Can Mutation Invent?

[DBowling]

In this 8 minute episode of Science Uprising, Michael Behe discusses how the observed behavior of mutations fails to invent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ivgQFIST1g

[Philip]

If chance mutations really are “the key to our evolution,” as is so widely asserted and accepted around the world, then where is the evidence for it? DB is correct: Speculation is NOT evidence!

I see this a lot: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4563715/ (article concludes with no real evidence and notes the challenges while basically assuming there are answers but they are exceptionally challenging to find.

[Challenger007]

As for me, it is because of the mutation that we have COVID-19. Isn't it proof that even a piece of the genetic code can survive?

[Nils]

I listened to the video clip with Behe but I don't understand. He refers to an experiment with the bacteria E. coli that was studied for 30 years. He comments at 4.50 :"there were no molecular machines, no new genes and yet it had so many chances evolutionary theory would have predicted you get something really impressive and it wasn't seen". But why does he expect this? The E. coli bacteria is more than 30 millions year old. If there had been "something really impressive" every 30 year period of the million periods E. coli have existed, it would have developed into something else.

Can anyone explain?

(The article is found at https://link.springer.com/article/10.11 ... 2148-9-302)

[DBowling]

I listened to the video clip with Behe but I don't understand. He refers to an experiment with the bacteria E. coli that was studied for 30 years. He comments at 4.50 :"there were no molecular machines, no new genes and yet it had so many chances evolutionary theory would have predicted you get something really impressive and it wasn't seen". But why does he expect this? The E. coli bacteria is more than 30 millions year old. If there had been "something really impressive" every 30 year period of the million periods E. coli have existed, it would have developed into something else.

Can anyone explain?

How about we let Behe explain.
Here is a paper that he wrote on the topic
EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION, LOSS-OF-FUNCTION MUTATIONS,
AND “THE FIRST RULE OF ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION”
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

From the Conclusion

Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function. Therefore, it is of basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under particular circumstances. The results of decades of experimental laboratory evolution studies strongly suggest that, at the molecular level, loss-of-FCT and diminishing modification-of-function adaptive mutations predominate.

Behe also discusses this behavior in this lecture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24t2eCjPbq4
At 18:30 Behe specifically discusses Richard Lenski's work with evolution in the lab.

[Nils]

I listened to the video clip with Behe but I don't understand. He refers to an experiment with the bacteria E. coli that was studied for 30 years. He comments at 4.50 :"there were no molecular machines, no new genes and yet it had so many chances evolutionary theory would have predicted you get something really impressive and it wasn't seen". But why does he expect this? The E. coli bacteria is more than 30 millions year old. If there had been "something really impressive" every 30 year period of the million periods E. coli have existed, it would have developed into something else.

Can anyone explain?

How about we let Behe explain.
Here is a paper that he wrote on the topic
EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION, LOSS-OF-FUNCTION MUTATIONS,
AND “THE FIRST RULE OF ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION”
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

From the Conclusion

Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function. Therefore, it is of basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under particular circumstances. The results of decades of experimental laboratory evolution studies strongly suggest that, at the molecular level, loss-of-FCT and diminishing modification-of-function adaptive mutations predominate.

Behe also discusses this behavior in this lecture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24t2eCjPbq4
At 18:30 Behe specifically discusses Richard Lenski's work with evolution in the lab.

I think it is a bit lazy not answering my question but just referring to some documents and forcing me to read them. However, I read the documents, apparently in vain because they don't answer my question. They don't come even close to the argument of Behe I cited!

Besides:
"The results of decades of experimental laboratory evolution studies strongly suggest that, at the molecular level, loss-of-FCT and diminishing modification-of-function adaptive mutations predominate". Yes, of coarse they do. Beneficial mutations are very rare. If they were common the E. coli would have migrated to another species long ago, millions of years ago.

So I ask again the question from #4: Can you or anyone else explain?

[DBowling]

I listened to the video clip with Behe but I don't understand. He refers to an experiment with the bacteria E. coli that was studied for 30 years. He comments at 4.50 :"there were no molecular machines, no new genes and yet it had so many chances evolutionary theory would have predicted you get something really impressive and it wasn't seen". But why does he expect this? The E. coli bacteria is more than 30 millions year old. If there had been "something really impressive" every 30 year period of the million periods E. coli have existed, it would have developed into something else.

Can anyone explain?

How about we let Behe explain.
Here is a paper that he wrote on the topic
EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION, LOSS-OF-FUNCTION MUTATIONS,
AND “THE FIRST RULE OF ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION”
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

From the Conclusion

Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function. Therefore, it is of basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under particular circumstances. The results of decades of experimental laboratory evolution studies strongly suggest that, at the molecular level, loss-of-FCT and diminishing modification-of-function adaptive mutations predominate.

