Evidence for God from Science

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:47 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:20 am

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:02 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:47 am

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 5:23 am As I wrote above, your argument is obvious erroneously. If you think it isn’t, please explain:
How can you say anything about the possibility of random beneficial mutation generating advanced functions based on the evidence you have seen and has been presented in this thread?

I think the logic is simple and straightforward...

This is the unverified premise that is critical to your argument
- Random beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) work together to perform new functions at a rate that is exponentially faster than random non-beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds).

The only observable example we have of two random mutations working together to perform a new function is the malaria example (resistance to chloroquine). And we agree that the behavior of this mutation indicates that it involves two non-beneficial mutations working together.
So our single observable data point involves two non-beneficial mutations working together to perform a new function.

If your premise is correct, then there should be orders of magnitude more observable examples of two beneficial mutations performing a new function than two non-beneficial mutations performing a new function.

So far in this discussion (and in everything I've read) there is one observable example of two non-beneficial mutations working together to perform a new function, malaria's resistance to chloroquine.
And so far in this discussion (and in everything I've read) the number of observable examples of two beneficial mutations performing a new function is 0, which is not even close to orders of magnitude greater than number of examples of two non-beneficial mutations performing a new function.
===>
Since the ovservable number of beneficial mutations performing a new function is NOT orders of magnitude greater than the number of non-beneficial mutations performing a new function, then any argument built on the unverified premise above is false.

Simply put...
If C requires A to be orders of magnitude greater than B
And A is shown NOT to be orders of magnitude greater than B
Then C is shown to be FALSE

So, correctly put…..
1) If C requires A to be orders of magnitude greater than B
2a) And A is NOT shown to be orders of magnitude greater than B
3a) Then C is NOT shown to be TRUE

Stipulating to 3a, would you agree with the following two statements?
1) Coordinated random mutations involving six or more non-beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) exceeds the capability of all life that has ever existed on this planet.
2) Observable random beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) have not shown the capability to work together to form new functions at a rate that is exponentially greater (or even greater) than observable non-beneficial mutations.

Per my post above I am ok stipulating to:

1) If C requires A to be orders of magnitude greater than B
2a) And A is NOT shown to be orders of magnitude greater than B
3a) Then C is NOT shown to be TRUE

Is that what you mean?

OK, I didn’t understand that you were stipulating.
Regarding your two questions: 1) is OK but I would like to rephrase 2):

According to your knowledge it is not shown that observable random beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) have the capability to work together to form new functions at a rate that is sufficient for evolution.
Comments:
- This is what you think, not what I think.
- 2b) and 3b) which you stipulated is about what is not shown so I prefer that wording.
- As I said earlier I don’t think it is meaningful comparing the speed of two mechanisms where one of them has no speed – isn’t able to reach a result. (But this isn’t crucial).

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:58 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:47 am Stipulating to 3a, would you agree with the following two statements?
1) Coordinated random mutations involving six or more non-beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) exceeds the capability of all life that has ever existed on this planet.
2) Observable random beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) have not shown the capability to work together to form new functions at a rate that is exponentially greater (or even greater) than observable non-beneficial mutations.

Regarding your two questions: 1) is OK but I would like to rephrase 2):

According to your knowledge it is not shown that observable random beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) have the capability to work together to form new functions at a rate that is sufficient for evolution.

How about 'according to your knowledge'?

Do you have any knowledge of examples of ...
"Observable random beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) showing the capability to work together to form new functions at a rate that is exponentially greater (or even greater) than observable non-beneficial mutations."

Comments:
- This is what you think, not what I think.
- 2b) and 3b) which you stipulated is about what is not shown so I prefer that wording.
- As I said earlier I don’t think it is meaningful comparing the speed of two mechanisms where one of them has no speed – isn’t able to reach a result. (But this isn’t crucial).

I think comparing the capabilities of the two mechanisms is a key component of my argument.
(Since we agree that one of the mechanisms is incapable.)

We both agree that mechanism 1 is incapable of reaching the desired result.
Mechanism 2 is presumed to be capable of reaching the desired result.
But the observed behavior of mechanism 2 has not demonstrated that it is any more capable than mechanism 1.

If mechanism 2 is no more capable than mechanism 1 then there is no difference between the abilities of mechanism 1 and mechanism 2 to reach the desired result.

