Putting God's Design In Perspective

[shunyadragon]

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.

Yes, some may have a function that is unknown today, but for the most part being neutral, they are just carried along for the ride.

 

[Polymath257]

The building blocks of particles are like fuzzy clouds of probability waves, without any definite attributes, until they are observed by a conscious mind. In other words, the universe doesn't exist without any human consciousness; we humans are an essential part of our universe, because unlike anything else, our human consciousness is what collapses the wave functions of the cosmos. Our entire universe is indeed designed to exist only in conjunction with just the human mind.

This is, however, false. it is NOT just minds that can collapse a wave function. ANY complex external environment is sufficient. And *how* complex it needs to be is rather small. For example, to collapse the wave function of an electron to a specific position can be done by the photons of the CMBR in space. That is sufficient. No minds are required.

 

[Polymath257]

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

At this point we do not know if the fundamental constants involved in 'FT' can be changed at all, let alone what the dynamics are of such changes. It is quite possible that whatever physical laws determine the way they change over time drives them to particular values that maximize the complexity of the overall system.

That would be a far better alternative than ID, which jumps *way* beyond what the available evidence shows.

 

[leroy]

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.

That the universe is FT is an uncontroversial fact. For example if the force of gravity would have been a little bit stronger (say 1%) the universe would have collapsed in a black hole shortly after the Big Bang, and life as we know it wouldn’t exist….. in this sense of the concept FT is a widely accepted fact.

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.

sure there is controversy on how narrow the parameters are. but
Whether if a parameter like gravity allows for a difference of +- 0.0000001% or 0.0000002% is irrelevant the argument still stands.

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?

Irrelevant, the actual claim is that the universe is FT to allow the existence of stars, planets, atoms, molecules etc….. These are all necessary “ingredients” for the existence of life, (if you don’t have atoms you can’t have life…..obviously)…. Whether if “life” is the only purpose or not, is irrelevant. … for all we know the universe could have been FT by an alien who was interested in building a universe capable of producing pizza, intelligent life would simply by a bi product of the original intent of creating delicious pizza.

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?

The argument is that the FT of the universe was caused by a designer, whether if this designer is “natural” or “supernatural” y beyond the scope of the argument.

Design can be detected using science, forensic scientists, archeologists, fire experts, SETI etc. do that all the time.

For example there are objective/scientific ways to determine if a signal detected by SETI was created by an intelligent agent, whether if the signal was produced by a “natural Alien” or a “supernatural God” would be beyond the scope and the possibilities of SETI


Remember my previous example, science can tell us if I can predict the future, whether if this ability is natural or supernatural might be beyond the scope of science, but one can use the scientific method to determine if I have such ability…..in the same way science can tell us if something was design by an intelligent agent, whether if the designer is natural or supernatural might be beyond the scope of science, but one can use the scientific method to determine design.

 

[leroy]

At this point we do not know if the fundamental constants involved in 'FT' can be changed at all, let alone what the dynamics are of such changes. It is quite possible that whatever physical laws determine the way they change over time drives them to particular values that maximize the complexity of the overall system.

That would be a far better alternative than ID, which jumps *way* beyond what the available evidence shows.

Why would the physical laws drive all these independent constants to the narrow life permitting range? You are not removing the necessity of a designer.

Pretend that you have a calculator that always gives correct results, the calculator would be FT to produce “correct results” then pretend that the algorithms in the calculator are impossible to change, once you try to change them some repair mechanism would get activated and the algorithm would be restored.

In this case the calculator could have not been different, but would you therefore conclude that there was not a designer?

 

[Polymath257]

Why would the physical laws drive all these independent constants to the narrow life permitting range? You are not removing the necessity of a designer.

I am doing pure speculation here. But if the values are pushed by the dynamical laws towards more complex outcomes, that would be a reason for the FT we see. Life would just be a consequence of that complexity. I don't see why you think a designer is required in this: only natural laws.

Pretend that you have a calculator that always gives correct results, the calculator would be FT to produce “correct results” then pretend that the algorithms in the calculator are impossible to change, once you try to change them some repair mechanism would get activated and the algorithm would be restored.

In this case the calculator could have not been different, but would you therefore conclude that there was not a designer?

In the case of the calculator, we know ahead of time there was a designer. If, instead, such calculators were naturally produced, we would not default to them having a designer.

 

[leroy]

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?


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.

1 one can infer the “genetic stuff” that evolved in humans after we diverged by comparing our genome with the chimps genome, nobody is claiming that we evolved from apes. My assumption is that at least a relevant portion (say more than 1%) of the differences between chimps and humans where cause by beneficial mutations….. if you what to affirm that the assumption is wrong, please let me know.

2 sure but if you take gene duplications in to account then the differences between chimps and humans would be greater than 2% … making the problem even worse.