Behe also discusses this behavior in this lecture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24t2eCjPbq4
At 18:30 Behe specifically discusses Richard Lenski's work with evolution in the lab.

I think it is a bit lazy not answering my question but just referring to some documents and forcing me to read them. However, I read the documents, apparently in vain because they don't answer my question. They don't come even close to the argument of Behe I cited!

Besides:
"The results of decades of experimental laboratory evolution studies strongly suggest that, at the molecular level, loss-of-FCT and diminishing modification-of-function adaptive mutations predominate". Yes, of coarse they do. Beneficial mutations are very rare. If they were common the E. coli would have migrated to another species long ago, millions of years ago.

So I ask again the question from #4: Can you or anyone else explain?

Behe's Article and lecture directly answer your question, but I will give the short version.

In order to create the evolutionary "tree of life", specific types of genetic mutations (specifically those that add information to the DNA) need to occur at an 'expected' rate.
Behe is pointing out that the empirically observed type, scope, and rate of evolution seen in the lab and in nature are inconsistent (by enormous orders of magnitude) with the 'expected' type, scope, and rate of genetic mutations required to produce the evolutionary "tree of life".

[Nils]

I listened to the video clip with Behe but I don't understand. He refers to an experiment with the bacteria E. coli that was studied for 30 years. He comments at 4.50 :"there were no molecular machines, no new genes and yet it had so many chances evolutionary theory would have predicted you get something really impressive and it wasn't seen". But why does he expect this? The E. coli bacteria is more than 30 millions year old. If there had been "something really impressive" every 30 year period of the million periods E. coli have existed, it would have developed into something else.

Can anyone explain?

How about we let Behe explain.
Here is a paper that he wrote on the topic
EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION, LOSS-OF-FUNCTION MUTATIONS,
AND “THE FIRST RULE OF ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION”
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

From the Conclusion

Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function. Therefore, it is of basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under particular circumstances. The results of decades of experimental laboratory evolution studies strongly suggest that, at the molecular level, loss-of-FCT and diminishing modification-of-function adaptive mutations predominate.

Behe also discusses this behavior in this lecture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24t2eCjPbq4
At 18:30 Behe specifically discusses Richard Lenski's work with evolution in the lab.

I think it is a bit lazy not answering my question but just referring to some documents and forcing me to read them. However, I read the documents, apparently in vain because they don't answer my question. They don't come even close to the argument of Behe I cited!

Besides:
"The results of decades of experimental laboratory evolution studies strongly suggest that, at the molecular level, loss-of-FCT and diminishing modification-of-function adaptive mutations predominate". Yes, of coarse they do. Beneficial mutations are very rare. If they were common the E. coli would have migrated to another species long ago, millions of years ago.

So I ask again the question from #4: Can you or anyone else explain?

Behe's Article and lecture directly answer your question, but I will give the short version.

In order to create the evolutionary "tree of life", specific types of genetic mutations (specifically those that add information to the DNA) need to occur at an 'expected' rate.
Behe is pointing out that the empirically observed type, scope, and rate of evolution seen in the lab and in nature are inconsistent (by enormous orders of magnitude) with the 'expected' type, scope, and rate of genetic mutations required to produce the evolutionary "tree of life".

Where does he describe the 'expected' type etc and where does he describe how he discovered/determined these "expected" type etc. I missed it. (besides in the short clip you cited in the beginning).

[DBowling]

I listened to the video clip with Behe but I don't understand. He refers to an experiment with the bacteria E. coli that was studied for 30 years. He comments at 4.50 :"there were no molecular machines, no new genes and yet it had so many chances evolutionary theory would have predicted you get something really impressive and it wasn't seen". But why does he expect this? The E. coli bacteria is more than 30 millions year old. If there had been "something really impressive" every 30 year period of the million periods E. coli have existed, it would have developed into something else.

Can anyone explain?

How about we let Behe explain.
Here is a paper that he wrote on the topic
EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION, LOSS-OF-FUNCTION MUTATIONS,
AND “THE FIRST RULE OF ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION”
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

From the Conclusion

Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function. Therefore, it is of basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under particular circumstances. The results of decades of experimental laboratory evolution studies strongly suggest that, at the molecular level, loss-of-FCT and diminishing modification-of-function adaptive mutations predominate.

Behe also discusses this behavior in this lecture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24t2eCjPbq4
At 18:30 Behe specifically discusses Richard Lenski's work with evolution in the lab.