So the question out there becomes...
is there empirically observable evidence to show that mechanism 2 is orders of magnitude more capable than mechanism 1?

In this case, due to time and the speed of evolution, the observable evidence is limited to 2 random mutations (substitutions/adds) working together to perform a new function.
We know the rate of the observable example of two non-beneficial substitutions (malaria's resistance to Chloroquine)
So the outstanding issue is... Are there observable examples of two beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) working together to perform a new function at a rate that is orders of magnitude faster than the observed malaria example?

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 9:35 am

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:58 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:47 am Stipulating to 3a, would you agree with the following two statements?
1) Coordinated random mutations involving six or more non-beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) exceeds the capability of all life that has ever existed on this planet.
2) Observable random beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) have not shown the capability to work together to form new functions at a rate that is exponentially greater (or even greater) than observable non-beneficial mutations.

Regarding your two questions: 1) is OK but I would like to rephrase 2):

According to your knowledge it is not shown that observable random beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) have the capability to work together to form new functions at a rate that is sufficient for evolution.

How about 'according to your knowledge'?

Do you have any knowledge of examples of ...
"Observable random beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) showing the capability to work together to form new functions at a rate that is exponentially greater (or even greater) than observable non-beneficial mutations."

Comments:
- This is what you think, not what I think.
- 2b) and 3b) which you stipulated is about what is not shown so I prefer that wording.
- As I said earlier I don’t think it is meaningful comparing the speed of two mechanisms where one of them has no speed – isn’t able to reach a result. (But this isn’t crucial).

I think comparing the capabilities of the two mechanisms is a key component of my argument.
(Since we agree that one of the mechanisms is incapable.)

We both agree that mechanism 1 is incapable of reaching the desired result.
Mechanism 2 is presumed to be capable of reaching the desired result.
But the observed behavior of mechanism 2 has not demonstrated that it is any more capable than mechanism 1.

If mechanism 2 is no more capable than mechanism 1 then there is no difference between the abilities of mechanism 1 and mechanism 2 to reach the desired result.

So the question out there becomes...
is there empirically observable evidence to show that mechanism 2 is orders of magnitude more capable than mechanism 1?

In this case, due to time and the speed of evolution, the observable evidence is limited to 2 random mutations (substitutions/adds) working together to perform a new function.
We know the rate of the observable example of two non-beneficial substitutions (malaria's resistance to Chloroquine)
So the outstanding issue is... Are there observable examples of two beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) working together to perform a new function at a rate that is orders of magnitude faster than the observed malaria example?

Assume you are out walking and come to a point where the road branches and both branches may lead you to your goal. You ask a man standing nearby which road is the fastest. He answers that the left road is blocked but as far as he knows it’s possible to walk the right. If you then ask him how much faster the right road is than the left road he will probably only stare at you and shake his head.

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:01 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 9:35 am

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:58 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:47 am Stipulating to 3a, would you agree with the following two statements?
1) Coordinated random mutations involving six or more non-beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) exceeds the capability of all life that has ever existed on this planet.
2) Observable random beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) have not shown the capability to work together to form new functions at a rate that is exponentially greater (or even greater) than observable non-beneficial mutations.

Regarding your two questions: 1) is OK but I would like to rephrase 2):

According to your knowledge it is not shown that observable random beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) have the capability to work together to form new functions at a rate that is sufficient for evolution.

How about 'according to your knowledge'?

Do you have any knowledge of examples of ...
"Observable random beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) showing the capability to work together to form new functions at a rate that is exponentially greater (or even greater) than observable non-beneficial mutations."

Comments:
- This is what you think, not what I think.
- 2b) and 3b) which you stipulated is about what is not shown so I prefer that wording.
- As I said earlier I don’t think it is meaningful comparing the speed of two mechanisms where one of them has no speed – isn’t able to reach a result. (But this isn’t crucial).

I think comparing the capabilities of the two mechanisms is a key component of my argument.
(Since we agree that one of the mechanisms is incapable.)

We both agree that mechanism 1 is incapable of reaching the desired result.
Mechanism 2 is presumed to be capable of reaching the desired result.
But the observed behavior of mechanism 2 has not demonstrated that it is any more capable than mechanism 1.

If mechanism 2 is no more capable than mechanism 1 then there is no difference between the abilities of mechanism 1 and mechanism 2 to reach the desired result.

