A simple case for intelligent design

[wellwisher]

Care to quote my mistakes ? I neves said that natural selection is random

And I said that mutations are not suppose to be biased towards a goal (this is what I meant by random)

There is a goal behind evolution that has a connection to natural selection. In natural selection the external environment has an impact on the selection process. Polar bears will be selected at the Arctic Circle, but not at the equator, since they are designed to be optimized for cooler weather. This is based on dozens of simultaneous parameters.

The impact of the external environment also holds true for the evolution of life and natural selection at the nanoscale. In the case of the nanoscale, the main external environment for selection is connected to water. This is an example of goal based intelligent design. For example, DNA is the most hydrated molecule in the cell. The DNA was always a goal; maximum hydration in water. The goal of life is to minimize the potential in water. Water does not change, so the more flexible organics will need to bend and change.

The DNA does not work in any other solvent since it is not at same minimal potential in any other solvent. The same is also true of all the enzymes. It is only in water, where the potential is minimized, does the state called life appear.

What is being taught is a type of mythology based on empirical evidence. Helios riding his chariot across the sky to simulate the motion of the sun is an empirical model. An empirical model does not have to be technically correct to be a reasonable correlation for curve fitting.

Intelligent design is goal based and therefore it can make predictions. For example, human interaction with the environment alters the environment thereby increasing entropy. This lowers universal free energy. The DNA is also at lowered free energy in water; hydration, plus once active causes a source of entropy increase, through template action. This was always the goal since it minimizes free energy.

When scientists and layman say life can form in any solvent, they always fail to tell us what the genetic material needs to look like and whether this material is even possible. This is mythology until someone can demonstrate a viable genetic material, that minimizes the potential in that solvent. That would be a main goal in that solvent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure some articles suggest that evolution by natural selection and random mutations is true, and other articles propose some other mechanism.

This is why we can savelly say that there is a controversy


How can I deny evidence, if you haven't provide any ?

I have provided evidence. You ignore it. Once a person does that they need to demonstrate that they understand the concept.

But creationists as a rule are too afraid to even try to discuss evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Scientists are debating on the mechanism that causes worm to man evolution.

1 Some say random mutations and natural selection

2 Others say random mutatios and genetic drift

3 Others say natural genetic engineering

4 Others say epigenetics

5 Others say "I don't know" but number "1" seems probably wrong.


This is what I mean by controversy, and quite honestly this is what everyone means by controversy.

So do you now accept that evolution by random mutatios and narural selection is controversial?

You misunderstand what is being discussed.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure some articles suggest that evolution by natural selection and random mutations is true, and other articles propose some other mechanism.

This is why we can savelly say that there is a controversy

Even those who say that neutral drift is significant don't deny the relevance of natural selection. Nor do those maintaining that natural selection is dominant deny that neutral drift occurs. The question is how much of the observed diversity can be attributed to which one.

You are attempting to manufacture a controversy where there is none and then claim that your particular viewpoint, which is held by none of those involved in the 'controversy', is justified.

 

[Polymath257]

Scientists are debating on the mechanism that causes worm to man evolution.

1 Some say random mutations and natural selection

2 Others say random mutatios and genetic drift

3 Others say natural genetic engineering

4 Others say epigenetics

5 Others say "I don't know" but number "1" seems probably wrong.


This is what I mean by controversy, and quite honestly this is what everyone means by controversy.

So do you now accept that evolution by random mutatios and narural selection is controversial?

No. That isn't the definition of controversy. All of those holding to 1-4 accept that natural selection is one of the mechanisms. In fact, they agree it is the dominant mechanism in most cases. What 'controversy' there is concerns relatively minor aspects.

 

[Polymath257]

Care to quote my mistakes ? I neves said that natural selection is random

And I said that mutations are not suppose to be biased towards a goal (this is what I meant by random)

And that is true: mutations are not biased towards a goal. Even in epigenetics ( a very minor variant), the bias is minor.

 

[tas8831]

In addition, while genome science is expanding at an incredible rate, finding the specific sorts 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.

Ok then evolution by natural selection is not testable, perhaps in the future we would have the means to test it.

I am unsure how you got that from what I wrote.

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

Why would anyone take the time to even try this? Your "billions of mutations" position all but proves that you lack the requisite knowledge of the topic to appreciate any explanations or evidence you might receive. Trust me - I know how this works, it is one of the many reasons that I drew my 'faith' conclusions. There was a time when I actually did try to address these sorts of challenges, complete with references and explanations. Only to have several hours of work totally ignored or dismissed with dopey rejoinders like "that was not what I asked for" or "oh yeah? what about THIS!". Such folk also presented themselves as reasonable and informed.

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

And you coincidentally deleted a rather large chunk of evidence showing that this did happen. The specific details are not there, but the evidence left by it is there is spades.

THAT Vesuvius erupted in 79AD is not up for argument because of the evidence it left behind. We don't need to know the exact geological events preceding it to draw the conclusions we have.

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?

Does this mean that you have abandoned your naive "billions of mutations" routine?

 

[tas8831]

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

Do you deny that mutations happen?

Do you deny that the happen with no regard for their effects?

With random I simply mean that they are not biased to achieve a give goal.

Very good!

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.

Why?

I suspect that you are ignoring the whole 'population' thing.
By the way - guided mutations were refuted decades ago. Yes, there are a couple of hold-outs, but try as they might, all they ever accomplish is the same thing they did in the 1980s/90s.

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

Then perhaps you can take a shot at interpreting the papers I referred to earlier - the ones that you totally ignored.

 

[leroy]

Do you deny that mutations happen?

Do you deny that the happen with no regard for their effects?



Very good!



Why?

