A simple case for intelligent design

[Polymath257]

What percentage of such mutations are proven beneficial/enhance survivability/help species cross families/have been shown to make species A reproduce in a different family kind for generation B?

Irrelevant to your original question concerning information increase.

But, to answer your question, the way classification works means that, for example, humans are still mammals, we are still primates, and we are still apes. In the same way, birds are technically a type of dinosaur. So your question betrays a lack of understanding of how biological species are classified: we don't expect species A to change to a different family. What we *do* expect is that descendants of species A will be classified in the same family as A, but will diversify so that they have quite different structures. This is expected to take many generations, though.

So, cats and dogs have a common ancestor which was a carnivore. Both cats and dogs are types of carnivore. There was no change in their designation as carnivores. yet they diversified from the basic carnivore ancestor and acquired new characteristics that differentiate between them.

 

[Polymath257]

Why would no "serious scientist" (I note again you are using either hate or ad homs for all creation scientists here) consider an explanation for something outside the visible universe?

No, that is NOT what I said. I said that no serious scientist would consider a water layer encompassing the observable universe. Creationists are NOT serious scientists. They are not even technically scientists in their approach.

 

[Bear Wild]

I just provided multiple alternatives for evolution by natural selection and random mutations, these alternative mechanism have passed the peer review process, if there are other plausible mechanisms, then it is fair to conclude that evolution by natural selection and random mutations is controversial and that there is room for reasonable doubt.

Pick the one you think is best and lets look at it again. Natural selection is not controversial and is in itself self evident. There is more than sufficient evidence for how it works. Random mutations occur and if in one of the regulatory proteins can have major effects. Add long enough time and large populations with rapid reproductive rates and you have all you need for change. Then add complex environment and barriers to divide reproducing populations and you have all you need. No controversy, only plausible explanation and everything needed can be observed in nature. You do not need magic. You do not need an invisible intelligent being which makes no sense with what we know.
Still pick out the evidence you thinks supports you the most and we will see just how well it supports your view.

 

[Bear Wild]

I just provided multiple alternatives for evolution by natural selection and random mutations, these alternative mechanism have passed the peer review process, if there are other plausible mechanisms, then it is fair to conclude that evolution by natural selection and random mutations is controversial and that there is room for reasonable doubt.

Pick the one you think is best and lets look at it again. Natural selection is not controversial and is in itself self evident. There is more than sufficient evidence for how it works. Random mutations occur and if in one of the regulatory proteins can have major effects. Add long enough time and large populations with rapid reproductive rates and you have all you need for change. Then add complex environment and barriers to divide reproducing populations and you have all you need. No controversy, only plausible explanation and everything needed can be observed in nature. You do not need magic. You do not need an invisible intelligent being which makes no sense with what we know.
Still pick out the evidence you thinks supports you the most and we will see just how well it supports your view.

 

[gnostic]

1) Several thousand Bible facts, not just a few, have been verified by archaeology.

2) No archaeology has confirmed late dates for the NT/OT.

3) Many archaeology facts have confirmed early/conservative dates for the NT/OT.

First off, there were no global flood, so Genesis 10 regarding to Egypt/Mizraim and to Uruk/Erech, are historically and archaeologically wrong.

The estimate date of the flood, using the time given in Genesis 5 & 11, Exodus 12 and 1 Kings 6, put the Flood to about 2340 to 2350 BCE mark.

But both Egypt and Uruk predated 2340 BCE. The Egyptians have started building pyramids since the first one (Step Pyramid at Saqqara) for Djoser, a 3rd dynasty founder, whose reign began in early 27th century BCE. Even Khufu’s Pyramid in Giza (4th dynasty) predated the imaginary and mythological Flood of Genesis. And the continued to build pyramids throughout the rest of 4th dynasty, as well as the 5th and 6th dynasties, to the end of Old Kingdom period (2181 BCE).

No, billiardsball. Egypt didn’t just pop into existence after the Flood, like Genesis 10 stated.

My point in regarding to Egypt, is there was no broken line or discontinuity in the Old Kingdom, which would suggest a global flood. Their writings (Egyptian hieroglyphs and hieratic) and their styles in arts are the same in 3rd dynasty to that of the 20th dynasty. The only time Egyptian culture changed slightly in art, was the brief reign of Akhenaten in the late 18th dynasty (reign mid-14th century BCE).