So the question out there becomes...
is there empirically observable evidence to show that mechanism 2 is orders of magnitude more capable than mechanism 1?

In this case, due to time and the speed of evolution, the observable evidence is limited to 2 random mutations (substitutions/adds) working together to perform a new function.
We know the rate of the observable example of two non-beneficial substitutions (malaria's resistance to Chloroquine)
So the outstanding issue is... Are there observable examples of two beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) working together to perform a new function at a rate that is orders of magnitude faster than the observed malaria example?

Assume you are out walking and come to a point where the road branches and both branches may lead you to your goal.

However in this case...
We know the left road is blocked.
And everything we can actually see about the right road indicates that it doesn't go farther than the left road.

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:16 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:01 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 9:35 am

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:58 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:47 am Stipulating to 3a, would you agree with the following two statements?
1) Coordinated random mutations involving six or more non-beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) exceeds the capability of all life that has ever existed on this planet.
2) Observable random beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) have not shown the capability to work together to form new functions at a rate that is exponentially greater (or even greater) than observable non-beneficial mutations.

Regarding your two questions: 1) is OK but I would like to rephrase 2):

According to your knowledge it is not shown that observable random beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) have the capability to work together to form new functions at a rate that is sufficient for evolution.

How about 'according to your knowledge'?

Do you have any knowledge of examples of ...
"Observable random beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) showing the capability to work together to form new functions at a rate that is exponentially greater (or even greater) than observable non-beneficial mutations."

Comments:
- This is what you think, not what I think.
- 2b) and 3b) which you stipulated is about what is not shown so I prefer that wording.
- As I said earlier I don’t think it is meaningful comparing the speed of two mechanisms where one of them has no speed – isn’t able to reach a result. (But this isn’t crucial).

I think comparing the capabilities of the two mechanisms is a key component of my argument.
(Since we agree that one of the mechanisms is incapable.)

We both agree that mechanism 1 is incapable of reaching the desired result.
Mechanism 2 is presumed to be capable of reaching the desired result.
But the observed behavior of mechanism 2 has not demonstrated that it is any more capable than mechanism 1.

If mechanism 2 is no more capable than mechanism 1 then there is no difference between the abilities of mechanism 1 and mechanism 2 to reach the desired result.

So the question out there becomes...
is there empirically observable evidence to show that mechanism 2 is orders of magnitude more capable than mechanism 1?

In this case, due to time and the speed of evolution, the observable evidence is limited to 2 random mutations (substitutions/adds) working together to perform a new function.
We know the rate of the observable example of two non-beneficial substitutions (malaria's resistance to Chloroquine)
So the outstanding issue is... Are there observable examples of two beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) working together to perform a new function at a rate that is orders of magnitude faster than the observed malaria example?

Assume you are out walking and come to a point where the road branches and both branches may lead you to your goal.

However in this case...
We know the left road is blocked.
And everything we can actually see about the right road indicates that it doesn't go farther than the left road.

I still don’t understand your logic. Even more, if it were as you say, what is the reason for comparing the speeds ?
We both agree that the left road is blocked. Why not discuss the properties of the right without comparing with the blocked one all the time? I really don’t understand.

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:33 am
I still don’t understand your logic. Even more, if it were as you say, what is the reason for comparing the speeds ?
We both agree that the left road is blocked. Why not discuss the properties of the right without comparing with the blocked one all the time? I really don’t understand.

Because comparing the speeds at which beneficial and non-beneficial mutations (adds/substitutions) perform new functions speaks directly to the topic of this thread.
Can [Random] Mutation Invent?

Going back to your logical path

1) If C requires A to be orders of magnitude greater than B
2a) And A is NOT shown to be orders of magnitude greater than B
3a) Then C is NOT shown to be TRUE

We agree that non-beneficial mutations are not capable. That is a fixed point of reference, so anything that is not more capable than non-beneficial mutations is also not capable.
We observe that two beneficial mutations (adds/substitutions) are "not shown" to be faster than two non-beneficial mutations at working together to perform new functions.
===>
Based on the observable behavior of 2 mutations (adds/substitutions)
Beneficial mutations are "not shown" to be capable of generating the billions of coordinated mutations required for what we see in the fossil record or in the DNA of life today.