I suspect that you are ignoring the whole 'population' thing.
By the way - guided mutations were refuted decades ago. Yes, there are a couple of hold-outs, but try as they might, all they ever accomplish is the same thing they did in the 1980s/90s.


Then perhaps you can take a shot at interpreting the papers I referred to earlier - the ones that you totally ignored.

With regards to your first 2 questions, the answer is no, I do not deny that stuff.

I don’t remember you sending any papers, but perhaps I lost your message, care to provide the papers? I apologize for that

 

[leroy]

I

Does this mean that you have abandoned your naive "billions of mutations" routine?

Well consider our distant worm-like ancestor that lived during the Precambrian. Is it unreasobable to say that billions of mutations would have to take place in order to evolve “it” in to a human, our genome is 3B base pairs long, how many of those base pairs where there during the precambian in our ancestors?

But whatever, just tell me what the correct number is, and I will change billions for the number that you provide

 

[leroy]

You misunderstand what is being discussed.

So do you grant these points 1-5? yes or no?

accordign to you what is it that is being discussed?

 

[leroy]

No. That isn't the definition of controversy. All of those holding to 1-4 accept that natural selection is one of the mechanisms. In fact, they agree it is the dominant mechanism in most cases. What 'controversy' there is concerns relatively minor aspects.

Even top conservative YEC would say that Natura Selection is one of the mechanisms, the question is “is it the main mechanism?” Neutralist like Motoo Kimura, say NO, and they have Peer Review papers supporting their claim. So there is controversy, others would say that random mutations are not the main source of evolutionary change (James Shapiro for example) and he also has peer reviewed articles supporting his position.

If this doesn’t count as a controversy, then what would?

 

[leroy]

I have provided evidence. You ignore it. Once a person does that they need to demonstrate that they understand the concept.

But creationists as a rule are too afraid to even try to discuss evidence.

Well feel free to ask me a series of questions that would indicate if I understand the concept

And no, you havent presented any evidece.
I challenge you to quote any previous comment that you made, where evidence was presented

 

[Audie]

Even top conservative YEC would say that Natura Selection is one of the mechanisms, the question is “is it the main mechanism?” Neutralist like Motoo Kimura, say NO, and they have Peer Review papers supporting their claim. So there is controversy, others would say that random mutations are not the main source of evolutionary change (James Shapiro for example) and he also has peer reviewed articles supporting his position.

If this doesn’t count as a controversy, then what would?

I kind of doubt you could find any topic
that does not involve "controversy".

Once one is done playing with the semantics, is there
some significance to this "controversy" in biology?*

I am kind of following this, but I dont see what point
you are working on.

*my feeble understanding of evolution has me thinking
that which mechanism is "main" is going to vary with
organism and circumstances.

 

[tas8831]

Neutralist like Motoo Kimura, say NO, and they have Peer Review papers supporting their claim.

What are you claiming Kimura said?
Citation please.

I have a 600-page compendium of Kimura's papers on the shelf behind me, I am sure I can verify ("Population Genetics, Molecular evolution, and the Neutral Theory: Selected Papers.").

 

[tas8831]

Well consider our distant worm-like ancestor that lived during the Precambrian. Is it unreasobable to say that billions of mutations would have to take place in order to evolve “it” in to a human, our genome is 3B base pairs long, how many of those base pairs where there during the precambian in our ancestors?

Yes, it is unreasonable considering the fact that the coding region of the genome of both humans and worms is substantially smaller than billions of nucleotides.

As someone else mentioned, most of the genome deals with 'house keeping' routines - things common to all animals - like the production of ion channels, etc. The genes influencing morphology are relatively few.

But whatever, just tell me what the correct number is, and I will change billions for the number that you provide

But you should have already known that your "billions of mutations" claim was absurd, were you truly knowledgeable in the subject matter.

 

[tas8831]

With regards to your first 2 questions, the answer is no, I do not deny that stuff.

I don’t remember you sending any papers, but perhaps I lost your message, care to provide the papers? I apologize for that

I don't recall seeing your papers supporting the notion that billions of mutation had to have happened in human evolution, either. Maybe an oversight.

http://nsmn1.uh.edu/dgraur/pdf/sniegowski_lenski_1995.pdf

 

[leroy]

Yes, it is unreasonable considering the fact that the coding region of the genome of both humans and worms is substantially smaller than billions of nucleotides.

As someone else mentioned, most of the genome deals with 'house keeping' routines - things common to all animals - like the production of ion channels, etc. The genes influencing morphology are relatively few.

But you should have already known that your "billions of mutations" claim was absurd, were you truly knowledgeable in the subject matter.

So what, ? Non coding regions also had to evolve,


The ancestral worm had 1B bais pairs, we humans have 3b, therefore 2B bais pairs had to evolve .......

Obviously I don't know how many bp did the worm had, but to me it sounds reasonable to say that it had 1 billion ... Am I wrong ?

 

[tas8831]

So what, ? Non coding regions also had to evolve,

Sure.

What ways did that happen, do you suppose?

You know, do you not, that there are more kinds of mutation than simple point mutations, right?

Most of our genome is due to duplication events and contains a lot of repetitive sequence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well consider our distant worm-like ancestor that lived during the Precambrian. Is it unreasobable to say that billions of mutations would have to take place in order to evolve “it” in to a human, our genome is 3B base pairs long, how many of those base pairs where there during the precambian in our ancestors?

But whatever, just tell me what the correct number is, and I will change billions for the number that you provide

Yes, billions of mutations.

So what? Do you realize how many generations have passed since that time? Early on many of those generations would be less than a year. With on the order of 100 mutations per generation and populations in the millions to say the least a billion mutations would occur in only ten generations. Don't think linearly. You will never understand evolution. Mutations occur in populations. The entire population can contribute "new information" for evolution.