.

 

[tas8831]

well even if this where true


It wouldn’t follow that “god did it” is wrong, at most it would follow that “God did it” is not supported.

True, but the evidence shows otherwise.

 

[tas8831]

Well in order to evolve a worm-like creature in to a human you need bilions of mutations, each of them (or atleast most of them) has to be benefitial and selected by natural selection

Not trying to sound snooty, but how much experience do you have in genetics and related fields?

Seeing as how the genome of a worm (C. elegans has about 20,000 protein coding genes, genome is about 100 million bps) and the genome of a human (also around 20,000 protein coding genes, genome is about 3 billion bps) are actually not that different (considering their phenotypes), the notion that "billions" of not just mutations, but beneficial mutations, had to have occurred to get a human from a worm is ludicrous.

Can you give an example of say successive 10 mutations that could have occured in the process of evolving a worm in to a human ? ..... I am not asking for a complete path. I am asking for .000000001% of the path sound reasonable?

Not at all reasonable, seeing as how according to your earlier claim, you expect that there should have been the equivalent of a complete replacement of the C. elegans genome 30 times over to get a human, despite the fact that we have a similar number of genes.

Our genome is much larger than that of the worm C. elegans, but we have similar number of genes (indicating that noncoding regulatory regions play an important role in phenotype). There are salamanders and ferns that have genomes many times larger than ours - so do not make the mistake of equating complexity with genome size. There largest currently known genome, after all, belongs to an amoeba (P. dubia - about 67 BILLION bps).


In addition, while genome science is expanding at an incredible rate, finsing the specific sorets of mutations you demand, at this point, is roughly equivalent of me asking you to show me 10 of the grains of dust that Jehovah used to form Adam from.

Or provide some other evidence. Is there any robust evidence that shows that worm like creatures evolved in to humans by a proces of random mutations and natural selection?

You could peruse this site:

Tree of Life Web Project

In addition, I have posted this any times on another site I am active on, and sadly gotten very little in terms of scientific discourse from anti- evolutionists:

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can hereby ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "​

That these methods have been tested on knowns, I find these powerful evidence in support of the big picture, evolution-wise.

 

[Polymath257]

Well in order to evolve a worm-like creature in to a human you need bilions of mutations, each of them (or atleast most of them) has to be benefitial and selected by natural selection

Can you give an example of say successive 10 mutations that could have occured in the process of evolving a worm in to a human ? ..... I am not asking for a complete path. I am asking for .000000001% of the path sound reasonable?

Or provide some other evidence. Is there any robust evidence that shows that worm like creatures evolved in to humans by a proces of random mutations and natural selection?

Why do you think *billions* of mutations would be required? A worm, for example, has much of the same cellular metabolism as does a human. They have the basic genes for circulatory system, and some of the basic organs.

Can you give a precise count for the genetic differences between a 'worm' and a human?

And, by the way, 'worm' is not a specific biological classification. There are many different types of worms, many of which are farther away from each other than some are to humans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well in order to evolve a worm-like creature in to a human you need bilions of mutations, each of them (or atleast most of them) has to be benefitial and selected by natural selection

Can you give an example of say successive 10 mutations that could have occured in the process of evolving a worm in to a human ? ..... I am not asking for a complete path. I am asking for .000000001% of the path sound reasonable?

Or provide some other evidence. Is there any robust evidence that shows that worm like creatures evolved in to humans by a proces of random mutations and natural selection?

You are still making a ridiculous and ignorant demand. If you had walked across the country could you name two specific steps you took and prove it?

All you have done is to demonstrate your lack of knowledge of how science is done.

 

[leroy]

You are still making a ridiculous and ignorant demand. If you had walked across the country could you name two specific steps you took and prove it?

All you have done is to demonstrate your lack of knowledge of how science is done.

But I could provide examples of possible steps .

But if you think that my demand is ridiculous, feel free to prove evolution by some other means.