Which directly addresses the question in the OP
Can [Random] Mutation Invent?

DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:28 am

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:33 am
I still don’t understand your logic. Even more, if it were as you say, what is the reason for comparing the speeds ?
We both agree that the left road is blocked. Why not discuss the properties of the right without comparing with the blocked one all the time? I really don’t understand.

Because comparing the speeds at which beneficial and non-beneficial mutations (adds/substitutions) perform new functions speaks directly to the topic of this thread.
Can [Random] Mutation Invent?

Going back to your logical path

1) If C requires A to be orders of magnitude greater than B
2a) And A is NOT shown to be orders of magnitude greater than B
3a) Then C is NOT shown to be TRUE

We agree that non-beneficial mutations are not capable. That is a fixed point of reference, so anything that is not more capable than non-beneficial mutations is also not capable.
We observe that two beneficial mutations (adds/substitutions) are "not shown" to be faster than two non-beneficial mutations at working together to perform new functions.
===>
Based on the observable behavior of 2 mutations (adds/substitutions)
Beneficial mutations are "not shown" to be capable of generating the billions of coordinated mutations required for what we see in the fossil record or in the DNA of life today.

Which directly addresses the question in the OP
Can [Random] Mutation Invent?

You say repeteadly:
“Because comparing the speeds at which beneficial and non-beneficial mutations (adds/substitutions) perform new functions speaks directly to the topic of this thread.
Can [Random] Mutation Invent?”
But why, you have to show some reason. Now you just say that is “speaks directly”. How? In which way does the knowledge from one method, multiple non-beneficial mutations say anything about the other method, beneficial mutations?

I wrote a small story in #108:
“Assume you are out walking and come to a point where the road branches and both branches may lead you to your goal. You ask a man standing nearby which road is the fastest. He answers that the left road is blocked but it’s possible to walk the right. If you then ask him how much faster the right road is than the left road he will probably only stare at you and shake his head.”

If you don’t come up with some explanation I’ll do like the man in the story, just shake my head.

Nils wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 10:41 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:28 am

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:33 am
I still don’t understand your logic. Even more, if it were as you say, what is the reason for comparing the speeds ?
We both agree that the left road is blocked. Why not discuss the properties of the right without comparing with the blocked one all the time? I really don’t understand.

Because comparing the speeds at which beneficial and non-beneficial mutations (adds/substitutions) perform new functions speaks directly to the topic of this thread.
Can [Random] Mutation Invent?

Going back to your logical path

1) If C requires A to be orders of magnitude greater than B
2a) And A is NOT shown to be orders of magnitude greater than B
3a) Then C is NOT shown to be TRUE

We agree that non-beneficial mutations are not capable. That is a fixed point of reference, so anything that is not more capable than non-beneficial mutations is also not capable.
We observe that two beneficial mutations (adds/substitutions) are "not shown" to be faster than two non-beneficial mutations at working together to perform new functions.
===>
Based on the observable behavior of 2 mutations (adds/substitutions)
Beneficial mutations are "not shown" to be capable of generating the billions of coordinated mutations required for what we see in the fossil record or in the DNA of life today.

Which directly addresses the question in the OP
Can [Random] Mutation Invent?

You say repeteadly:
“Because comparing the speeds at which beneficial and non-beneficial mutations (adds/substitutions) perform new functions speaks directly to the topic of this thread.
Can [Random] Mutation Invent?”
But why, you have to show some reason. Now you just say that is “speaks directly”. How? In which way does the knowledge from one method, multiple non-beneficial mutations say anything about the other method, beneficial mutations?

We have knowledge that one method (non-beneficial mutations) is incapable.
And
We have an observable relationship between the speed of 2 non-beneficial mutations and 2 beneficial mutations.

We have more examples of 2 non-beneficial mutations producing a new function (malaria's resistance to chloroquine) than we do of 2 beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) producing a new function (zero) within the same observable time frame.

So
If A is not fast enough
and B is slower than A
Then B is not fast enough either

I wrote a small story in #108:

It was a nice story, but it doesn't address the critical issue...
Do you have any observable evidence to support the premise that
Beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) work together to perform new functions at a rate that is exponentially faster than non-beneficial mutations.

That is the key issue here...

