Putting God's Design In Perspective

[shunyadragon]

It is perfectly valid to say “humans caused pyramids” and “I don’t know what caused humans” just like it is valid to say that an intelligent designer caused the universe and “I don’t know what caused the designer “

It is valid to 'say' I don't know, or to 'say' and believe that an Intelligent Designer caused the universe from a theological and philosophical perspective, but it is not supported a falsifiable hypothesis based on science..

 

[leroy]

Dodging and disingenuous, as I have come to expect - cool burden shifting there, too.

I am not shifting the burden; you claimed to be capable of refuting this assertion

therefore 50,000 mutations do not even explain a small portion of the differences between chimps and human

so can you refuted?

Why did you repeat "Since neutral mutations are unlikely to become fixed"?

So seemed to be arguing that most of the 2% difference between chimps and humans where caused by neutral mutations, given that most neutral mutations don’t get fixed, it is unlikely that any relevant number of neutral mutations account for the differences that we see in chimps and humans.

I that is not what you where arguing then I apologize for misrepresenting your view

And why did you not admit your major errors?

Care to provide an example of a single error

Let me help you out, as you are clearly in over your head -

Haldane's model was about FIXED, BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS.

NOT total number of mutations. NOT NOT NOT total number of mutations.

Get it?

Sure, what makes you think that I didn’t understand any of that?

A 'fixed' mutation is one found in all members of a population.

Sure, that is the meaning of fixed mutation,. Did I ever used the term “fixed mutation” implying another meaning?

A beneficial mutation is one that, in a given context, confers an adaptive or reproductive advantage.

Sure, that is the meaning of benefitial mutation,. Did I ever used the term “benefitial mutation” implying another meaning?

So a fixed, beneficial mutation is a mutation that confers an adaptive advantage that ALL members of a population (species) possess.

ok

The TOTAL number of mutational/DNA sequence differences are 100% IRRELEVANT to 'Haldane's dilemma'

sure, but weren’t most of the differences caused by beneficial mutations?...or would you argue that most (say more than 99% of the differences)where caused by neutral mutations? What is your view?

How can you not know this, even as you hawk the failed 'Haldane's dilemma' argument?

what makes you think that I didn’t know it?

And remember that last thing is YOUR claim, not mine, so YOU need to justify your repetitious mantra.

So are you going to refute the assertion or not?

therefore 50,000 mutations do not even explain a small portion of the differences between chimps and human

According to this article 3,000,000 mutations where cruzial in developing important stuff that differentiate us from chimps

However, as many as 3 million of the differences may lie in crucial protein-coding genes or other functional areas of the genome.

So obviously 50,000 is not enough to explain the 3M differences that where caused by positive mutations. and this only if we look at the coding DNA

SO I PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THAT 50,000 IS too few………can you refute it?

 

[leroy]

It is valid to 'say' I don't know, or to 'say' and believe that an Intelligent Designer caused the universe from a theological and philosophical perspective, but it is not supported a falsifiable hypothesis based on science..

Even if I grant that ID is unfalsifiable, it would still be possible to show that there is at least one better explanation for the FT tuning of the universe……..so select your favorite naturalistic explanation for FT, and explain why is it better than design.

Perhaps you would not falsify ID, but at least you would show that there are better alternatives

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My point is that you are suppose to show that evolution is true using “your logic”

any evidence for evolution won’t count unless you establish a priori that evolution is true (this seems to be your logic)…but perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

You are mistaken in that. If you want to establish irreducible complexity, you would have to be able to verify that no lesser iteration of whatever complex structure you were looking at could have a function. I am not sure what else you are referring to. I will have to look back.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sure and many alternatives for “natural design” have been proposed as an explanation for the fine tuning of the universe, feel free to select your favorite and explain why is it better than design.

The burden of proof is on those claiming design. Since, science has no other basis than the physical world to build on, anyone claiming a religious position like intelligent design has to provide the evidence that intelligent design is a better explanation than what science has so far determined.

Well pretend that we go to another planet and find some archeological artifacts, ¿would it be fair to infer intelligent design even if the existence of Aliens has not been established a priori?