I think it is a bit lazy not answering my question but just referring to some documents and forcing me to read them. However, I read the documents, apparently in vain because they don't answer my question. They don't come even close to the argument of Behe I cited!

Besides:
"The results of decades of experimental laboratory evolution studies strongly suggest that, at the molecular level, loss-of-FCT and diminishing modification-of-function adaptive mutations predominate". Yes, of coarse they do. Beneficial mutations are very rare. If they were common the E. coli would have migrated to another species long ago, millions of years ago.

So I ask again the question from #4: Can you or anyone else explain?

Behe's Article and lecture directly answer your question, but I will give the short version.

In order to create the evolutionary "tree of life", specific types of genetic mutations (specifically those that add information to the DNA) need to occur at an 'expected' rate.
Behe is pointing out that the empirically observed type, scope, and rate of evolution seen in the lab and in nature are inconsistent (by enormous orders of magnitude) with the 'expected' type, scope, and rate of genetic mutations required to produce the evolutionary "tree of life".

Where does he describe the 'expected' type etc and where does he describe how he discovered/determined these "expected" type etc. I missed it. (besides in the short clip you cited in the beginning).

The 'expectation' difference is the difference between adding and removing.
Behe alludes to this in your quote.

If evolutionary processes alone were capable of adding the functional genetic information required for the "tree of life", then we would 'expect' to see beneficial selectable mutations in nature and in the lab regularly generate some level of new information.
However, just the opposite occurs. Selectable beneficial mutations in nature and in the lab don't add genetic information, they overwhelmingly break or remove genetic information.
In the genetic world it is much easier to break a gene than it is to add genetic information, therefore in the extremely rare world of beneficial selectable mutations, the overwhelming majority involve removing (not adding) genetic information.

[Nils]

How about we let Behe explain.
Here is a paper that he wrote on the topic
EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION, LOSS-OF-FUNCTION MUTATIONS,
AND “THE FIRST RULE OF ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION”
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

From the Conclusion


Behe also discusses this behavior in this lecture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24t2eCjPbq4
At 18:30 Behe specifically discusses Richard Lenski's work with evolution in the lab.

I think it is a bit lazy not answering my question but just referring to some documents and forcing me to read them. However, I read the documents, apparently in vain because they don't answer my question. They don't come even close to the argument of Behe I cited!

Besides:
"The results of decades of experimental laboratory evolution studies strongly suggest that, at the molecular level, loss-of-FCT and diminishing modification-of-function adaptive mutations predominate". Yes, of coarse they do. Beneficial mutations are very rare. If they were common the E. coli would have migrated to another species long ago, millions of years ago.

So I ask again the question from #4: Can you or anyone else explain?

Behe's Article and lecture directly answer your question, but I will give the short version.

In order to create the evolutionary "tree of life", specific types of genetic mutations (specifically those that add information to the DNA) need to occur at an 'expected' rate.
Behe is pointing out that the empirically observed type, scope, and rate of evolution seen in the lab and in nature are inconsistent (by enormous orders of magnitude) with the 'expected' type, scope, and rate of genetic mutations required to produce the evolutionary "tree of life".

Where does he describe the 'expected' type etc and where does he describe how he discovered/determined these "expected" type etc. I missed it. (besides in the short clip you cited in the beginning).

The 'expectation' difference is the difference between adding and removing.
Behe alludes to this in your quote.

OK, then let's go back to #7 where you say:
"In order to create the evolutionary "tree of life", specific types of genetic mutations (specifically those that add information to the DNA) need to occur at an 'expected' rate.
Behe is pointing out that the empirically observed type, scope, and rate of evolution seen in the lab and in nature are inconsistent (by enormous orders of magnitude) with the 'expected' type, scope, and rate of genetic mutations required to produce the evolutionary "tree of life".


What you say is that the frequency of beneficial mutations is too low for the evolutionary process alone to generate new species (the tree of life). To be able to show that you have to show two things.

1. You have to know the frequency of mutations that are beneficial in the long term. Behe's article is about the short term properties. He cites the leading evolutionist Lemski's experiment that runs over 30 years and says that it is by far the longest experiment, but 30 years is nothing in the evolutionary perspective of thousands and millions of years. He also makes a point of the fact that most beneficial mutations are degrading functions.

Lemski argues in a blog (about Behs's book where Behe comments the Behe article we discuss) : "Behe points to many examples of evolution in which genes and their functions have been degraded, but he largely ignores the ways that evolution generates new functions and thereby produces complexity. That’s a severe problem because Behe uses the evidence for the ease of gene degradation to support his overarching implication that the current scientific understanding of the mechanisms of evolution is inadequate and, consequently, the field of evolutionary biology has a “big problem.” "
(https://spartanideas.msu.edu/2019/02/20 ... g-problem/)

Now, knowledge about mutation frequency isn't enough. To find out if the mutation rate is sufficient you also need to know what is required.

