The Toolbox argument against Intelligent Design

[Nils]

Dbowling, Evolution news writes about the Nobel Prise in Chemistry 2018:
“She and the graduate students working with her soon found that it was much harder to anticipate the effects of designed changes than they had thought. That’s when she made the shift to what is known as directed evolution. The idea here is that by applying carefully designed biological selection to huge collections of variant genes that came from a suitably designed starting point, we should be able to find the one-in-a-billion variant that does what we want. If we do, then we can make a billion variants of that one and repeat the process. “ https://evolutionnews.org/2018/10/nobel ... nt-design/

What they were doing was to use an evolutionary process where they changed natural selection for the fittest by a manual selection for the fittest and changed natural mutations by manually forced mutations. See https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018 ... lution.pdf for an explanation. The result is the same that would occur naturally if there were the same environmental pressure. The difference is that the natural process would take thousands or perhaps millions of years instead a few years in the lab.

This shows two things. First that the relation between beneficial mutations and deleterious mutations is of little interest (as also Behe showed in his “Quarerly” article that you have referred to). Second that to achieve multiple changes you don’t have to multiply the probabilities for each change with each other (the Behe’s argument in his book is that you have to). If that were the case the probability would be extreme low. The example shows that there is one change at a time. If you think that all changes have to happen instantly evolution is impossible. But there is no need. This mistake is the base for the IDmovement’s scepticism to evolution. I saw a Youtube video with Stephen Meyer a few days ago. Embarrassing.

Dbowling, if you insists on your opinions you have to argue, not only refer to some Digital Research or Behe document. I don’t trust them at all.

ACB, check what Denis Lamoureux says, there are lots on Youtube, for instance an interview where he explained why he changed from scepticism to belief in evolution. He is a theist and PhD both in theology and biology. He says that evolution is shown beyond doubt. If you are interested in detail, read the online article http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

Also see my answer to Thatkid below.

Nils

[Nils]

this is why most people agree with theistic/deistic evolution

Well, misunderstanding or ignorance of evolution is rather common.
Nils

Not necessarily ignorance of how it works, just that it makes sense for someone to "help" get evolution going here and there.

You, are right. Some persons accept the theory of evolution but for some reason think that it make sense to introduce someone that helps it. The only reason why, I can find, is that they want to have an active God in the procedure. From a scientific point of view there is no need. Certainly there are lot of things that we don’t know about evolution but science is making advances all the time.

In the end, if everything about evolution would be known in detail, it can be argued that there may have been a God that sometimes governed evolution instead of it being a process governed by environment and randomness only. That would mean that evolution is a teleological process instead of a dysteleological process. One argument against this position is Occam’s razor, why introduce something that is not needed. A stronger argument is the Toolbox argument.

Nobody has really commented the argument yet. Everybody think that it is valid?

Nils

[DBowling]

Second that to achieve multiple changes you don’t have to multiply the probabilities for each change with each other (the Behe’s argument in his book is that you have to). If that were the case the probability would be extreme low.

In his book, Behe demonstrates the the difference between malaria's ability to develop resistance to atovaquone and malaria's ability to develop resistance to chloroquine.
Resistance to atovaquone requires a single mutation at the molecular level and occurs at an observed rate of 1 in 10^12.
Resistance to chloroquine requires two specific mutations at the molecular level working together and occurs at an observed rate of 1 in 10^20.
This is not theory. This is observed behavior. The observed rate of the Darwinian processes of random mutation/natural selection decreases exponentially as the number of mutations at the molecular level required for a specific change at the macro level increases.

As Behe points out, this observed exponential behavior of the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection means that a mutation twice as complex as malaria's resistance to chloroquine exceeds the capability of all life that has ever existed on our planet.

The example shows that there is one change at a time. If you think that all changes have to happen instantly evolution is impossible.

The mutations don't necessarily have to occur instantly, but the individual mutations do have to work together at some point in time for natural selection to propagate the beneficial change. Which brings us back again to the exponential improbability problem that Darwinian evolution faces.

[DBowling]

Nobody has really commented the argument yet. Everybody think that it is valid?

I don't think your argument is valid due to the reasons I have posted in this thread.

Your argument is based on assumptions about evolution that are contradicted by the observed behavior of evolution in nature and in evolutionary experiments.
So an argument built on flawed assumptions about evolution is going to have the same inherent flaws as the flawed assumptions.