The Sumer and Akkadian civilization of the 3rd millennium BCE, make no mention of any king by the name Nimrod, a great grandson of Noah. Again, Genesis 10, Nimrod was mentioned as being founder of both Accad (Akkad) and Erech (Uruk).

But according Akkadian texts, including the Sumerian King List, Sargon was the founder of Akkad, not Nimrod. Although Akkad has never been found (location unknown), Sargon’s empire do exist, and Sargon himself exists, historically, whereas Nimrod don’t.

Also, Uruk predated 2340 BCE, by over 1500 years. Like Jericho, Uruk was a city, where younger settlements were successively built over older settlements, in its long history, and the earliest settlement has been dated to around 5000 BCE.

Uruk was a very important city by 4000 BCE, flourishing throughout the 4th millennium BCE, to the mid-3rd millennium BCE. Uruk was in decline by the time of Sargon of Akkad (reign 2334 - 2279 BCE).

According to this date, Sargon would have lived around the estimated time of the Flood. But guess what, Billiardsball, no Flood was ever recorded in Sargon or his successor’s reigns.

Genesis 10 make inaccurate claims.

 

[leroy]

Pick the one you think is best and lets look at it again. Natural selection is not controversial and is in itself self evident. There is more than sufficient evidence for how it works. Random mutations occur and if in one of the regulatory proteins can have major effects. Add long enough time and large populations with rapid reproductive rates and you have all you need for change. Then add complex environment and barriers to divide reproducing populations and you have all you need. No controversy, only plausible explanation and everything needed can be observed in nature. You do not need magic. You do not need an invisible intelligent being which makes no sense with what we know.
Still pick out the evidence you thinks supports you the most and we will see just how well it supports your view.

Random mutations occur

Guided mutations also occur, for example if an organism is under selective pressure, he could grab a portion of his non-coding DNA reengineer the DNA and create a brand new protein that would help it to overcome the selective pressure. (This is called natural genetic engineering What Natural Genetic Engineering Does and Does Not Mean | HuffPost)


The process is not random, the organism is predetermined to create new proteins when a it receives a given set of data from the environment.

Offspring would also inherit this new protein.

So we know that this type of guided mutations occur, they have been observed. And we know that random mutations occur. We know that both mechanism can account for some of the diversity (micro evolution) that we observe, the question is which one is more relevant, which one accounts for mayor evolutionary changes?

To me it seems obvious that guided mutations accounted for most of the mayor evolutionary changes, one can get big de novo proteins in one generation, this mechanism seems more plausible that “random mutations"………..but I am defending a softer claim, my claim is that “guided mutations” is a viable candidate and should be taken in to consideration as a plausible alternative to “random mutations"

In other words, I think there is room for reasonable doubt, evolution by random mutations and natural selection, might be true but it also might wrong………do you think that evolution by random mutatiosn and natural selection is uncontroversially true or would you say that there is room for reasonable doubt.

 

[leroy]

Again, Evolution by mutation and natural selection is a directly observed fact.
?

Sure, which is why I grant that some diversity can be accounted by this mechanism, other mechanisms have also been observed. Like guided (non random) mutations and genetic drift (not natural selection)


In fact even “Lamarkism” has been observed at a short scale. (micro evolution) does that mean that Lamarkism is the main mechanism for evolution? Does that mean that Lamarckism can account for the origin of eyes?

 

[leroy]

See image below. it is very easy to see the smaller pieces making up the pyramid whole.

Yes. Blocks are never cut in this way naturally and piled up to make a larger formation.

Again, how do you know that the blocks where cutted? How do you know that they where placed in the correct order by humans?

 

[Jose Fly]

Sure, which is why I grant that some diversity can be accounted by this mechanism, other mechanisms have also been observed. Like guided (non random) mutations and genetic drift (not natural selection)


In fact even “Lamarkism” has been observed at a short scale. (micro evolution) does that mean that Lamarkism is the main mechanism for evolution? Does that mean that Lamarckism can account for the origin of eyes?

Yeah, so again.....

Evolutionary biologists have been debating about the mechanisms of evolution and their relative roles, therefore...................?