2. You have to know how big mutation rate you need to create the evolution we observe in a reasonable time without any external Godly interference (what you call the "expected rate") This is indeed a very complex issue because you need to know in detail how different species have evolved and current knowledge is far from that. But Behe's article doesn't even touch upon the subject. I haven't read his book but he doesn't refer to it or any other source when he utter his astonishing sentence I referred to in post #4.

So how can he or you say anything about the speed being too low ("are inconsistent by enormous orders of magnitude") when you don't know what to compare with?

[DBowling]

Where does he describe the 'expected' type etc and where does he describe how he discovered/determined these "expected" type etc. I missed it. (besides in the short clip you cited in the beginning).

The 'expectation' difference is the difference between adding and removing.
Behe alludes to this in your quote.

OK, then let's go back to #7 where you say:
"In order to create the evolutionary "tree of life", specific types of genetic mutations (specifically those that add information to the DNA) need to occur at an 'expected' rate.
Behe is pointing out that the empirically observed type, scope, and rate of evolution seen in the lab and in nature are inconsistent (by enormous orders of magnitude) with the 'expected' type, scope, and rate of genetic mutations required to produce the evolutionary "tree of life".


What you say is that the frequency of beneficial mutations is too low for the evolutionary process alone to generate new species (the tree of life). To be able to show that you have to show two things.

1. You have to know the frequency of mutations that are beneficial in the long term. Behe's article is about the short term properties. He cites the leading evolutionist Lemski's experiment that runs over 30 years and says that it is by far the longest experiment, but 30 years is nothing in the evolutionary perspective of thousands and millions of years. He also makes a point of the fact that most beneficial mutations are degrading functions.

Lemski argues in a blog (about Behs's book where Behe comments the Behe article we discuss) : "Behe points to many examples of evolution in which genes and their functions have been degraded, but he largely ignores the ways that evolution generates new functions and thereby produces complexity.

Do you have an empirically observed example of "the ways that evolution generates new functions and thereby produces complexity."

Or is this circular reasoning where we see evidence of new functions and complexity being introduced in the 'tree of life' and since we 'presume' (without empirical evidence) that evolution is capable of creating new functions and complexity then we assert that new functions and complexity being introduced in the tree of life are the product of evolution alone.

The issue here is that the empirically observed behavior of evolution in nature and in the lab doesn't match the unverified presumption that evolution alone is capable of adding new functions and complexity into the tree of life.

As Lenski's experiments demonstrate, empirically observed evolution doesn't add new information, it tears down and removes information.
Behe's point is that the empirically observed behavior of evolution does not line up with the unverified presumptions about evolution.

2. You have to know how big mutation rate you need to create the evolution we observe in a reasonable time without any external Godly interference (what you call the "expected rate") This is indeed a very complex issue because you need to know in detail how different species have evolved and current knowledge is far from that. But Behe's article doesn't even touch upon the subject. I haven't read his book but he doesn't refer to it or any other source when he utter his astonishing sentence I referred to in post #4.

So how can he or you say anything about the speed being too low ("are inconsistent by enormous orders of magnitude") when you don't know what to compare with?

Behe discusses this issue in "The Edge of Evolution"
https://www.c-span.org/video/?199326-1/ ... -evolution

I discuss the empirically observed rate of point mutations (which occur much more frequently and are much more 'selectable' than insertions which are required to add new information) here
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 38#p252631

If four or five coordinated point mutations exceed the capability of selectable 'random mutation' for the duration of time that life has existed on earth.
Then four or five coordinated insertions is even more improbable.
And four or five coordinated insertions is child's play compared to the coordinated insertions and substitutions required to create the tree of life.

[Nils]

I discuss the empirically observed rate of point mutations (which occur much more frequently and are much more 'selectable' than insertions which are required to add new information) here
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 38#p252631

If four or five coordinated point mutations exceed the capability of selectable 'random mutation' for the duration of time that life has existed on earth.
Then four or five coordinated insertions is even more improbable.
And four or five coordinated insertions is child's play compared to the coordinated insertions and substitutions required to create the tree of life.