[Philip]

My, my, how extraordinarily complex must have been the supposed evolutionary mechanisms blindly stumbled upon by non-intelligent things, and how utterly dependent they would have been upon just the right things and conditions somehow brilliantly coming into existence 11 or so billion years before. It's as if the miraculous suddenly occurred (at the moment of the Big Bang) that just happened to include the precise and totally necessary things, designs, functionalities, guiding laws and essential conditions, and then (11 billion years later) proceeded onto life, with each seemingly impossible point after point just having happened to have occurred. Really, evolution is the biggest, most-continuous lottery winner imaginable - and that's not counting the FAR bigger miracle - that of a universe roaring into existence within mere moments. And so what people believe can occur without an intelligence behind it is absolutely mind-blowing! And it's quite obvious that those who don't want to believe there was an intelligence or God behind the universe are desperately clinging to a giant chain of magical miracles because, well, what is their alternative? I find most that cling to Godless causes believe what they do, not due to scientific evidences, but because they emotionally are invested in their asserted or speculative capabilities of blind, non-intelligent things.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

this is why most people agree with theistic/deistic evolution

Well, misunderstanding or ignorance of evolution is rather common.
Nils

Not necessarily ignorance of how it works, just that it makes sense for someone to "help" get evolution going here and there.

You, are right. Some persons accept the theory of evolution but for some reason think that it make sense to introduce someone that helps it. The only reason why, I can find, is that they want to have an active God in the procedure. From a scientific point of view there is no need. Certainly there are lot of things that we don’t know about evolution but science is making advances all the time.

In the end, if everything about evolution would be known in detail, it can be argued that there may have been a God that sometimes governed evolution instead of it being a process governed by environment and randomness only. That would mean that evolution is a teleological process instead of a dysteleological process. One argument against this position is Occam’s razor, why introduce something that is not needed. A stronger argument is the Toolbox argument.

Nobody has really commented the argument yet. Everybody think that it is valid?

Nils

But we must remember that this delves into philosophy, theology, and metaphysics. Science can't explain the why, as someone here said (I think Philip), just the how.

[DBowling]

Science can't explain the why, as someone here said (I think Philip), just the how.

I would submit that science has not yet identified a viable "how" for the development of life on the our planet.

There is observable scientific data to support the premise that "natural selection" is part of the 'how'
There is genetic evidence to support the premise that genetic 'mutation' could also be part of the 'how'

However, scientific data also demonstrates that the Darwinian principle of 'random mutation' is not a capable causal agent for what we see in the fossil record and the DNA of life today.
As of yet, science has not identified a capable causal agent (ie the 'how') for the mutations required by evolutionary theory.

[DBowling]

There is observable scientific data to support the premise that "natural selection" is part of the 'how'?
There is genetic evidence to support the premise that genetic 'mutation' could also be part of the 'how'?

I should not have put '?' at the end of both of those sentences.
And I am unable to edit my post.

Can a mod please remove the two '?s'

Thanks

[PaulSacramento]

Science has shown that changes HAPPEN and that those changes can lead to adaptations that can further lead to what may be considered a different species.
The issue is, really, perception of species.
Take dogs, all of the same species but different breeds( German Sheppard and retrievers).
Wolves are not a different breed of dog but a different species BUT they still can inter breed.
So, it becomes a bit complex because even humans and apes ( two different species) can interbreed ( with help it seems).
So, where do we draw the line at what is and isn't a different species ?

[DBowling]

So, where do we draw the line at what is and isn't a different species ?

I tried to address this in an earlier post, but I don't see the concept of species as a causal agent in evolution.
What we identify as species are associated with common traits that are observable at the macro level and the possibility of breeding. Now the ability to breed is key to the process of natural selection and the propagation of a particular mutation. But the causal agent for evolution is mutation at the molecular level.

So when we're analyzing the capability of random mutation and natural selection to explain the fossil record and the DNA of life today, we need to evaluate the ability of random mutation to bridge the DNA differences between what we classify as species.

So I think the more relevant focus is the type, scope, and complexity of mutations at the molecular level instead of traits at the species level.
Mutations at the molecular level are the causal agent for evolution.
Traits at the species level are the observable results of mutations that take place at the molecular level.

[PaulSacramento]

So, where do we draw the line at what is and isn't a different species ?

