The Toolbox argument against Intelligent Design

[PaulSacramento]

Genesis states that Man, like all other animals came from the earth.
That all living creatures have similar building blocks is a given.
That some or even all, would have a "common ancestor" is also feasible.

To me, what needs to be explained is not that random mutations occur BUT WHY and HOW living cells adapt to them.

Why does evolution occur AT all as opposed to NOT occurring?

[Philip]

Paul: Genesis states that Man, like all other animals came from the earth.

But that's an incomplete statement, as man was made AFTER the animal kingdom was completed, and in the image of God, as opposed to how the animals were created, each after it's own kind. Scripturally, there is a huge disconnect by one trying to fit the evolution of man to the text. And certainly this is true of Adam and Eve's creations as well. It doesn't even fit as allegory.

[abelcainsbrother]

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

Thanks Nils I already know there are Christians that are evolutionists.I've already explained why I reject evolution.Also reading talkorigins is one of many reasons for why I reject evolution.I used talkorigins to make sure the information I was reading against evolution is true. In other words I did not just read anti-evolution books and believe what they say. I actually did my research by reading talkorigins to verify they were correct in why there is no credibile mechanism for evolution.

As a matter of fact I can use the link you posted 29 examples of Macro-evolution to prove everything I have already explained about how untrue evolution is. it will back me up. Go look at them 29 examples of macro-evolution and all you'll see are examples of NORMAL variation amongst the populations just like I said,they use normal variation amongst the populations for both micro and macro-evolution but they'll confuse you by throwing in the speciation myth and claim it evolved because it can no longer breed amongst the population.All they are doing is researching normal variation amongst the populations and when normal variation happens they make up the speciation myth and claim it evolved,but the only thing they proved was there is normal variation amomngst the population.Throw out the soeciation myth and all you've got is normal variation. Consider all of the different kinds of dog breeds and variation is easily seen,but it is not evolution and it cannot be because Charkes Darwin used the exact same arguments to convince us these small variations can add up given enough time,generation after generation ad infinitum until one kind of creature evolves into a new and different kind of creature. This is what must be proven,not variation amongst the population that nobody has ever denied. Darwin used finches and in the 29 examples of macro-evolution in the link you provided they use salamanders.

Not all dogs can breed. You try to breed a Great Dane and a Chi auh auh and you can't and yet they remain in the population of dogs and have not evolved above the species level like evolutionists claim. You do the research yourself like I did and you'll realize how much of a joke evolution is too. I recommend the book I talked about earlier to you written by an atheist called "Evolution: A Case of stating the obvious" You can find it on Amazon.

Here it is.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

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 ?

that is hard to say as there are asexual and ring species.
Also I'm pretty sure wolves are a subspecies of dog.

[PaulSacramento]

Paul: Genesis states that Man, like all other animals came from the earth.

But that's an incomplete statement, as man was made AFTER the animal kingdom was completed, and in the image of God, as opposed to how the animals were created, each after it's own kind. Scripturally, there is a huge disconnect by one trying to fit the evolution of man to the text. And certainly this is true of Adam and Eve's creations as well. It doesn't even fit as allegory.

From Dust you came and to dust you shall return...

All life came from the Earth and that is why all life has similarities.
Man being made in the image of God does NOT mean that Man didn't came from the land or suggest that man is "godlike" some how, you know that.
Man as God's Image Bearer on Earth means that we are to have the role of God - Keepers and sustainers ( rulers) of the Earth.
You don't have to believe in evolution to see the scientific proof of the commonalities of ALL living life.

[Nils]

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.

If you assume that the probability of a beneficial mutation is 1 in 10 billions and the probability of a second beneficial mutation has the same probability and the same with a third one, and those mutation are coordinated then you have to multiply the probabilities and get a total probability that is 1 in 10^30 that is impossible low. So if there only are coordinated mutations (mutations in the same individual or a small related population) there will never be three mutations and Darwinian evolution fails. But evolution is not coordinated in this way. There are of course other methods and the simplest is that the mutations are independent. After the first beneficial mutation nothing happens until the decendants with that mutation dominates the population. Then the second mutation occurs etc. The result is that the probabilities are independent and the resulting probability will be reasonable.

The problem with Behe is that he believes that there is irreducible complexity, that there are structures that are not possible to acquire through evolution where every step is beneficial. However the examples that he has suggested are shown to be inconclusive.

Nils

[Nils]

Genesis states that Man, like all other animals came from the earth.
That all living creatures have similar building blocks is a given.
That some or even all, would have a "common ancestor" is also feasible.

To me, what needs to be explained is not that random mutations occur BUT WHY and HOW living cells adapt to them.

Why does evolution occur AT all as opposed to NOT occurring?

Living cells don’t “adapt” to mutations. Living cells are controlled by the genes and if the genes are different (mutated) the control works different.

The question is not why evolution occurs. The question is how it could be possible to NOT have evolution, given mutations and heredity. I can’t imagine a world without natural selection i.e. a world where there is no difference in survival between individuals that have similar properties but still some difference in properties that depend on the genes.

This is also a short answer to ACB's idea of natural variation.