I state your arguments in more detail. If I misinterpret you please clarify. I write your arguments in bold and comment in normal style. (In brackets I comment the source(s) of the statement)

1. It has been observed that a single point mutation is required for malaria to develop resistance to atovaquone. The observed rate of that specific mutation is one in 10^12
(Observation)This comes from your text. I have no objections.
2. It has been observed that two specific single point mutations are required for malaria to develop resistance to chloroquine. The observed rate of those two specific mutations occurring is one in 10^20 (Observation)
This comes from your text. I have no objections.
3. The rate change is exponential depending on the number single point mutations so three single point mutation is probably less than one in 10^28 and four less than one in 10^36. (Conclusion from 1. and 2.)
You indicate this and I have no objections.
4. Around 10^30 bacterial cells are formed on the earth every year so one in 10^36 implies only one four point mutation every 64 million years worldwide. (Observation and 3.)
This comes from you text with some modifications. No objections.
5. Four (or more) point mutations only are apparently too few to support unguided evolution. (4. and assumption)
This comes from your text. No objections.
6. Unguided evolution requires four (and more) point mutations at least in some critical evolutional paths. (Assumption)
I base this wording on what you said elsewhere and in the last post: "... And four or five coordinated insertions is child's play compared to the coordinated insertions and substitutions required to create the tree of life."
This is not at all what the Evolution Theory claims. It's just an unsupported assumption. The Evolution Theory relies on small steps, mostly on one single point mutations. Some times on double point mutations or large-scale mutations as segment duplication and deletions etc. (see Wikipedia on mutations).
7. Conclusion: Unguided evolution is impossible. (5. and 6.)
This conclusion is based on some evidence (1., 2.,4.) and two assumptions of which I find one (5.) reasonable and the other (6.) not based on any evidence. Therefore your claim you are repeating again and again, that 7. is based on evidence,. isn't correct. If a proposition is based on an assumption in the final step in a deduction schema it is wrong to say that it is based on evidence even if there are huge amounts on evidence besides the assumption.
I guess that your answer will be that 6. is based on observations. If so, please exemplify that.

[DBowling]

I discuss the empirically observed rate of point mutations (which occur much more frequently and are much more 'selectable' than insertions which are required to add new information) here
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 38#p252631

If four or five coordinated point mutations exceed the capability of selectable 'random mutation' for the duration of time that life has existed on earth.
Then four or five coordinated insertions is even more improbable.
And four or five coordinated insertions is child's play compared to the coordinated insertions and substitutions required to create the tree of life.

I state your arguments in more detail. If I misinterpret you please clarify. I write your arguments in bold and comment in normal style. (In brackets I comment the source(s) of the statement)

1. It has been observed that a single point mutation is required for malaria to develop resistance to atovaquone. The observed rate of that specific mutation is one in 10^12
(Observation)This comes from your text. I have no objections.
2. It has been observed that two specific single point mutations are required for malaria to develop resistance to chloroquine. The observed rate of those two specific mutations occurring is one in 10^20 (Observation)
This comes from your text. I have no objections.
3. The rate change is exponential depending on the number single point mutations so three single point mutation is probably less than one in 10^28 and four less than one in 10^36. (Conclusion from 1. and 2.)
You indicate this and I have no objections.
4. Around 10^30 bacterial cells are formed on the earth every year so one in 10^36 implies only one four point mutation every 64 million years worldwide. (Observation and 3.)
This comes from you text with some modifications. No objections.
5. Four (or more) point mutations only are apparently too few to support unguided evolution. (4. and assumption)
This comes from your text. No objections.

So far so good...

6. Unguided evolution requires four (and more) point mutations at least in some critical evolutional paths. (Assumption)
I base this wording on what you said elsewhere and in the last post: "... And four or five coordinated insertions is child's play compared to the coordinated insertions and substitutions required to create the tree of life."
This is not at all what the Evolution Theory claims. It's just an unsupported assumption. The Evolution Theory relies on small steps, mostly on one single point mutations. Some times on double point mutations or large-scale mutations as segment duplication and deletions etc. (see Wikipedia on mutations).

I understand the theory

But for me, empirically observed reality is more important than unverified theory.
In malaria, the observed difference between 1 selectable substitution and 2 coordinated selectable substitutions is the difference between 1 in 10^12 and 1 in 10^20.

We don't know whether the 2 coordinated point mutations required for malaria to reach the selectable state of resistance to chloroquine involves a single step with two coordinated mutations or if it involves two single mutations that eventually reached the selectable state of resistance to chloroquine.
The key point here is that the fastest path to the 2 coordinated mutations required to reach a specific selectable state in malaria is 1 in 10^20.

The math doesn't speak to the path required to reach 2 coordinated single point mutations, it just speaks to how long it takes to eventually get to a specific selectable state involving 2 coordinated point mutations.

So...

1. In malaria the observed rate for reaching a specific selectable state involving 1 point mutation is 1 in 10^12.
And the observed rate foe reaching a specific selectable state involving 2 coordinated point mutations is 1 in 10^20.
I accept those as empirically observed facts.