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 2:09 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 10:41 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:28 am

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 1:33 am
I still don’t understand your logic. Even more, if it were as you say, what is the reason for comparing the speeds ?
We both agree that the left road is blocked. Why not discuss the properties of the right without comparing with the blocked one all the time? I really don’t understand.

Because comparing the speeds at which beneficial and non-beneficial mutations (adds/substitutions) perform new functions speaks directly to the topic of this thread.
Can [Random] Mutation Invent?

Going back to your logical path

1) If C requires A to be orders of magnitude greater than B
2a) And A is NOT shown to be orders of magnitude greater than B
3a) Then C is NOT shown to be TRUE

We agree that non-beneficial mutations are not capable. That is a fixed point of reference, so anything that is not more capable than non-beneficial mutations is also not capable.
We observe that two beneficial mutations (adds/substitutions) are "not shown" to be faster than two non-beneficial mutations at working together to perform new functions.
===>
Based on the observable behavior of 2 mutations (adds/substitutions)
Beneficial mutations are "not shown" to be capable of generating the billions of coordinated mutations required for what we see in the fossil record or in the DNA of life today.

Which directly addresses the question in the OP
Can [Random] Mutation Invent?

You say repeteadly:
“Because comparing the speeds at which beneficial and non-beneficial mutations (adds/substitutions) perform new functions speaks directly to the topic of this thread.
Can [Random] Mutation Invent?”
But why, you have to show some reason. Now you just say that is “speaks directly”. How? In which way does the knowledge from one method, multiple non-beneficial mutations say anything about the other method, beneficial mutations?

We have knowledge that one method (non-beneficial mutations) is incapable.
And
We have an observable relationship between the speed of 2 non-beneficial mutations and 2 beneficial mutations.

We have more examples of 2 non-beneficial mutations producing a new function (malaria's resistance to chloroquine) than we do of 2 beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) producing a new function (zero) within the same observable time frame.

So
If A is not fast enough
and B is slower than A
Then B is not fast enough either

I wrote a small story in #108:

It was a nice story, but it doesn't address the critical issue...
Do you have any observable evidence to support the premise that
Beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) work together to perform new functions at a rate that is exponentially faster than non-beneficial mutations.

That is the key issue here...

We have seemingly come to an end of our discussion. You switch back and forth between two positions. One is that we can use the speed difference between two processes as a relevant measure even if the speed of one process is zero (i.e. impossible). That is ridiculous as I tried to show with the example with the two roads. The other position is that the speed question “speaks directly to the topic of this thread. Can [Random] Mutation Invent?”
I don’t agree or understand either and you are only repeating the two positions without trying to explain.
If you don’t come up with something new I will summarize the discussion from my point of view in my next post.

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 3:40 am I don’t agree or understand either and you are only repeating the two positions without trying to explain.

Oh... I have a hunch that you understand my argument and the logic behind my argument perfectly well.
The logic is neither difficult or complicated... and I am convinced your reasoning capability can grasp it easily.

But since you evidently have no interest pursuing that particular path, would you be interested in pursuing this dangling thread from our discussion above?

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:58 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:47 am Stipulating to 3a, would you agree with the following two statements?
1) Coordinated random mutations involving six or more non-beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) exceeds the capability of all life that has ever existed on this planet.
2) Observable random beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) have not shown the capability to work together to form new functions at a rate that is exponentially greater (or even greater) than observable non-beneficial mutations.

Regarding your two questions: 1) is OK but I would like to rephrase 2):

According to your knowledge it is not shown that observable random beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) have the capability to work together to form new functions at a rate that is sufficient for evolution.

How about 'according to your knowledge'?

Do you have any knowledge of examples of ...
"Observable random beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) showing the capability to work together to form new functions at a rate that is exponentially greater (or even greater) than observable non-beneficial mutations."

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Feb 07, 2022 8:28 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 3:40 am I don’t agree or understand either and you are only repeating the two positions without trying to explain.

Oh... I have a hunch that you understand my argument and the logic behind my argument perfectly well.
The logic is neither difficult or complicated... and I am convinced your reasoning capability can grasp it easily.

The problem was that I didn’t see any logic.

But since you evidently have no interest pursuing that particular path, would you be interested in pursuing this dangling thread from our discussion above?

Sorry, I don't understand you question.