 

[ratiocinator]

Why would the physical laws drive all these independent constants to the narrow life permitting range? You are not removing the necessity of a designer.

There isn't a necessity for designer in the first place. Firstly, we don't know enough - we don't know if the universe could have been any different and we don't know if our region of space-time in which the laws apply is all there is.

And secondly, as I said before, postulating designer leaves you with an exactly equivalent problem with with the designer itself. If there were some other reason to postulate a designer, then that might not be relevant but if the only reason is to 'explain' fine tuning, it fails to do so.

 

[tas8831]

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.

Neutral theory and other evidence points to it acting as a 'mutation sink' of sorts. The selectionist view that it should have been removed is premised on energy use during replication, yet DNA is copied only once, most cells expend more energy just maintaining concentration gradients on a daily basis.

 

[leroy]

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.

You don’t have to speculate much, we know that at least a big portion of non-codign DNA has a function…. For example they control gene expression …………this represents more problems for Darwinist, since in order to have an advantage you have to shuffle a gene + you have to shuffle the non coding DNA that controls the expression of that gene, if you don’t have both you don’t have an advantage.

 

[tas8831]

SMH....

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

YOU presented the claim, with NO support whatsoever. Asking me to then refute the mere assertion you made (copied from Don Batten) is disingenuous and lame.

so can you refuted?

So can you provide rationale and evidence FOR? it was, after all, your claim.

See, it doesn't work the way you want it to - you cannot just toss out an assertion then demand others refute it. Your way is the child's way. Are you a child?

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.

What is your evidence for your yet-again repeated claim about neutral mutations?

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

Thanks. Now how about providing some actual SUPPORT for your Batten/ReMine paraphrases?

Care to provide an example of a single error

Like about neutral mutations? Like about how all the mutational differences between humans and chimps are beneficial? Like ignoring the Grant and Flake papers and the Ewans' quote? Like your repeated unsupported claims about 50,000 mutations being 'too few'?


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?

Well, we can start by your favorably referring to the Batten essay, wherein he implies that Haldane's model was about 'building' genomes. Then we have you bringing up neutral mutations.
Anything else?

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

You referred to neutral mutations and total mutations in a discussion on Haldane's model, which is only about fixing beneficial mutations.
If you knew all about that, why did you even mention neutral mutations?

As a dodge? As a distraction?
Why?

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

You referred to neutral mutations and total mutations in a discussion on Haldane's model, which is only about fixing beneficial mutations.
If you knew all about that, why did you even mention neutral mutations?

As a dodge? As a distraction?
Why?

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?

I never mentioned neutral mutations - YOU DID.

So tell me why YOU brought up neutral mutations in the first place.

Have you read ReMine's book? It seems not, for even the great electrical engineer creationist ReMine allowed for some tens of thousands of fixed neutral mutations on top of his calculated 1667 fixed beneficial ones. He said they were too few, of course - but like you and Batten, he never even tried to explain why he drew that conclusion.

By the way - yes, neutral mutant alleles can affect phenotype, but by definition, the changes are do not affect fitness.

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

The fact that you brought up neutral mutations.

So are you going to refute the assertion or not?

Can you SUPPORT it with evidence or not? Can you even provide a logical rationale for asserting that it is too few?

It seems the answer is no, and you expect me to "refute" a made-up assertion.

Unlike you - or Batten, or ReMine - I, at least, provided a rationale and some supporting evidence. Odd that you decided to totally ignore it.

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?

Um....

Yes, I can refute your claim that the article you linked indicates that "3,000,000 mutations where cruzial [sic] in developing important stuff that differentiate us from chimps" is at all relevant to your initial claims (which you are now, of course, changing upon realizing that you screwed up royally) -

"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."​

No mention of "fixed beneficial mutations", which is what your original claims ala Batten/ReMine were about. Just "differences".

Remember? CONGRATS! You just DEMOLISHED ReMine's and Batten's Haldane's Dilemma argument!

LOL!!!

And the very next sentence:

"As the sequences of other mammals and primates emerge in the next couple of years, we will be able to determine what DNA sequence changes are specific to the human lineage. The genetic changes that distinguish humans from chimps will likely be a very small fraction of this set,"​

The word "beneficial" occurs nowhere in the article.


FAIL.


Please provide evidence that 50,000 FIXED BENEFICIAL mutations are "too few" to account for human evolution from an apelike ancestor.

No more dodging and obfuscation and goal post shifting.

As I have already outlined (and you either did not understand or ignored for "plausible deniability" purposes), I do not think some gigantic number of mutations (beneficial or otherwise) are "required" to explain human traits evolved from an ape-like ancestor for the following reasons:

1. There really no 'brand new' traits that humans possess that chimps do not, indicating that our common ancestor also that the same basic traits
2. Therefore, we only need to "tweak" existing traits, and tweaking an existing trait does NOT require some large number of beneficial mutations
3. Support for this - point mutation in the FGFR-3 gene causing achondroplasia - altered limb-to-trunk proportion, altered facial characteristics, reduced joints, etc. All from one mutation. Reminder - I am NOT presenting this as a beneficial mutation, just the reality that MULTIPLE phenotypic traits can be altered, in this case, by a single mutation.