Show that humans evolved from a worm -like creature as a consequence of random mutatios and natural selection

What evidence can you provide?

 

[leroy]

Can you give a precise count for the genetic differences between a 'worm' and a human?

That is your job, prove that humans evolved from worms as a consequence of random mutations and natural selection

Whether if you need billions of mutations or just" millions" is irrelevant

nd, by the way, 'worm' is not a specific biological classification. There are many different types of worms, many of which are farther away from each other than some are to humans.

Ok, don't call it a worm, give it an other name if you whant

 

[Subduction Zone]

But I could provide examples of possible steps .

But if you think that my demand is ridiculous, feel free to prove evolution by some other means.

Show that humans evolved from a worm -like creature as a consequence of random mutatios and natural selection

What evidence can you provide?

DNA evidence tells us that we are related to other speices, fossil evidence tells us That we are related to other species, phylogeny does so as well, in fact almost every aspect of biology demonstrates this. There is no scientific evidence for 69r beliefs. You are not even a follower of ID, since they accept common descent. You are merely a science denying creationist.

 

[leroy]

[QUOTE="tas8831, post: 5853117, ]

In addition, while genome science is expanding at an incredible rate, finsing the specific sorets of mutations you demand, at this point, is roughly equivalent of me asking you to show me 10 of the grains of dust that Jehovah used to form Adam from.[/QUOTE]
Ok then evolution by natural selection is not testable, perhaps in the future we would have the means to test it.

For the record
1 I am not asking for the exact mutations that took place, I am asking for a viable path

2 for the purpose of this conversation I define evolution as : the idea that organisms came from simpler ancestral species as a consequence of random mutations and natural selection

You could peruse this site:

Tree of Life Web Project

Irrelevant, I don't deny the fact that we evolved from "worm like " creatures

I am reject the idea that random mutations and natural selection where responsable for such an event. Do you have conclusive evidence that suggests otherwise?

 

[leroy]

DNA evidence tells us that we are related to other speices, fossil evidence tells us That we are related to other species, phylogeny does so as well, in fact almost every aspect of biology demonstrates this. There is no scientific evidence for 69r beliefs. You are not even a follower of ID, since they accept common descent. You are merely a science denying creationist.

Perhaps I will have to edit my quote and add red shiny colors to the relevant words

Show that humans evolved from a worm -like creature as a consequence of random mutatios and natural selection

I grant that we are related to other species, I grant universal common ancestry , what I don't grant is that random mutatios and natural selection are responsable for evolving a worm in to a human

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps I will have to edit my quote and add red shiny colors to the relevant words


I grant that we are related to other species, I grant universal common ancestry , what I don't grant is that random mutatios and natural selection are responsable for evolving a worm in to a human

What do you need to concentrate on the word 'random'? Any specific mutation that I named would qualify as such. For example the mutation that causes blue eyes is one such mutation. It appears that you are trying to get lost by focusing far too closely in. Your problem is that you have no evidence for your beliefs and so you are making unreasonable demands of others.

 

[leroy]

What do you need to concentrate on the word 'random'? Any specific mutation that I named would qualify as such. For example the mutation that causes blue eyes is one such mutation. It appears that you are trying to get lost by focusing far too closely in. Your problem is that you have no evidence for your beliefs and so you are making unreasonable demands of others.

Because " random" is the backbone evolution by natural selection.

With random I simply mean that they are not biased to achieve a give goal. A rat that lives in a cold climate is not more likely to receive a mutation that would produce thick hair, than a rat that lives in a warm climate. Both rats are equally likely to receive the mutation.

If mutations are not random (but guided) then I would agree with you.

I

appears that you are trying to get lost by focusing far too closely in. Your problem is that you have no evidence for your beliefs

Granted, I don't claim to have robust evidence for my view, but neither do you. So skepticism is a reasonable position, and evolution by natural selection should not be considered an undisputed fact

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because " random" is the backbone evolution by natural selection.