Nils

[Nils]

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!

Even if you don’t believe it methods of generating new information by evolution are used everyday in science, both as computer algorithms and in the laboratories as the last Nobel Price in chemistry shows – new information that the designers of the algorithms and the experiments didn’t have any clue about beforehand.

Nils

[DBowling]

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.

If you assume that the probability of a beneficial mutation is 1 in 10 billions and the probability of a second beneficial mutation has the same probability and the same with a third one, and those mutation are coordinated then you have to multiply the probabilities and get a total probability that is 1 in 10^30 that is impossible low. So if there only are coordinated mutations (mutations in the same individual or a small related population) there will never be three mutations and Darwinian evolution fails.

This is a factually accurate statement.
And this factually accurate statement is supported by:
- what we see in the fossil record
- what we see in the structure, diversity and complexity of DNA in life today
- what we see in the observed behavior of 'random mutations' at the molecular level in nature and in the lab

But evolution is not coordinated in this way. There are of course other methods and the simplest is that the mutations are independent. After the first beneficial mutation nothing happens until the decendants with that mutation dominates the population. Then the second mutation occurs etc. The result is that the probabilities are independent and the resulting probability will be reasonable.

This is a statement of faith.
This statement of faith has no empirical support and is contradicted by:
- what we see in the structure, diversity, and complexity of DNA in life today
- what we see in the observed behavior of 'random mutations' at the molecular level in nature and in the lab

The exponential nature of the difference in malaria's ability to develop resistance to atovaquone and malaria's ability to develop resistance to chloroquine demonstrates that your presumption is flawed.
The two coordinated mutations required for malaria to develop resistance to chloroquine is child's play when compared with the diversity and complexity that we see in the DNA of life today.

The problem with Behe is that he believes that there is irreducible complexity, that there are structures that are not possible to acquire through evolution where every step is beneficial. However the examples that he has suggested are shown to be inconclusive.

You are again making an assertion with no empirical support.
Behe's poster child, the bacterial flagellum, is just one of countless examples in nature that far exceed the number of coordinated mutations that random mutation is capable of generating.

There is conclusive empirical evidence to support the Darwinian principle of natural selection.
There is also some DNA and fossil evidence to support the Darwinian principle of common descent.
However, the observed behavior of 'random mutation' at the molecular level demonstrates that the Darwinian process of 'random mutation' is incapable of producing what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today.

The assertion that 'random mutation and natural selection' alone is an adequate causal factor for what we see in life today is an "act of faith" that is directly contradicted by empirical observation.

[PaulSacramento]

Genesis states that Man, like all other animals came from the earth.
That all living creatures have similar building blocks is a given.
That some or even all, would have a "common ancestor" is also feasible.

To me, what needs to be explained is not that random mutations occur BUT WHY and HOW living cells adapt to them.

Why does evolution occur AT all as opposed to NOT occurring?

Living cells don’t “adapt” to mutations. Living cells are controlled by the genes and if the genes are different (mutated) the control works different.

The question is not why evolution occurs. The question is how it could be possible to NOT have evolution, given mutations and heredity. I can’t imagine a world without natural selection i.e. a world where there is no difference in survival between individuals that have similar properties but still some difference in properties that depend on the genes.

This is also a short answer to ACB's idea of natural variation.

Nils

So the genes "adapt" to the mutation?
I mean, if there is a natural "selection" then there must be something the drives/orients the selection and thus adaptation.

[DBowling]

To me, what needs to be explained is not that random mutations occur BUT WHY and HOW living cells adapt to them.
Why does evolution occur AT all as opposed to NOT occurring?

Living cells don’t “adapt” to mutations. Living cells are controlled by the genes and if the genes are different (mutated) the control works different.

The question is not why evolution occurs. The question is how it could be possible to NOT have evolution, given mutations and heredity. I can’t imagine a world without natural selection i.e. a world where there is no difference in survival between individuals that have similar properties but still some difference in properties that depend on the genes.

This is also a short answer to ACB's idea of natural variation.

Nils

So the genes "adapt" to the mutation?
I mean, if there is a natural "selection" then there must be something the drives/orients the selection and thus adaptation.

A gene is the basic physical and functional unit of heredity. Genes are made up of DNA.
Every person has two copies of each gene, one inherited from each parent. Most genes are the same in all people, but a small number of genes are slightly different between people. These small differences contribute to each person’s unique physical features.

In molecular biology, DNA replication is the biological process of producing two identical replicas of DNA from one original DNA molecule. This process occurs in all living organisms and is the basis for biological inheritance.
A gene mutation is a permanent alteration in the DNA sequence that occurs at the molecular level during DNA replication.

If a particular genetic mutation is beneficial to an organism then that mutation can be propagated to the organism's offspring through the process of natural selection (survival of the fittest).
If a particular genetic mutation is not beneficial to an organism then the particular mutation will not be propagated by natural selection.

Genes don't adapt to mutations.
Genetic changes are the result of mutations that occur during DNA replication.

Natural selection (survival of the fittest) determines which organisms survive and are allowed to propagate genetic information to their offspring.