2. Based on the difference between the rate required to reach a specific single point mutation and the rate required to reach 2 specific coordinated mutations (regardless of the number of steps in the path), we can see that there is an exponential relationship between the number of coordinated mutations and the rate required to reach a specific selectable state requiring that number of coordinated mutation (again... regardless of the number of steps in the path).
I accept this as an empirically observed fact.

3. One more note, these rates are for substitutions, which are relatively common mutations.
Insertions are much more rare than substitutions, and survivable selectable insertions are even more rare since insertions are overwhelmingly damaging or lethal to the organism.
I accept this as an empirically observed fact.

==>
If we extrapolate the observed exponential rate for coordinated selectable mutations observed in malaria (regardless of path) to 4 or 5 coordinated mutations, then we quickly exceed the number of life forms that have ever existed on this planet.
This is an extrapolation of an empirically observed rate, not an assumption.

And if 4 or 5 coordinated selectable point mutations exceeds the 'normal' observable capability of 'random' mutation.
(which I believe the above empirically observed behavior of evolution in malaria demonstrates)
Then coordinated mutations involving the huge number of insertions and substitutions required for the tree of life goes way beyond the observed capability of "random" mutation.

Note...
I am not claiming that mutation and natural selection were not involved in the creation of the tree of life.
(I think that the fossil and DNA evidence demonstrates that mutations probably played a very significant role in the creation of the tree of life)

However, based on what I have seen to date, the empirically observed scope and rate of "random" mutation is incapable of creating the tree of life.

[Nils]

I discuss the empirically observed rate of point mutations (which occur much more frequently and are much more 'selectable' than insertions which are required to add new information) here
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 38#p252631

If four or five coordinated point mutations exceed the capability of selectable 'random mutation' for the duration of time that life has existed on earth.
Then four or five coordinated insertions is even more improbable.
And four or five coordinated insertions is child's play compared to the coordinated insertions and substitutions required to create the tree of life.

I state your arguments in more detail. If I misinterpret you please clarify. I write your arguments in bold and comment in normal style. (In brackets I comment the source(s) of the statement)

1. It has been observed that a single point mutation is required for malaria to develop resistance to atovaquone. The observed rate of that specific mutation is one in 10^12
(Observation)This comes from your text. I have no objections.
2. It has been observed that two specific single point mutations are required for malaria to develop resistance to chloroquine. The observed rate of those two specific mutations occurring is one in 10^20 (Observation)
This comes from your text. I have no objections.
3. The rate change is exponential depending on the number single point mutations so three single point mutation is probably less than one in 10^28 and four less than one in 10^36. (Conclusion from 1. and 2.)
You indicate this and I have no objections.
4. Around 10^30 bacterial cells are formed on the earth every year so one in 10^36 implies only one four point mutation every 64 million years worldwide. (Observation and 3.)
This comes from you text with some modifications. No objections.
5. Four (or more) point mutations only are apparently too few to support unguided evolution. (4. and assumption)
This comes from your text. No objections.

So far so good...

6. Unguided evolution requires four (and more) point mutations at least in some critical evolutional paths. (Assumption)
I base this wording on what you said elsewhere and in the last post: "... And four or five coordinated insertions is child's play compared to the coordinated insertions and substitutions required to create the tree of life."
This is not at all what the Evolution Theory claims. It's just an unsupported assumption. The Evolution Theory relies on small steps, mostly on one single point mutations. Some times on double point mutations or large-scale mutations as segment duplication and deletions etc. (see Wikipedia on mutations).

I understand the theory

But for me, empirically observed reality is more important than unverified theory.
In malaria, the observed difference between 1 selectable substitution and 2 coordinated selectable substitutions is the difference between 1 in 10^12 and 1 in 10^20.

We don't know whether the 2 coordinated point mutations required for malaria to reach the selectable state of resistance to chloroquine involves a single step with two coordinated mutations or if it involves two single mutations that eventually reached the selectable state of resistance to chloroquine.
The key point here is that the fastest path to the 2 coordinated mutations required to reach a specific selectable state in malaria is 1 in 10^20.

The math doesn't speak to the path required to reach 2 coordinated single point mutations, it just speaks to how long it takes to eventually get to a specific selectable state involving 2 coordinated point mutations.

So...

1. In malaria the observed rate for reaching a specific selectable state involving 1 point mutation is 1 in 10^12.
And the observed rate foe reaching a specific selectable state involving 2 coordinated point mutations is 1 in 10^20.
I accept those as empirically observed facts.