It is possible to find artifacts that are so novel to us that we may not recognize them as artifacts, but I accept the gist of your question. But it would be the presence of a physical intelligence that is the most likely cause until shown otherwise. Archaeologists that find primitive artifacts are not known to suggest that they were made by an unseen, omniscient, omnipresent agent. They may not know exactly who made them, but they would have no reason to jump to a religious answer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Even if I grant that ID is unfalsifiable, it would still be possible to show that there is at least one better explanation for the FT tuning of the universe……..so select your favorite naturalistic explanation for FT, and explain why is it better than design.

Perhaps you would not falsify ID, but at least you would show that there are better alternatives

The alternatives already exist in science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My point is that you are suppose to show that evolution is true using “your logic”

any evidence for evolution won’t count unless you establish a priori that evolution is true (this seems to be your logic)…but perhaps I am misunderstanding you.

I think I see what you are getting at and that is not what I was saying about design. In order to compare design to evolution, for instance, you would have to have shown design. If you were going to compare two things, you have to have those two things. Right? You cannot have one thing and then just the belief of another. If design has not been established and is unfalsifiable, you cannot use it to refute a falsifiable scientific theory that is so well supported as evolution.

The other problem is your use of the word "true". Evolution, the biological process, has been demonstrated. We see the changes in populations over time. I just saw a thread with a study involving mice, that demonstrated change and natural selection along with isolating the genes that were being selected. However, the theory is "true" only contingently and, while it would be a very slim chance today, theoretically, there is always the chance that new evidence could be discovered that the theory does not explain.

Unlike religious statements, the theories of science are not viewed as absolute, even if they are thought to be as nearly absolute as can be established.

It is safe to say that belief in God can remain intake even while accepting the findings and conclusions of science. They do not refute the existence of God.

 

[shunyadragon]

Even if I grant that ID is unfalsifiable, it would still be possible to show that there is at least one better explanation for the FT tuning of the universe……..so select your favorite naturalistic explanation for FT, and explain why is it better than design.

Perhaps you would not falsify ID, but at least you would show that there are better alternatives

Falsification is the standard for science.

I only have one specific explanation for the origins and history of life it is the science of abiogenesis and evolution. Can you offer another based on science alone?

For physics and cosmology the science of the origins is still open with many unanswered questions, but the options are narrowing. Some sort of multiverse is the best option for me either where universes form singularities or Black Holes.

 

[leroy]

The burden of proof is on those claiming design. Since, science has no other basis than the physical world to build on, anyone claiming a religious position like intelligent design has to provide the evidence that intelligent design is a better explanation than what science has so far determined.

Ok, I accept my burden.

My claim is that ID is a better explanation for the FT of the universe than your favorite alterative hypothesis.

So let me know which is your favorite hypothesis, and I will try to justify my assertion that design is a better explanation

It is possible to find artifacts that are so novel to us that we may not recognize them as artifacts, but I accept the gist of your question. But it would be the presence of a physical intelligence that is the most likely cause until shown otherwise. Archaeologists that find primitive artifacts are not known to suggest that they were made by an unseen, omniscient, omnipresent agent. They may not know exactly who made them, but they would have no reason to jump to a religious answer.

The claim is that the FT or the universe was caused by an intelligent designer, whether if this designer is omnipresent, omniscient, supernatural etc. or not is beyond the scope of the argument.

 

[leroy]

For physics and cosmology the science of the origins is still open with many unanswered questions, but the options are narrowing. Some sort of multiverse is the best option for me either where universes form singularities or Black Holes.

Ok so for example black holes…. Why is it better than design?

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok so for example black holes…. Why is it better than design?

(Intelligent) Design is simply a philosophical/theological proposition of origins and processes that could possibly fit any scientific explanation including Black Holes.

Actually I believe in God, and God's plan is the Laws of Nature and Natural processes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok, I accept my burden.

My claim is that ID is a better explanation for the FT of the universe than your favorite alterative hypothesis.

So let me know which is your favorite hypothesis, and I will try to justify my assertion that design is a better explanation






The claim is that the FT or the universe was caused by an intelligent designer, whether if this designer is omnipresent, omniscient, supernatural etc. or not is beyond the scope of the argument.