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:58 am Regarding your two questions: 1) is OK but I would like to rephrase 2):
According to your knowledge it is not shown that observable random beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) have the capability to work together to form new functions at a rate that is sufficient for evolution.

How about 'according to your knowledge'?
Do you have any knowledge of examples of ...
"Observable random beneficial mutations (substitutions/adds) showing the capability to work together to form new functions at a rate that is exponentially greater (or even greater) than observable non-beneficial mutations."

As I explain below, my knowledge of evolution experiments and observations is very limited in comparison to the whole literature on evolution.

- - - - - -

In my last post i said that I don’t think there is much use continuing this discussion so I try to summarize from my point of view.

I started my part of this thread, post #4, by citing Behe’s video clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ivgQFIST1g= where he wrote about the E Coli "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". I asked: “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”.

After repeating this question four or five times DB finally answered in post #49:
“Well... I wouldn't personally have expected fully functional molecular machines...
Allowing for some hyperbole on Behe's part, I agree with Behe's basic sentiment. “
A very polite answer from someone that is a big Behe supporter.

A second major issue in the thread is the discussion about the differences between non-beneficial and beneficial mutations. It took many posts until I noted (in post #25) the importance of discriminating between beneficial and non-beneficial. After long discussions we agreed on the following:

A. The observed behaviour of evolution in malaria example shows that “six [or more] random non-beneficial mutations working together to perform a new function exceeds the capability of all life that has ever existed on this planet.” see for instance post #91.

In the remaining part of the thread we, DB and I, had rather complex discussions about what conclusions about random beneficial mutation can be drawn from A. DB argued that from A it can be shown that even for random beneficial mutations the rate is so slow that it exceeds the capability of all life that has ever existed on this planet. I didn’t see any argument for this but DB insisted without giving any argument (at least what I can understand).

DB asked me several time to give an example of a function that requires more than one beneficial mutation to evolve. This I can’t give, see below.

To sum up the discussion above between DB and me:
- I think we agree, at least partly, that Behe was wrong assuming “ molecular machines” in Lenski’s E Coli experiment.
- I think we agree on A, non-beneficial mutations are not enough.
- However I think that DB hasn’t shown that lots of random beneficial mutations can’t lead to evolution of new complex functions needed for all life that has ever existed on this planet
- On my side I haven’t shown that this is possible

It seems that we are coming close to a point where it’s of no use continuing the discussion. It has been interesting, I have learnt a lot, especially on E coli and Lenski’s experiment. We have had some problems to understand each other but I think now that I understand DB’s position. To me, DB trust Behe far to much and does the same mistakes as he does, mainly extrapolating from the data about evolution of some bacteria to the general evolution. In post #12 I tried to clarify that by structuring DB’s position and showing that one argument, 6. was missing. But he ignored my point.

DB has now and then asked for evidence for my position which I haven’t tried to give.
Being an amateur in biology I have no possibility to cover the extensive literature on evolution. However I think that I have a reasonable understanding of the basic mechanisms of the evolution by reading some books and lots of articles, for example about computer simulations of the evolutionary algorithm. Together with some basic data that gives an intuitive picture of how evolution works. My arguments in our debate come from this general understanding rather than from some specific references.

Another reason for not giving arguments for my view is that the discussion is about DB’s view. I think he has the burden of proof. Our discussion in this thread isn’t symmetrical. The burden of proof is more heavily on him than on me. The reason is that on his side is only Behe and a few supporters that have written only a few scientific peer reviewed articles (as far as I know only Behe). On my side I have hundreds or perhaps thousands of professional scientist that have written bookshelves with books and peer reviewed articles.

Starting this debate I never thought I could convince DB about the possibility of multiple beneficial mutations producing complex functions. That is something that needs more knowledge than I have. My only intension was to show that there are no arguments showing the impossibility of this, at least in the references DB have supported.

What remains is to thank for an interesting and civilized debate.

Nils

Nils: What remains is to thank for an interesting and civilized debate.

Yes, Nils, I think you and DB have done a great job of being civil - which is often difficult when two sides are pretty entrenched and passionate.