I predict that it will be possible, at some point, to map out specific mutations that resulted in specific phenotypes. We are not there now. But at least I have a foundationally-supported position with an example.

You have mere assertions premised on someone else's mere assertions based on someone else's mere assertions, who premised those assertions on personal incredulity, ignorance, and a desire to sway the under-informed to a creationist viewpoint by arguing with numbers.

Now YOU provide the evidence-based rationale for YOUR position, that "50,000 mutations do not even explain a small portion of the differences between chimps and humans" - and to be specific, this has to be 'fixed, beneficial mutations', because THAT is what Haldane's model and the creationist argument based on that is actually about.

In order for you to make your position valid, you must, at least:

1. Pick a trait that you think is so special in us
2. Identify the ancestral version of it
3. explain how many fixed beneficial mutations would have been required for that transition
4. explain how you know this, with at least a real-life "model" as I presented

OR

You could just admit that you were taken in by Don Batten's distorted misrepresentation of Haldane's model (it is NOT about 'building' a genome!) and ran with it without understanding the premise.

Your move.

 

[Jollybear]

Your question answer concerning the evolution of the flagellum

Source: Biologists Trace Evolution of Bacterial Flagellar Motors | Biology | Sci-News.com

Biologists Trace Evolution of Bacterial Flagellar Motors

Bacteria use molecular motors just tens of nanometers wide to spin a tail (flagellum) that pushes them through their habitat.

Like human-made motors, these nanoscale machines have distinct ‘stator’ and ‘rotor’ components that spin against each other. The structure of these motors determines their power and the bacteria’s swimming ability.

Previously, Imperial College researcher Morgan Beeby and co-authors looked at these motors and discovered a key factor that determined how strongly bacteria could swim.

They found that the more stator structures the bacterial motor possessed, the larger its turning force, and the stronger the bacterium swam.

Despite these differences, DNA sequence analysis shows that the core motors are ancestrally related. This led the team to question how structure and swimming diversity evolved from the same core design.

Its amazing how they call it "same core DESIGN". Design is too obvious that its hard not to use the word even amongs those who are biased against it.

Now, in new research published in the journal Scientific Reports, Dr. Beeby’s team was able to build a ‘family tree’ of bacterial motors by combining 3D imaging with DNA analysis.

Build a family tree eh? They really working there imagination.

This allowed them to understand what ancestral motors may have looked like, and how they could have evolved into the sophisticated motors seen today.

Atleast there honest in admitting its a "MAY have looked like". Theres that imagination again.

The scientists found a clear difference between the motors of primitive and sophisticated bacterial species. While many primitive species had around 12 stators, more sophisticated species had around 17 stators. This, together with DNA analysis, suggested that ancient motors may also have only had 12 stators.

Theres that word "may" again. Even 12 stators if there correct, still shows design and or complexity.

“This clear separation between primitive and sophisticated species represents a ‘quantum leap’ in evolution,” the authors said.

A leap? I thought evolution happens in millions of years? Looks like alot of MAGIC going on in there model here.

“Our study reveals that the increase in motor power capacity is likely the result of existing structures fusing. This forms a structural scaffold to incorporate more stators, which combine to drive rotation with higher force.”

"Likely"? Theres that imaginatiin working again. Funny when ID proponents INFER actual design from seeing order and complexity, we are called "believers" but when evolutionists make inferences they DO NOT LIKE being called "believers". Standard is a bit double, wouldn't ya think?

 

[Jose Fly]

1 one can infer the “genetic stuff” that evolved in humans after we diverged by comparing our genome with the chimps genome, nobody is claiming that we evolved from apes. My assumption is that at least a relevant portion (say more than 1%) of the differences between chimps and humans where cause by beneficial mutations….. if you what to affirm that the assumption is wrong, please let me know.

So you're just going to keep repeating the same errors and shifting the burden of proof.

2 sure but if you take gene duplications in to account then the differences between chimps and humans would be greater than 2% … making the problem even worse.

No, it's the exact opposite. As in the example I described, if a 750 base pair difference can be accounted for by a single mutation (duplication), then your underlying assumption that every base pair difference must be the result of separate, individual nucleotide mutations is completely wrong.

IOW, rather than requiring 750 separate mutations to generate the sequence difference, it only takes one mutation.

 

[leroy]

So you're just going to keep repeating the same errors and shifting the burden of proof.