I tried to address this in an earlier post, but I don't see the concept of species as a causal agent in evolution.
What we identify as species are associated with common traits that are observable at the macro level and the possibility of breeding. Now the ability to breed is key to the process of natural selection and the propagation of a particular mutation. But the causal agent for evolution is mutation at the molecular level.

So when we're analyzing the capability of random mutation and natural selection to explain the fossil record and the DNA of life today, we need to evaluate the ability of random mutation to bridge the DNA differences between what we classify as species.

So I think the more relevant focus is the type, scope, and complexity of mutations at the molecular level instead of traits at the species level.
Mutations at the molecular level are the causal agent for evolution.
Traits at the species level are the observable results of mutations that take place at the molecular level.

Oh yes, of course.
BUT, the issue that some have with evolution is WHEN has a new species evolved?
That is the crux of the problem of some people with evolution.
Hardly anyone disagrees with mutations or changes or adaptation BUT at what point a NEW species evolves is the issue, at what point is the connection from "old species A" to "new species B".
If we can't agree as to WHEN a new species becomes one or what is a "species", then...

[DBowling]

BUT, the issue that some have with evolution is WHEN has a new species evolved?
That is the crux of the problem of some people with evolution.

I may be totally missing your point, but let me give it a shot.

The fossil record can tell us when a specific species appeared, but it cannot tell us precisely how the new species came into being.
And since the distinctions between species are merely indicators of the more relevant distinctions at the genetic level, then I think focusing on species distinctions is missing the point.
Again, the ability to breed within a particular species is key to the propagation of a particular mutation, but nothing at the species level is a causal agent for mutation.

Since the development of life is a function of mutations at the molecular level, then I think that the more relevant focus is distinctions at the molecular level instead of focusing on distinctions at the species level.

Observation and experimentation have demonstrated that three coordinated mutations at the molecular level are beyond the capability of random mutation for the history of life on our planet.
This means that the Darwinian processes of random mutation and natural selection alone are incapable of producing the genetic differences we see between species in the fossil record and in life today.

Am I getting close to your point?

[Philip]

DB: This means that the Darwinian processes of random mutation and natural selection alone are incapable of producing the genetic differences we see between species in the fossil record and in life today.

And to the above, I can hear the entrenched, emotional evolutionists out there shrugging and saying to themselves, "Well, just because we don't yet understand or haven't discovered the precise mechanisms that came into play, that in no way refutes that macroevolution didn't occur!"



Explain THAT FIRST!

[DBowling]

DB: This means that the Darwinian processes of random mutation and natural selection alone are incapable of producing the genetic differences we see between species in the fossil record and in life today.

And to the above, I can hear the entrenched, emotional evolutionists out there shrugging and saying to themselves, "Well, just because we don't yet understand or haven't discovered the precise mechanisms that came into play, that in no way refutes that macroevolution didn't occur!"

Which brings us to what could potentially be another evidence for an Intelligent Creator.

For the sake of argument let's presume that some version of the evolutionary premise of 'Common Descent' is correct.
(and there is some genetic and fossil evidence to support that presumption)
We observe on a regular basis that the principle of Natural Selection is a scientific fact.
So the Darwinian odd man out would have to be 'random mutation'.

Since observation and experimentation have demonstrated that 'random mutation' is incapable of producing the mutational changes necessary for what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today, that means that mutations that exceed the probabilities for observed random mutations in nature would by definition be guided mutations.
Guided mutations would need a 'Guider' and therefore would be a creative act instead of the 'random act' asserted by Darwinistic dogma.

Which leads us to a conclusion that would be counterintuitive to many Christians.
The premise of Common Descent logically requires the principle of 'guided mutations' (ie creative acts). Which, if true, would be yet another evidence in nature of an Intelligent Creator.

[Philip]

Well, I've always said the true link between so many similar forms is God / Jesus, it's His code, His designs, sliced, diced and tweaked however He might have created the differences amidst the grand diversity of life forms. But clearly Scripture refutes man evolved from the animal world! DNA differences in an organisms' coding can have many similarities, but the differences can produce vastly different lifeforms. So, whether God created instantly, all species totally independent of one another, or He miraculously and immediately used one to create another, or whether He did this over very long periods, it still would be impossible without God making the otherwise insurmountable possible. The idea that blind, non-intelligent things could produce what exists or ANYTHING that has existed in the past, is the fantasy of those desperate to believe in a Godless universe!