With random I simply mean that they are not biased to achieve a give goal. A rat that lives in a cold climate is not more likely to receive a mutation that would produce thick hair, than a rat that lives in a warm climate. Both rats are equally likely to receive the mutation.

If mutations are not random (but guided) then I would agree with you.

I

Granted, I don't claim to have robust evidence for my view, but neither do you. So skepticism is a reasonable position, and evolution by natural selection should not be considered an undisputed fact

But they are not random in the way that you seem to be thinking that they are. You seem to be thinking of us as a goal and not as a result What happens with life is that any population is going to acquire variation. That is why the word "random" is extremely misleading to those that won't let themselves learn. You may think of an accident as "random" but in the insurance industry that is not the case. So called random accidents can be predicted in a population. In the same way positive mutations will arise in any population. You are blinding yourself because it is the only way that you can maintain your false beliefs.

 

[Bear Wild]

Well in order to evolve a worm-like creature in to a human you need bilions of mutations, each of them (or atleast most of them) has to be benefitial and selected by natural selection

Can you give an example of say successive 10 mutations that could have occured in the process of evolving a worm in to a human ? ..... I am not asking for a complete path. I am asking for .000000001% of the path sound reasonable?

Or provide some other evidence. Is there any robust evidence that shows that worm like creatures evolved in to humans by a proces of random mutations and natural selection?

There is plenty of evidence and the rate of adaptive mutations is an unknown number but can be seen in a life times. You forget to calculate the number of organisms and with the with respect to nematodes we are talking about incredible numbers as a factor also in additionally to time. There is no other explanation for the evidence we have. Why would a god. who is believed by many to be perfect, create so many imperfect forms of life over such a long period of time? Why would a god create life that can have bad mutations? Only one flood reported in the bible which does not explain the geologic evidence of fossils. It is the creation story that does not explain our natural world and does not fit the evidence that god would have created according to the creation story. Did Adam give names to all of the different trilobites, dinosaurs, nematodes, insects, etc.?

 

[Bear Wild]

Because " random" is the backbone evolution by natural selection.

With random I simply mean that they are not biased to achieve a give goal. A rat that lives in a cold climate is not more likely to receive a mutation that would produce thick hair, than a rat that lives in a warm climate. Both rats are equally likely to receive the mutation.

If mutations are not random (but guided) then I would agree with you.

I

Granted, I don't claim to have robust evidence for my view, but neither do you. So skepticism is a reasonable position, and evolution by natural selection should not be considered an undisputed fact

Natural selection is not random. Mutations are but not natural selection. The goal is to survive and reproduce. From that we get the amazing diversity we see in the world. The evidence for evolution fills books and journals with the evidence needed to support evolution. Yes a rat that lives in a cold climate is not more likely to receive a mutation to produce thick hair then any other rat. But the rat that has thicker hair and can survive the cold better will be able to reproduce better and pass that trait along. The traits are selected for not produced by the environment.

Nothing is guiding the mutations otherwise that which would guide human mutations would guide the human species better to respect the world they live in and not destroy it for their own selfishness. Natural selection will guide the human species when the earth becomes uninhabitable due to humans lack of respect for their world.

 

[leroy]

Natural selection is not random. Mutations are but not natural selection. The goal is to survive and reproduce. From that we get the amazing diversity we see in the world. The evidence for evolution fills books and journals with the evidence needed to support evolution. Yes a rat that lives in a cold climate is not more likely to receive a mutation to produce thick hair then any other rat. But the rat that has thicker hair and can survive the cold better will be able to reproduce better and pass that trait along. The traits are selected for not produced by the environment.

Nothing is guiding the mutations otherwise that which would guide human mutations would guide the human species better to respect the world they live in and not destroy it for their own selfishness. Natural selection will guide the human species when the earth becomes uninhabitable due to humans lack of respect for their world.

Well that is your burden prove, show that ramdra mutations and natural selection can account for worm -to -man evolution