No, it's the exact opposite. As in the example I described, if a 750 base pair difference can be accounted for by a single mutation (duplication), then your underlying assumption that every base pair difference must be the result of separate, individual nucleotide mutations is completely wrong.

IOW, rather than requiring 750 separate mutations to generate the sequence difference, it only takes one mutation.

1 but you are still unable to quote a single mistake

2 whether if we share 98% of or genome or 96% depends on whether if we consider gene duplications or not… scientists know which mutations are caused by gene duplication and which are caused by point mutations.

For the sake of simplicity I only focused on point mutations (the 2% difference) but if you what to include gene duplications then you have to explain the 60,000,000 differences caused by point mutations + the thousands of the differences caused by gene duplication. … I was trying to be generous and allowing you to worry only about the 2% differences caused by point mutations, but if you what to include other differences feel free to do it.

In other words a gene duplication doesn’t do anything to explain the 60,000,000 differences caused by point mutations,

 

[leroy]

There isn't a necessity for designer in the first place. Firstly, we don't know enough - we don't know if the universe could have been any different and we don't know if our region of space-time in which the laws apply is all there is.

And secondly, as I said before, postulating designer leaves you with an exactly equivalent problem with with the designer itself. If there were some other reason to postulate a designer, then that might not be relevant but if the only reason is to 'explain' fine tuning, it fails to do so.

The FT argument is not dependent on whether if the constants could have been different or not. If you don’t understand why then you don’t understand the argument and you are not qualified to argue if the argument is good or bad

 

[leroy]

So you're just going to keep repeating the same errors and shifting the burden of proof.

.

I didn’t shifted the burden proof, I said that 50,000 mutations is not enough to explain the differences between chimps and humans and then I provided a source that concludes that there are 3 million differences between humans and chimps that where beneficial and become fixed (hence relevant for Haldines dilemma)…. Of course these 3 million differences do not take in to account the differences in regions in DNA that have not been explored.

and so far @tas8831 has not answered.

Obviously I understand that he has other things to with his life and that he might take a few days or weeks in answering, but the point is that I did supported my claims.

 

[leroy]

I am doing pure speculation here. But if the values are pushed by the dynamical laws towards more complex outcomes, that would be a reason for the FT we see. Life would just be a consequence of that complexity. I don't see why you think a designer is required in this: only natural laws.



In the case of the calculator, we know ahead of time there was a designer. If, instead, such calculators were naturally produced, we would not default to them having a designer.

If you travel to the past with a time machine and show the calculator to people that have never seen it, they would infer intelligent design, despite the fact that they wouldn’t know a priori that calculators are man made.

If the laws of nature “forces” the constants to have the values that they have, then you would have to explain, why do the laws of nature force so many independent constants to fall within the life permitting range. (given that other values are at least logically possible)

 

[Polymath257]

If you travel to the past with a time machine and show the calculator to people that have never seen it, they would infer intelligent design, despite the fact that they wouldn’t know a priori that calculators are man made.

If the laws of nature “forces” the constants to have the values that they have, then you would have to explain, why do the laws of nature force so many independent constants to fall within the life permitting range. (given that other values are at least logically possible)

Once again, life is a by product of the complexity of the structures involved. if the constants converge to values that maximize complexity, then life would be a natural consequence. And it isn't so difficult to see maximizing complexity will tend to make the constant go to very specific values that do that maximization.

So, the real question is what the dynamics of the constants are that tend to maximize complexity of the overall system. How fast is the convergence to those values?

Given that we don't really know the values *can* change or that they *can* be any different, the whole discussion is pure speculation.

 

[leroy]

Once again, life is a by product of the complexity of the structures involved. if the constants converge to values that maximize complexity, then life would be a natural consequence. And it isn't so difficult to see maximizing complexity will tend to make the constant go to very specific values that do that maximization.

So, the real question is what the dynamics of the constants are that tend to maximize complexity of the overall system. How fast is the convergence to those values?

Given that we don't really know the values *can* change or that they *can* be any different, the whole discussion is pure speculation.

Why would the constants converge to maximize complexity?
This question is valid regardless if the constants can change or not




.... but you are correct if you show that natural mechanism have some bias in creating “complex universes” then the design hypothesis would fail..... for example natrual selection would be an example of a "bias" aplicable to life that woudl explain why are there furry animals in cold climates.... if you have somethign analogous aplicable to the universe ID would be falsified

 

[ratiocinator]

The FT argument is not dependent on whether if the constants could have been different or not. If you don’t understand why then you don’t understand the argument and you are not qualified to argue if the argument is good or bad

So why were you going on about the constants being finely tuned then? If you're just saying "wow, the universe allows life - therefore a designer" my second point (that you ignored) applies you're just making a blind guess that leads to exactly the same problem with the existence of a designer. It's the same sort of nonsense as first cause arguments - insisting some aspect of the universe requires explanation but then ignoring the same questions when applied to your explanation.