Nils wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 8:29 pm

abelcainsbrother wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 11:28 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 7:00 am 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

As you all know I'm against evolution but sometimes it is hard to explain why evolution is a myth.Well I now I am much better at explaining why evolution is a myth and I will answer your question too. Can mutation invent? First off,it is important to understand that Evolution is a case of stating the obvious namely that there is variation in all populations but variation in a population is limited.As you all may know,for thousands of years before Chrles Darwin plant and animal breeders have proven variation in populations but also what evolutionists ignore and overlook that variation in populations is limited.Well Evolution demonstrates and proves to us what we already knew there is variation in the populations and it is limited. So to answer your question can mutations invent? They can only invent enough for "normal and limited" variation in populations.Such as a new dog breed or a new virus variant, for example.

What you are saying is that evolution is a myth because it is “obvious” that genetic variation is limited (from which follows that macro evolution isn’t possible). Very convincing.

Even in your discussion with DB in this thread all you two are discussing is normal variation in a population when it comes to bacteria.Please explain how this new form of bacteria in the bacteria population is different than a new dog breed in the dog population.It is no different and yet you are imagining this variation is unlimited even when it is'nt.This is just stating the obvious as I pointed out. You are not demonstrating Darwin's hypothesis of evolution or that Pakicetus can evolve into whales but just the normal variability found in populations that is limited which prevents life from evolving like Darwin imagined and so Pakicetus could not evolve into whales. For evolution to be true you must demonstrate the variability in populations is unlimited and none of the evidence for evolution does this. Instead it is just using the normal variability of populations for evidence for evolution,which is not evidence for evolution.

Let me explain why the variability of populations is not and cannot be used for evidence for evolution. According to Oxford's Dictionary of Biology " Present day species evolved from simpler ancestral types by the process of natural selection acting on the variability found in populations." Re-read that a few times because evolution acts on the variability found in populations so it cannot be evolution or evidence for evolution. And yet this is what every piece of peer reviewed evidence for evolution is. It is normal limited variation in populations being proven in the evolution lab after thousands of years of plant and animal breeding that proved it is limited long before,which is just stating the obvious as I said in the beginning. Meanwhile not one scientist is demonstrating Darwin's hypothesis of evolution or that Pakicetus can evolve into whales even though their charts claim this.
Pakicetus
https://www.bing.com/search?q=Pakecetus ... 40d277a68b

This is a very serious problem for evolution because it means that everything about evolution is pure evolution imagination that cannot be known stuff like natural selection,gene transfer,genetic drift,mutations,speciation,micro-evolution,macro-evolution,etc because life evolving can't be demonstrated and so there is no way to gather data and study the stages life goes through if it evolved. There is no way to know and so there is no way scientists can know and they have just made it all up based on pure evolution imagination.

Abe, you should know by now that arguing with unbelievers over evolution is a pointless waste of time! Because the way they view (Godless) evolution is basically like a type of cosmic magic for which no statistical improbability can't overcome. What you should do instead is challenge them to explain the universe's beginning minutes, in whereas, immediately before, NO matter or anything physical existed. Yet, within a few MINUTES of the Big Bang beginning - we don't have chaos from some inexplicable explosion - but rather great precision in which exceptionally complex things appeared, instantly operating in great precision and coordination, as a giant mix of quarks (the fundamental building blocks of atomic nuclei) and gluons (the carriers of the strong nuclear force) - not after billions of years, but in mere MINUTES - came into existence. And once the universe was only 12 MINUTES old, it had expanded and cooled enough that the quarks could bind themselves together, forming the first protons and neutrons. Those protons and neutrons made the first hydrogen and helium (and a little bit of lithium). This takes great intelligence and power to create and implement! And no matter what you think the first Cause was, or even if one thinks something must have been eternal, nonetheless, blind random things can't think, see, plan, strategize - much less, create and design themselves! And ALL contingent things must originate from some other source. And not only didn't random, chaotic things show up - but PRECISELY the exact astonishing building blocks of breath-taking designs and functionalities required to build a universe, all perfectly functioning together and on a virtually unfathomable scale.

So, Abe, quit wasting time on arguing over a supposed process (macro-evolution) that, to begin with, would have been entirely impossible if the amazing things that instantly appeared before ANYTHING physical even existed, had come into existence, along with the huge number of necessary and insanely fine-tuned conditions to supposedly begin evolving vast billions of years later - THAT is what you should focus on! As you'll simply never get people who believe in Godless, random, magically unguided processes to see the folly of their errors?