I do not have an explanation for fine tuning. It is my understanding that there is no clear evidence that the universe is fine tuned. Having some constants with narrow parameters in which life can arise is not having all constants fine tuned. Even among those that have been identified, there is argument over whether the parameters really are that narrow. If there is fine tuning, then how is it determined that the fine tuning is in support of the existence of life and not for some other reason?

Since a supernatural cause is outside of the scope of science to determine, would that not eliminate a supernatural intelligence as a possibility? You are suggesting this argument is to be presented from the perspective of science?

 

[Jose Fly]

I am not shifting the burden; you claimed to be capable of refuting this assertion

Leroy, it's obvious that you don't understand. If you make an assertion, it falls on you to support it. It is not everyone else's responsibility to refute your assertion.

Making an unsupported assertion and then putting the burden on everyone else to refute it is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Understand?

So seemed to be arguing that most of the 2% difference between chimps and humans where caused by neutral mutations, given that most neutral mutations don’t get fixed, it is unlikely that any relevant number of neutral mutations account for the differences that we see in chimps and humans.

Tas has already done an excellent job of shredding your argument here, but I would like to point out two other problems.

Earlier you stated:

"the fact that genomes are 3B base pairs long, we can conclude that the 2% difference between chimps and humans represents 60,000,000 base pairs. …….therefore 50,000 mutations do not even explain a small portion of the differences between chimps and humans"​

First, you're trying to estimate what it would take to go from a modern chimp to a modern human. But humans didn't evolve from modern chimps; they evolved from a common ancestor that was neither chimp nor human. So your estimate above is like comparing your genome to your cousin's and figuring that since your genome couldn't have come from your cousin's, then the two of you can't be related. Hopefully you see how silly that is.

Second, when comparative geneticists give any estimate of the percent difference between two genomes, there are a lot of different ways that can be calculated. For example, let's say the chimp genome has one copy of gene X, and the human genome has two copies. How do you calculate that difference in terms of percentage of the overall genomes? By number of base pairs, where if gene X is 750 base pairs long, you divide that by the total number of base pairs? If so, then your argument that each single base pair difference must be the result of a single mutation is completely wrong, since the 750 base pair difference in gene X can be accomplished by a single mutation (duplication of gene X).

And if you calculate the percent difference by counting genes, then the difference here is only one, as in one gene, which cuts against your focus on base pairs.

 

[shunyadragon]

I do not have an explanation for fine tuning. It is my understanding that there is no clear evidence that the universe is fine tuned. Having some constants with narrow parameters in which life can arise is not having all constants fine tuned. Even among those that have been identified, there is argument over whether the parameters really are that narrow. If there is fine tuning, then how is it determined that the fine tuning is in support of the existence of life and not for some other reason?

Since a supernatural cause is outside of the scope of science to determine, would that not eliminate a supernatural intelligence as a possibility? You are suggesting this argument is to be presented from the perspective of science?

I believe the concept of 'fine tuning' is not a meaningful concept, I avoid it like the plague, and has odd anthropomorphic implications. Our physical existence is what it is naturally whether Created by God or simply the product the Laws of Nature and natural processes. Our solar system, planet, and life are clearly the result of Natural Laws and natural processes, and beyond that it is unknown. The question as to how unique and special it is is unresolved, and at present any argument on whatever side you take is an argument without evidence, and likely 'arguing from ignorance.'

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe the concept of 'fine tuning' is not a meaningful concept, I avoid it like the plague, and has odd anthropomorphic implications. Our physical existence is what it is naturally whether Created by God or simply the product the Laws of Nature and natural processes. Our solar system, planet, and life are clearly the result of Natural Laws and natural processes, and beyond that it is unknown. The question as to how unique and special it is is unresolved, and at present any argument on whatever side you take is an argument without evidence, and likely 'arguing from ignorance.'

I agree with you.

I am familiar with, but not very conversant with fine tuning. I have difficulty seeing it as significant, since it still seems to be in question on several levels and if it exists, the link between life and the tuning would need to be established.