2. Based on the difference between the rate required to reach a specific single point mutation and the rate required to reach 2 specific coordinated mutations (regardless of the number of steps in the path), we can see that there is an exponential relationship between the number of coordinated mutations and the rate required to reach a specific selectable state requiring that number of coordinated mutation (again... regardless of the number of steps in the path).
I accept this as an empirically observed fact.

3. One more note, these rates are for substitutions, which are relatively common mutations.
Insertions are much more rare than substitutions, and survivable selectable insertions are even more rare since insertions are overwhelmingly damaging or lethal to the organism.
I accept this as an empirically observed fact.

==>
If we extrapolate the observed exponential rate for coordinated selectable mutations observed in malaria (regardless of path) to 4 or 5 coordinated mutations, then we quickly exceed the number of life forms that have ever existed on this planet.
This is an extrapolation of an empirically observed rate, not an assumption.

And if 4 or 5 coordinated selectable point mutations exceeds the 'normal' observable capability of 'random' mutation.
(which I believe the above empirically observed behavior of evolution in malaria demonstrates)
Then coordinated mutations involving the huge number of insertions and substitutions required for the tree of life goes way beyond the observed capability of "random" mutation.

Note...
I am not claiming that mutation and natural selection were not involved in the creation of the tree of life.
(I think that the fossil and DNA evidence demonstrates that mutations probably played a very significant role in the creation of the tree of life)

However, based on what I have seen to date, the empirically observed scope and rate of "random" mutation is incapable of creating the tree of life.

It would be good if we could agree on as much as possible. Therefore I could change my 5. to include your discussion about insertions "Insertions are much more rare than substitutions, and survivable selectable insertions are even more rare since insertions are overwhelmingly damaging or lethal to the organism." and change my 6. accordingly. But is that important to you?
I presume that you agree with 7. Conclusion: Unguided evolution is impossible.
Correct?
The interesting point is then how you come from 5. (or a modified 5. if you please) to 7. My initial wording was 6. 6. Unguided evolution requires four (and more) point mutations at least in some critical evolutional paths.
As I said above we can modify it to take care of insertions, but the important thing is that you need something to come from 5. to 7. A statement that includes what unguided evolution requires (as you write "required for the tree of life"), a statement that is independent of the points 1. to 5.
Why not take your sentence "Then coordinated mutations involving the huge number of insertions and substitutions required for the tree of life goes way beyond the observed capability of "random" and change it to a proposition 6. and a conclusion 7. It makes things clearer.
1. - 4. as before.
5. Four (or more) point mutations only are apparently too few to support unguided evolution. (4. and assumption).
6. Cordinated mutations involving the huge number of insertions and substitutions required for the tree of life is far more than four. (Assumption)
According to your text.
7. Conclusion: Unguided evolution is impossible. (5. and 6.)

[DBowling]

I discuss the empirically observed rate of point mutations (which occur much more frequently and are much more 'selectable' than insertions which are required to add new information) here
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 38#p252631

If four or five coordinated point mutations exceed the capability of selectable 'random mutation' for the duration of time that life has existed on earth.
Then four or five coordinated insertions is even more improbable.
And four or five coordinated insertions is child's play compared to the coordinated insertions and substitutions required to create the tree of life.

I state your arguments in more detail. If I misinterpret you please clarify. I write your arguments in bold and comment in normal style. (In brackets I comment the source(s) of the statement)

1. It has been observed that a single point mutation is required for malaria to develop resistance to atovaquone. The observed rate of that specific mutation is one in 10^12
(Observation)This comes from your text. I have no objections.
2. It has been observed that two specific single point mutations are required for malaria to develop resistance to chloroquine. The observed rate of those two specific mutations occurring is one in 10^20 (Observation)
This comes from your text. I have no objections.
3. The rate change is exponential depending on the number single point mutations so three single point mutation is probably less than one in 10^28 and four less than one in 10^36. (Conclusion from 1. and 2.)
You indicate this and I have no objections.
4. Around 10^30 bacterial cells are formed on the earth every year so one in 10^36 implies only one four point mutation every 64 million years worldwide. (Observation and 3.)
This comes from you text with some modifications. No objections.
5. Four (or more) point mutations only are apparently too few to support unguided evolution. (4. and assumption)
This comes from your text. No objections.

So far so good...

6. Unguided evolution requires four (and more) point mutations at least in some critical evolutional paths. (Assumption)
I base this wording on what you said elsewhere and in the last post: "... And four or five coordinated insertions is child's play compared to the coordinated insertions and substitutions required to create the tree of life."
This is not at all what the Evolution Theory claims. It's just an unsupported assumption. The Evolution Theory relies on small steps, mostly on one single point mutations. Some times on double point mutations or large-scale mutations as segment duplication and deletions etc. (see Wikipedia on mutations).