As for believers who believe macro-evolution was simply "God's process" of creating all species and eventually man - well, if that's what they desire to believe - at least they acknowledge GOD is critical to evolution's existence (and most of them also believe required His guidance).

Philip wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2023 10:40 pm Abe, you should know by now that arguing with unbelievers over evolution is a pointless waste of time! Because the way they view (Godless) evolution is basically like a type of cosmic magic for which no statistical improbability can't overcome. What you should do instead is challenge them to explain the universe's beginning minutes, in whereas, immediately before, NO matter or anything physical existed. Yet, within a few MINUTES of the Big Bang beginning - we don't have chaos from some inexplicable explosion - but rather great precision in which exceptionally complex things appeared, instantly operating in great precision and coordination, as a giant mix of quarks (the fundamental building blocks of atomic nuclei) and gluons (the carriers of the strong nuclear force) - not after billions of years, but in mere MINUTES - came into existence. And once the universe was only 12 MINUTES old, it had expanded and cooled enough that the quarks could bind themselves together, forming the first protons and neutrons. Those protons and neutrons made the first hydrogen and helium (and a little bit of lithium). This takes great intelligence and power to create and implement! And no matter what you think the first Cause was, or even if one thinks something must have been eternal, nonetheless, blind random things can't think, see, plan, strategize - much less, create and design themselves! And ALL contingent things must originate from some other source. And not only didn't random, chaotic things show up - but PRECISELY the exact astonishing building blocks of breath-taking designs and functionalities required to build a universe, all perfectly functioning together and on a virtually unfathomable scale.

So, Abe, quit wasting time on arguing over a supposed process (macro-evolution) that, to begin with, would have been entirely impossible if the amazing things that instantly appeared before ANYTHING physical even existed, had come into existence, along with the huge number of necessary and insanely fine-tuned conditions to supposedly begin evolving vast billions of years later - THAT is what you should focus on! As you'll simply never get people who believe in Godless, random, magically unguided processes to see the folly of their errors?

As for believers who believe macro-evolution was simply "God's process" of creating all species and eventually man - well, if that's what they desire to believe - at least they acknowledge GOD is critical to evolution's existence (and most of them also believe required His guidance).

Evolution is seen as the true history of the earth though and I want to show people how to truly defeat evolution,which has not happened after thousands of debates against creationists.Christian apologists are using the wrong weapons to defeat secular evolution and they keep doing it over and over expecting to get a different result.While the truth the Gap theory has been hidden,which is the correct weapon to use. This is why we have made no progress against evolution.But evolution is still here.It has not been defeated and more importantly it is the wrong history of this earth. We have a lost world that nobody even knows about because of evolution. By defeating evolution in front of everybody like when David slew Goliath it will cause faith in the word of God and change the way we see the history of the earth. I mean we can take the fossil record that is used for evidence for evolution and teach the truth about the Pre-Adamite world that existed that perished before God made this world. A pre-Adamite world that was a totally different kind of world than this world we now live in is. This is the true history of this earth and we are all ignorant of it because of a crisis in both creationism and science where we have not gotten the truth on either side.

A person has to set aside their bias and search out the truth and throughout history what the majority believes is not always true.The majority has been wrong many tomes throughout history. This is true for both Christians and religious societies to even atheists and nonbelievers with secular societies. It makes no difference.The majority is wrong sometimes. I have examined all of these theories YEC,Day Age,Theistic Evolution,Evolution,The Big Ban Theory,The Gap Theory very thouroughly to find out which one is the true one and the Gap Theory is the most true one out of them all. All of them cannot be correct,only one can be because they contradict each other.

The reason why trying to use the Big Bang Theory to reach atheists does not work is because they reject the Big Bang theory. I mean when it comes to evolution they will preach and declare how theories in science are true and evolution is a fact but all of that goes out the window when it comes to the Big Bang Theory. Suddenly theories are not true anymore and hypothesis's like multi-verses,etc become more believable to them. These hypothesis's are no where near as popular as the Big Bang Theory is amongst phycisists,but nonetheless atheists reject a theory and believe scientific hypothesis's instead. They do this because of people like Sean Carroll and Lawrence Krauss who have muddied the waters when it comes to physics and they refuse to acknowledge how solid of a theory the Big Bang Theory is amongst physicists. But then when a person tries to take the Big Bang Theory and blend it into Genesis 1 it just does'nt fly with people.