From the perspective of science, I can only turn to natural causes as an answer. While I have no idea how life originated and hold views based both in belief as well as an understanding of the position left to science in postulating natural causes. For the diversity and relationship of living things and the changes seen in their populations through time, I accept the theory of evolution. It is not in crisis and certainly cannot be supplanted by a theological claim, even if the attempt has been to try and make it in the arena of science.

Like you I believe in God, but all I can demonstrate is based on the evidence of the physical world and the logic of theory, regardless of that belief. I see ignoring the evidence as amounting to lying to myself and by my belief that is something I could not honor. So I argue these issues from the perspective of science and especially so in light of the claims that intelligent design is science. For the origin of life, my best answer is that "I do not know", but I can relate the evidence that exists and the hypotheses that have been formulated.

My view of design is that it is a religious argument dressed up to appear as science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am not shifting the burden; you claimed to be capable of refuting this assertion



so can you refuted?




So seemed to be arguing that most of the 2% difference between chimps and humans where caused by neutral mutations, given that most neutral mutations don’t get fixed, it is unlikely that any relevant number of neutral mutations account for the differences that we see in chimps and humans.

I that is not what you where arguing then I apologize for misrepresenting your view





Care to provide an example of a single error





Sure, what makes you think that I didn’t understand any of that?




Sure, that is the meaning of fixed mutation,. Did I ever used the term “fixed mutation” implying another meaning?



Sure, that is the meaning of benefitial mutation,. Did I ever used the term “benefitial mutation” implying another meaning?


ok



sure, but weren’t most of the differences caused by beneficial mutations?...or would you argue that most (say more than 99% of the differences)where caused by neutral mutations? What is your view?





what makes you think that I didn’t know it?




So are you going to refute the assertion or not?




According to this article 3,000,000 mutations where cruzial in developing important stuff that differentiate us from chimps



So obviously 50,000 is not enough to explain the 3M differences that where caused by positive mutations. and this only if we look at the coding DNA

SO I PROVIDED EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THAT 50,000 IS too few………can you refute it?

This is what the article that you linked says in regards to the three million mutations.

"Most of these differences lie in what is believed to be DNA of little or no function. However, as many as 3 million of the differences may lie in crucial protein-coding genes or other functional areas of the genome."

Oh, THERE you are! I was wondering where you'd scampered off to avoid the tough stuff:

I also note that creationist essays on the subject (Haldane's 'dilemma') rarely if ever mentioned these papers:


Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA Vol.71,No.9,pp.3716-3720,
September 1974

An Analysis of the Cost-of-Selection Concept
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/71/9/3716.full.pdf


Proc.Nat.Acad.Sci.USA
Vol.71,No.10,pp.3863-3865,October 1974

Solutions to the Cost-of-Selection Dilemma
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/71/10/3863.full.pdf


and:


You and your sources appear to put mathematical models above actual evidence when it suits them (funny how the same folks are typically dismissive of climate change mathematical models).

What I NEVER see in such essays are an accounting of WHY they claim x-number of mutations is too few - i.e., I NEVER see any explanation as to how they know it is too few. I NEVER see an accounting of how many mutations they know it would take to get B-trait from A-trait in an ancestor.

This is the fail of ALL of these proclamations, from ReMine to Sanford to creation dot com. They merely seek to argue via big numbers with no actual rationale.



You need to explain how you determined that 500,000 mutations IS too few. All I see are assertions.


The case has already been made.

If creationists want to counter it using models and assertions, they will only impress and convince those that do not understand the biology.

Here is why I am very confident that such a large number of beneficial mutations is NOT needed to produce the relatively minor phenotypic changes we see between extant chimps and humans as derived from a common ancestor:

1. These arguments seem to imply that any particular trait is brand new and thus must be accounted for by some large number of mutations. This exposes the multi-level ignorance of those making them.
Look at the generic mammal body type - what specific trait does a human have that, say, a lemur or a dog does not? All human traits are essentially variations on a theme, not brand new. Developmental tweaks are all that is actually needed, not some suite of new beneficial mutations to get, say, the human shoulder joint from an ancestral primate shoulder joint.
There is the case of familial achondroplasia (dwarfism) - a single point mutation causes alterations in limb proportion (to include all muscle/nerve/soft tissue/etc. changes), joints, facial features, etc. All from a single point mutation. I am not saying that this is beneficial or adaptive, I am merely explaining that some huge number of mutations is NOT needed to produce relatively large-scale phenotypic changes. THIS is what your Haldane's dilemma-spewing creationist sources can't or won't understand or mention - usually because THEY don't know this, or because they don't want their target audience to know about it.

