Evidence for God from Science

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 1:27 pm 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.

Directed single mutations are used in research, but in order for multiple directed single mutations to reach a specific goal, the environment has to be manipulated and controlled to allow single mutation steps to survive natural selection along a very narrow path.

The manipulated environment of directed evolution just makes the case for how much manipulation and control is required to guide an organism down a path of single mutations.

As I mentioned before, we do have an observable example of non-directed 'random mutation' in malaria.
We can observe the exponential nature of the difference in malaria's ability to develop resistance to atovaquone (which requires a single specific mutation) and malaria's ability to develop resistance to chloroquine (which requires two specific mutations).
If malaria followed the single mutation path premise then the observed difference between malaria's resistance to atovaquone and chloroquine would not be exponential, because malaria could theoretically find a path of two single mutations more quickly than two specific coordinated mutations.

The reason the single mutation path doesn't work is there are so many specific single mutations required to get from one beneficial state that natural selection will propagate to another beneficial state that natural selection will propagate.
And the non-beneficial single mutations along the alleged path will not be propagated because natural selection has no reason to propagate non-beneficial single mutations.

We can observe the capabilities of 'random mutation' in nature. And coordinated mutations that go beyond the complexity of malaria's resistance to chloroquine become unfeasible at an exponential rate.
The only place we observe a path of multiple single mutations is in directed processes.

Observed 'random mutations' and directed evolution both demonstrate that undirected 'random mutation' is incapable of producing what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today.

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

You are again and again presuming a non-existent capable process which flies in the face of the observed capabilities of random mutation both in nature and in the lab.

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

Nils presumes there are other methods, not because science has proven or observed them, but because in his mind, they MUST exist! But not only would they need to exist, but successful mutations must have a certain level of numbers AND they must be rapid enough. And so without data to even show other mechanisms or methods existed, try explaining the rate of mutations and the changes necessary to explain the fossil record of the Cambrian, which happened in a stunningly short period of time. So, what hit the fast-forward switch on THAT???!!! Unguided evolution simply could not have had nearly the necessary time to produce the stunning array of new forms and the complex predator/prey relationships of the Cambrian!

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 12:02 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 11:09 am 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?

I know that when it comes to science, especially evolution, people tend to "trip" on words.
That is why we have the view that nature is random and unguided BUT say that natural "selection" occurs.

That is my whole point about evolution ( and I say this as a evolutionist), we have evidence of change and organisms ( to use your word) that evolve because those changes are "selected" to be "beneficial" and the organism has/can "adapt" to them.
Lots of quotation marks there and for good reason.

The question remains:
WHY does the organism adapt or evolve if you prefer?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:09 am The question remains:
WHY does the organism adapt or evolve if you prefer?

From a purely biological perspective...
because of mutations that occur during DNA replication.

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:13 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:09 am The question remains:
WHY does the organism adapt or evolve if you prefer?

From a purely biological perspective...
because of mutations that occur during DNA replication.

So, the organism evolves BECAUSE mutations happen?
Well, why do some mutations "lead" to evolution? why do others not? Why does DNA replicate at all?
In short, the question isn't why mutations happen, we know that, the question is WHY do those mutations lead to evolution and not something else OR nothing at all?
Natural selection is no explanation at all unless it can explain WHY natural selection happens in the first place.

8,500? Paul is racking up so big posting numbers!

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:50 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:13 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:09 am The question remains:
WHY does the organism adapt or evolve if you prefer?

From a purely biological perspective...
because of mutations that occur during DNA replication.

So, the organism evolves BECAUSE mutations happen?
Well, why do some mutations "lead" to evolution? why do others not? Why does DNA replicate at all?
In short, the question isn't why mutations happen,

Actually from my perspective, that question is the elephant in the room.

If mutation at the molecular level is the root cause of genetic changes in all living organisms.
And if observed 'random mutation' is incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today.
Then (if we presume the principle of common descent) what is the root cause of 'mutations' that are actually capable of explaining what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today?

Natural selection is no explanation at all unless it can explain WHY natural selection happens in the first place.

Natural selection doesn't cause anything. Natural selection is just a way of stating that organisms that are more fit to survive in a particular environment will survive in that environment. And when they survive in that environment, they will propagate their genetic information to their progeny.