 

[leroy]

Yeah, so again.....

Evolutionary biologists have been debating about the mechanisms of evolution and their relative roles, therefore...................?

Therefore you shouldn’t establish as fact that evolution by random mutations and natural selection accounts for the complexity and diversity of life. There is room for reasonable doubt.

 

[Jose Fly]

Therefore you shouldn’t establish as fact that evolution by random mutations and natural selection accounts for the complexity and diversity of life. There is room for reasonable doubt.

Have you encountered anyone who argues that mutation and natural selection are the only two mechanisms behind the entire evolutionary history of life on earth?

 

[Bear Wild]

Guided mutations also occur, for example if an organism is under selective pressure, he could grab a portion of his non-coding DNA reengineer the DNA and create a brand new protein that would help it to overcome the selective pressure. (This is called natural genetic engineering What Natural Genetic Engineering Does and Does Not Mean | HuffPost)


The process is not random, the organism is predetermined to create new proteins when a it receives a given set of data from the environment.

Offspring would also inherit this new protein.

So we know that this type of guided mutations occur, they have been observed. And we know that random mutations occur. We know that both mechanism can account for some of the diversity (micro evolution) that we observe, the question is which one is more relevant, which one accounts for mayor evolutionary changes?

To me it seems obvious that guided mutations accounted for most of the mayor evolutionary changes, one can get big de novo proteins in one generation, this mechanism seems more plausible that “random mutations"………..but I am defending a softer claim, my claim is that “guided mutations” is a viable candidate and should be taken in to consideration as a plausible alternative to “random mutations"

In other words, I think there is room for reasonable doubt, evolution by random mutations and natural selection, might be true but it also might wrong………do you think that evolution by random mutatiosn and natural selection is uncontroversially true or would you say that there is room for reasonable doubt.

The article you are referring to is talking about how the Cell maintains DNA integrity and can use existing dna to create new combinations. This system is was originally created by random mutations and still includes random mutations but as cells advanced so did the control mechanisms. It is not talking about an intelligent design other than the intelligence of the cell itself. We know that cells have incorporated viral DNA and modified it. We know that cells can rearrange genetic material especially in reproduction but there is no outside force directing the genetic code which the author states when he says to stay in the natural process.
The E. coli example is how the environment may influence genetic expression and modification. The process he is talking about is still influenced by natural selection and even if some or the changes are not completely random they are still not deterministic. What the research does show is that selective for a more flexible genetic code that may be more interactive may help to explain how evolutionary changes may occur as rapid as they seem to have occurred. This system is also responsible for keeping most of the genetic code conserved.
The article you presented is a good one to support evolution by natural process and against intelligent design or some external force giving a direction to life. The changes seen are still controlled by the natural processes that governs all life. No supernatural cause found confirming and enhancing what we know about evolution. The intelligence is in the single cells and their communication with other cells. This is in a way similar to why the brain and skull are so coordinated. All natural processes in a wonderful natural world.
What is the next article to review? What ever support you can give to the natural explanation of evolution is much appreciated.

 

[Bear Wild]

Therefore you shouldn’t establish as fact that evolution by random mutations and natural selection accounts for the complexity and diversity of life. There is room for reasonable doubt.

One of the problems in these discussion is there needs to be a starting point and we start simple but can build on that. Life started with random mutations directed by natural selection. As the genetic code became more complex there are more and more mechanisms for change but they are complex.

 

[leroy]

Have you encountered anyone who argues that mutation and natural selection are the only two mechanisms behind the entire evolutionary history of life on earth?

Some would argue that these are the main mechanism behind the evolutionary history if earth...... All I am saying is that this statement is controversial perhaps they are the main mechanisms or perhaps there are some other mechanism that play a more important role.

 

[gnostic]

Guided mutations also occur, for example if an organism is under selective pressure, he could grab a portion of his non-coding DNA reengineer the DNA and create a brand new protein that would help it to overcome the selective pressure. (This is called natural genetic engineering What Natural Genetic Engineering Does and Does Not Mean | HuffPost)

Engineering is not "natural", and what you are suggesting, you have no evidence to support it.

And "genetic engineering" certainly isn't "natural".

Changes to genes and DNA/RNA can occur naturally through evolutionary mechanisms, without interference from any being, be they humans or God or Designer. The presence of any outsider (beings) actually directly changing the DNA or genes, are not natural.