I understand the theory

But for me, empirically observed reality is more important than unverified theory.
In malaria, the observed difference between 1 selectable substitution and 2 coordinated selectable substitutions is the difference between 1 in 10^12 and 1 in 10^20.

We don't know whether the 2 coordinated point mutations required for malaria to reach the selectable state of resistance to chloroquine involves a single step with two coordinated mutations or if it involves two single mutations that eventually reached the selectable state of resistance to chloroquine.
The key point here is that the fastest path to the 2 coordinated mutations required to reach a specific selectable state in malaria is 1 in 10^20.

The math doesn't speak to the path required to reach 2 coordinated single point mutations, it just speaks to how long it takes to eventually get to a specific selectable state involving 2 coordinated point mutations.

So...

1. In malaria the observed rate for reaching a specific selectable state involving 1 point mutation is 1 in 10^12.
And the observed rate foe reaching a specific selectable state involving 2 coordinated point mutations is 1 in 10^20.
I accept those as empirically observed facts.

2. Based on the difference between the rate required to reach a specific single point mutation and the rate required to reach 2 specific coordinated mutations (regardless of the number of steps in the path), we can see that there is an exponential relationship between the number of coordinated mutations and the rate required to reach a specific selectable state requiring that number of coordinated mutation (again... regardless of the number of steps in the path).
I accept this as an empirically observed fact.

3. One more note, these rates are for substitutions, which are relatively common mutations.
Insertions are much more rare than substitutions, and survivable selectable insertions are even more rare since insertions are overwhelmingly damaging or lethal to the organism.
I accept this as an empirically observed fact.

==>
If we extrapolate the observed exponential rate for coordinated selectable mutations observed in malaria (regardless of path) to 4 or 5 coordinated mutations, then we quickly exceed the number of life forms that have ever existed on this planet.
This is an extrapolation of an empirically observed rate, not an assumption.

And if 4 or 5 coordinated selectable point mutations exceeds the 'normal' observable capability of 'random' mutation.
(which I believe the above empirically observed behavior of evolution in malaria demonstrates)
Then coordinated mutations involving the huge number of insertions and substitutions required for the tree of life goes way beyond the observed capability of "random" mutation.

Note...
I am not claiming that mutation and natural selection were not involved in the creation of the tree of life.
(I think that the fossil and DNA evidence demonstrates that mutations probably played a very significant role in the creation of the tree of life)

However, based on what I have seen to date, the empirically observed scope and rate of "random" mutation is incapable of creating the tree of life.

It would be good if we could agree on as much as possible. Therefore I could change my 5. to include your discussion about insertions "Insertions are much more rare than substitutions, and survivable selectable insertions are even more rare since insertions are overwhelmingly damaging or lethal to the organism." and change my 6. accordingly. But is that important to you?
I presume that you agree with 7. Conclusion: Unguided evolution is impossible.
Correct?

Actually that is not my position...
Let me try to break it down again

A. My whole position is built on the empirical observation that unguided evolution IS possible and observable in malaria's adaptation to atovaquone and chloroquine in nature and in Lenski's evolutionary experiments with e coli in the lab.

B. Based upon the observed behavior of unguided evolution in malaria and in the lab we find that the extrapolated rate of 4 or 5 coordinated selectable mutations (whether they occur all at once or in a series of incremental events) exceeds the capability of all the life forms that have ever existed on earth.
Coordinated mutations do not necessarily mean the mutations occur at the same time. Coordinated mutations are mutations that are required to work together to perform a specific function (such as the two coordinated mutations required to give malaria resistance to chloroquine).

C. Once we establish that 4 or 5 coordinated mutations exceeds the observed capability of unguided evolution for the duration of life on our planet.
Then it is a simple matter to demonstrate that many more than 4 or 5 coordinated mutations are required to get from the DNA of a single cell life form to the complex DNA in humans today, whether they occur simultaneously or by a number of individual steps.

For example
It would take many more than 4 or 5 coordinated mutations to form a functioning human eye. Regardless of how many steps it takes, the number of coordinated mutations required to form the human eye is orders of magnitude more than the 4 or 5 that exceeds the observed behavior of unguided evolution.

D. Conclusion
If the observed rate and scope of unguided evolution is incapable of producing the tree of life.
And if we assume (based on fossil and DNA evidence) that mutation and natural selection were largely responsible for producing the tree of life.
Then the mutations required to produce the tree of life would have to be guided in some way.

From my perspective, I see no difference between a causal agent guiding mutations to infuse complex coordinated functional information into the DNA of life on our planet and an act of creation by an intelligent Creator.