Philip wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:34 am 8,500? Paul is racking up so big posting numbers!

Oi Vay !
Didn't notice that.

Natural selection doesn't cause anything. Natural selection is just a way of stating that organisms that are more fit to survive in a particular environment will survive in that environment. And when they survive in that environment, they will propagate their genetic information to their progeny.

What "decides" what is fit or not? what "decides" what information gets passed on or not? How?

If mutation at the molecular level is the root cause of genetic changes in all living organisms.
And if observed 'random mutation' is incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today.
Then (if we presume the principle of common descent) what is the root cause of 'mutations' that are actually capable of explaining what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today?

Mutations are caused by various factors, as you know ( Solar radiation, environmental changes, etc).
These mutations are NOT predictable ( we can't predict what mutations will arise with an increase in solar flares for example) and as such are called "random".
That mutations happen is fact.
What causes these mutations ( radiation, environment, etc) is also fact.
My question remains:
WHY do these mutations lead to evolution?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:46 am

Natural selection doesn't cause anything. Natural selection is just a way of stating that organisms that are more fit to survive in a particular environment will survive in that environment. And when they survive in that environment, they will propagate their genetic information to their progeny.

What "decides" what is fit or not?

The ability of an organism to survive and procreate in a particular environment is the primary criteria for natural selection.

what "decides" what information gets passed on or not?

The ability of a particular organism to survive and procreate in a particular environment determines whether or not that organism's genetic information gets passed on and propagated.

If mutation at the molecular level is the root cause of genetic changes in all living organisms.
And if observed 'random mutation' is incapable of explaining what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today.
Then (if we presume the principle of common descent) what is the root cause of 'mutations' that are actually capable of explaining what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today?

Mutations are caused by various factors, as you know ( Solar radiation, environmental changes, etc).
These mutations are NOT predictable ( we can't predict what mutations will arise with an increase in solar flares for example) and as such are called "random".
That mutations happen is fact.
What causes these mutations ( radiation, environment, etc) is also fact.
My question remains:
WHY do these mutations lead to evolution?

Because mutations at the molecular level are the cause of genetic changes within living organisms.
And evolution (micro or macro) cannot occur without genetic changes in an organism.

The ability of an organism to...

Where did this "ability" come from?

Because mutations at the molecular level are the cause of genetic changes within living organisms.
And evolution (micro or macro) cannot occur without genetic changes in an organism.

Mutations cause genetic changes and those changes may lead to evolution, why?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:44 am

The ability of an organism to...

Where did this "ability" come from?

Any organism's characteristics (such its ability to survive and procreate in a given environment) are a function of that organism's DNA.

Because mutations at the molecular level are the cause of genetic changes within living organisms.
And evolution (micro or macro) cannot occur without genetic changes in an organism.

Mutations cause genetic changes and those changes may lead to evolution, why?

Evolution is nothing more than a population's ability to change and adapt (or be wiped out) in a given environment.

Mutation is the functional cause of changes in a biological organism.
Organisms which are able to survive and procreate within a given environment will have their genetic traits propagated within that environment.

I'm not talking about macro-evolution here (which has not been observed). I am talking about what we can observe in micro-evolution.

Any organism's characteristics (such its ability to survive and procreate in a given environment) are a function of that organism's DNA.

So, something in the DNA allows it to take a mutation and evolve.
Why?

My question continues to be WHY do living organisms evolve as opposed to NOT evolving?
The simple answer is because they can to which I ask WHY can they?
There is no real reason why any organism MUST evolve, right?
So why do they?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 12:13 pm My question continues to be WHY do living organisms evolve as opposed to NOT evolving?
The simple answer is because they can to which I ask WHY can they?
There is no real reason why any organism MUST evolve, right?
So why do they?

I guess this gets back to the old standby... "because God made it that way".

If mutations didn't ever occur during DNA replication, then:
1. Everyone would have identical DNA and we would have a bunch of clones with identical DNA walking around.
2. Organisms would be unable to adapt to changes in the environment and would be wiped out by environmental changes.

So mutations contribute to genetic diversity within a population and provide the ability for organisms to adapt to and survive changes in the environment.

Sounds like a pretty intelligent design to me