2. These arguments imply that some huge number of beneficial mutations MUST HAVE BEEN required for this transition to take place. Given that we know that single point mutations can affect multiple body systems and overall morphology, other than a desire for it to be so, what do these Haldane's dilemma types present that actually supports their position?
I've read ReMine's book - he offers nothing in that regard. I've read more recent treatments of it - more of the same.
I mentioned that a creationist once claimed that just to get the changes in the pelvis for bipedal locomotion a million mutations would have been required. Do you think he provided a million 'changes' that had to have been made? Nope. He could not provide A SINGLE example, but as is is the way of the creationist, he merely insisted that he was correct.


My argument against such claims are 1. that there is no argument (see the Ewen's quote); 2. that the arguments are based on ignorance of developmental biology; 3. that they are premised on the argument from awe (big numbers).


As an aside - I came across a discussion of Haldane on this very forum from 2014 where ReMine himself showed up to pat himself on the back - see, he posted under a false name and ONLY ever posted in that thread. He has a history of doing that.

I was unfamiliar with Remine, but I am glad you made me aware. I just got a copy of his book. I just skimmed through it, but I was not overwhelmed from my initial viewing.

I note that most of the articles on the web that I was able to find, Remine just talked about his "earth shaking theory, but never said what it was and never indicated how many mutations we should expect for a trait to evolve or that he had determined an estimate based on observation. As you indicate, it is just claimed that there are not enough mutations, with the presumed assumption that the reader is so unfamiliar with science, they would not question it and just accept the claim of "not enough" as true.

 

[shunyadragon]

Neutral mutations are not likely to become fixed, genetic drift would remove most neutral mutations.

Actually no, neutral mutations can just as well stay. I know a fair amount about genetics and no genetics on it's own does not sort things out.

Genetic drift by it's nature is neutral:

From: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/genetic-drift
"Genetic drift is the process by which deviations in expected allele frequencies develop in finite populations over time as a function of statistical sampling of genes from one generation to the next (as opposed to deviations that may develop in finite populations due to selection, mutation, or admixture)."

Natural selection May have an effect to sort things out, and have positive change.

Only positive mutations have a relatively good chance of getting fixed.

Not so by the above definition.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually no, neutral mutations can just as well stay. I know a far amount about genetics and no genetics on it's own does not sort things out.

Genetic drift by it's nature is neutral:

From: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/genetic-drift
"Genetic drift is the process by which deviations in expected allele frequencies develop in finite populations over time as a function of statistical sampling of genes from one generation to the next (as opposed to deviations that may develop in finite populations due to selection, mutation, or admixture)."

Natural selection May have an effect to sort things out, and have positive change.



Not so by the above definition.

That is a question I have had for some time. Since the bulk of the genomes is non-coding or non-functional, why is it still there? Nobody seems to know why. There may be an advantage to having it. What that is, I have no idea.

 

[shunyadragon]

That is a question I have had for some time. Since the bulk of the genomes is non-coding or non-functional, why is it still there? Nobody seems to know why. There may be an advantage to having it. What that is, I have no idea.

It is actually evidence of evolution, as well as the tool bag for future evolution. Chickens and other birds still have the gene for teeth. At present they are neutral.

Not a real good parallel, but nonetheless, as computer programs evolve old stuff accumulates over time, as it is updated and arrives.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is actually evidence of evolution, as well as the tool bag for future evolution. Chickens and other birds still have the gene for teeth. At present they are neutral.

Not a real good parallel, but nonetheless, as computer programs evolve old stuff accumulates over time, as it is updated and arrives.

Agreed. My question may be more to what is protecting from being eliminated or does it serve another function that is less obvious. Is there some value to having a bulk on non-functional DNA in a genome. Other than as source material for evolution to tinker with, considering that there is no guide to the process to save those bits for a rainy day.

Computer programs is a reasonable analogy, I would say.