Example of real life genetic engineering have already been done, like genetically modified plants.

However. There have been no evidences that God, Creator or Designer or fairies have done any engineering to genes or DNA, because for such a thing to occur, then you would actually need evidences that this Designer or God actually existing, and not some blind faith in your belief. And the fact is, no such evidences exist.

 

[leroy]

The article you are referring to is talking about how the Cell maintains DNA integrity and can use existing dna to create new combinations. This system is was originally created by random mutations and still includes random mutations but as cells advanced so did the control mechanisms. It is not talking about an intelligent design other than the intelligence of the cell itself. We know that cells have incorporated viral DNA and modified it. We know that cells can rearrange genetic material especially in reproduction but there is no outside force directing the genetic code which the author states when he says to stay in the natural process.
The E. coli example is how the environment may influence genetic expression and modification. The process he is talking about is still influenced by natural selection and even if some or the changes are not completely random they are still not deterministic. What the research does show is that selective for a more flexible genetic code that may be more interactive may help to explain how evolutionary changes may occur as rapid as they seem to have occurred. This system is also responsible for keeping most of the genetic code conserved.
The article you presented is a good one to support evolution by natural process and against intelligent design or some external force giving a direction to life. The changes seen are still controlled by the natural processes that governs all life. No supernatural cause found confirming and enhancing what we know about evolution. The intelligence is in the single cells and their communication with other cells. This is in a way similar to why the brain and skull are so coordinated. All natural processes in a wonderful natural world.
What is the next article to review? What ever support you can give to the natural explanation of evolution is much appreciated.

I am just stablish the point that there are alternatives to evolution by random mutatios and natural selection. Do you grant this point?

This system is was originally created by random mutations

Can you show that to be true? Not only there is a lack of evidence, but even in principle a system like natural genetic engineering can not evolve by random mutatios and natural selection. These system has long term benefits, while natural selection can only select for immediate benefits.

You also have to deal with an aparentemente Paradox concepto te ningún thecrepar mechanism, this mechanism that prevents ( repairs) the mayority of random mutations .

So did a mechanism that prevents random mutations evolved by a proces of random mutations?

And why was this repair mechanism selected by natural selection? Is preventing mutations good for the organism? ......is the overall effect of random mutations negative?

 

[tas8831]

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.

The creationist "crevo" (not on this forum, but people may know the moniker - he has like 3 or 4 anti-evolution sites) once declared to me on a forum that he thought it would have taken "millions" of mutations to get just the ability of humans to be bipedal from an ape-like ancestor. I asked him to expand, and to explain why he felt so many were necessary (given the number of genes we have). He declared that it would take millions of mutations because there are millions of differences (again, this is just in the pelvis and such).
I then asked him to list, say 100 of these millions of differences.

He declined, saying my request was silly. That is the way of the creationist.

 

[tas8831]

"I have met people with far more scientific relevance than him" means they have far more relevance than you

Yes, they were very much more relevant than me. I never said otherwise.

, not being a scientist like BEHE,

Also true - I am not a scientist like Behe, for I have never written a vanity press book in which I distort science in order to prop up my religious beliefs. I am also a scientist unlike Behe for I actually did research in a relevant field (evolution). In fact, unlike Behe, some of my work is cited at the Tree of Life web project site.

so how do you know who is right? Degree comparison?

See above. I have a graduate degree, and I have published research on evolution.

You?


In the end, I fail to see why your hero-worshipping and unyielding faith in the infallibility of those heroes trumps my actual knowledge of the subject matter.

 

[tas8831]

A trait "blue eyes" that is recessive or expressed does not cross families, like limbs to wings or gills or lungs.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but I am 100% certain that it was totally irrelevant to my post:


What do you mean NEW information?

Please be specific in not only your definition of "NEW information", but also explain why it is needed.

How do you know?

 

[tas8831]

Irrelevant, it is still a fact that one can in principle conclude that the Egyptians made the pyramids, even if nobody one cannot explain the mechanism used by the Egyptians.

Interesting admission, given that your take re: evolution is pretty much the opposite.

Of course, I have long understood that if not double standards, anti-evolutionists would have no standards at all.