[PaulSacramento]

To adapt:
Become adjusted/Adjust to new conditions.

A mutation is a new condition.
To use this paragraph:

If a particular genetic mutation is beneficial to an organism then that mutation can be propagated to the organism's offspring through the process of natural selection (survival of the fittest).
If a particular genetic mutation is not beneficial to an organism then the particular mutation will not be propagated by natural selection.

Natural selection "chooses" ( selects) the mutation as "beneficial" and it is propagated by reproduction.
So, "something" Adapts ( becomes adjusted to the new condition-the mutation).
What then "adapts" to the mutation?

[DBowling]

To adapt:
Become adjusted/Adjust to new conditions.

A mutation is a new condition.
To use this paragraph:

If a particular genetic mutation is beneficial to an organism then that mutation can be propagated to the organism's offspring through the process of natural selection (survival of the fittest).
If a particular genetic mutation is not beneficial to an organism then the particular mutation will not be propagated by natural selection.

Natural selection "chooses" ( selects) the mutation as "beneficial" and it is propagated by reproduction.
So, "something" Adapts ( becomes adjusted to the new condition-the mutation).
What then "adapts" to the mutation?

I guess you could say that organisms 'adapt' to changes in the environment.

If the environment changes then organisms change through the process of genetic mutation.
The organisms whose genetic mutations allow them to adapt most effectively to the new environment are the organisms that will survive and propagate their genetic information to succeeding generations within that environment.

Does that make sense?

[Nils]

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.

If you assume that the probability of a beneficial mutation is 1 in 10 billions and the probability of a second beneficial mutation has the same probability and the same with a third one, and those mutation are coordinated then you have to multiply the probabilities and get a total probability that is 1 in 10^30 that is impossible low. So if there only are coordinated mutations (mutations in the same individual or a small related population) there will never be three mutations and Darwinian evolution fails.

This is a factually accurate statement.
And this factually accurate statement is supported by:
- what we see in the fossil record
- what we see in the structure, diversity and complexity of DNA in life today
- what we see in the observed behavior of 'random mutations' at the molecular level in nature and in the lab

But evolution is not coordinated in this way. There are of course other methods and the simplest is that the mutations are independent. After the first beneficial mutation nothing happens until the decendants with that mutation dominates the population. Then the second mutation occurs etc. The result is that the probabilities are independent and the resulting probability will be reasonable.

This is a statement of faith.
This statement of faith has no empirical support and is contradicted by:
- what we see in the structure, diversity, and complexity of DNA in life today
- what we see in the observed behavior of 'random mutations' at the molecular level in nature and in the lab

The exponential nature of the difference in malaria's ability to develop resistance to atovaquone and malaria's ability to develop resistance to chloroquine demonstrates that your presumption is flawed.
The two coordinated mutations required for malaria to develop resistance to chloroquine is child's play when compared with the diversity and complexity that we see in the DNA of life today.

The problem with Behe is that he believes that there is irreducible complexity, that there are structures that are not possible to acquire through evolution where every step is beneficial. However the examples that he has suggested are shown to be inconclusive.

You are again making an assertion with no empirical support.
Behe's poster child, the bacterial flagellum, is just one of countless examples in nature that far exceed the number of coordinated mutations that random mutation is capable of generating.

There is conclusive empirical evidence to support the Darwinian principle of natural selection.
There is also some DNA and fossil evidence to support the Darwinian principle of common descent.
However, the observed behavior of 'random mutation' at the molecular level demonstrates that the Darwinian process of 'random mutation' is incapable of producing what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today.

The assertion that 'random mutation and natural selection' alone is an adequate causal factor for what we see in life today is an "act of faith" that is directly contradicted by empirical observation.

You are again and again assuming that the only possible evolution mechanism is the coordinated mutations way. It is easily demonstrated that this method is insufficient for evolution (in which you agree) but you don’t argue WHY this has to be the only method. The method of consecutive mutations is straight forward. Why do you abandon this? Beside, the method is used in research and functions well, se post #97.

Talking about Behe you again say that coordinated mutations make things impossible. But there are other methods !!
Nils

[Nils]

To adapt:
Become adjusted/Adjust to new conditions.

A mutation is a new condition.
To use this paragraph:

If a particular genetic mutation is beneficial to an organism then that mutation can be propagated to the organism's offspring through the process of natural selection (survival of the fittest).
If a particular genetic mutation is not beneficial to an organism then the particular mutation will not be propagated by natural selection.

Natural selection "chooses" ( selects) the mutation as "beneficial" and it is propagated by reproduction.
So, "something" Adapts ( becomes adjusted to the new condition-the mutation).
What then "adapts" to the mutation?

Why do you want to use the term “adpat”? If a mutation occurs that makes the individuals more resistant to heat, say, and the mutation is spread through the population when the offspring with the mutation in the long run outnumbers the others (by natural selection), it could be said that the population adapts to a warmer climate. But I don’t like the word “adapt”. It seems to indicate an intention or wish when there is only chance and natural selection. “Evolve” is a better word and it is the population that evolves, not the individuals. (In most cases the change in fitness is so small that it can't be noticed in one individual).

Nils