Evidence for God from Science

Sorry but any Christian that thinks we evolved from a single cell of some kind, and even worse from a bunch of random chemicals that just happened to create life, is nuts.

What if you found out that one of the most frequent reasons that people have abandoned their faith was itself looking very sketchy indeed? I’m talking about evolution and its consistent failure to verify its most important prediction — without which it is dead in the water, as it were. The Darwinian theory that the full diversity of life evolved from a single primitive cell. (August 18, 2021)

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 8:12 pm Let me try to break it down again

I tried to formalise your argument a bit to be able to examine your argument in detail and you admitted that up to number 5 it was “so far so good”, but when I try to examine the last step, instead of argue you starts from the beginning again. A bit tiresome. But, OK, I’ll check this.

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).

So far, so good

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.

Yes

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.

Here you state that it is required many more than 4 or 5 coordinated mutations to get from a single cell to humans. A completely unsupported assumption!!

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.

“It would”. Do you have any evidence?

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.

As I say above this conclusion isn’t based only on what is observed but also on an assumption that is incorrect. So the conclusion is also incorrect.

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.

That's OK to me.

Nils wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 2:31 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 8:12 pm Let me try to break it down again

I tried to formalise your argument a bit to be able to examine your argument in detail and you admitted that up to number 5 it was “so far so good”, but when I try to examine the last step, instead of argue you starts from the beginning again. A bit tiresome. But, OK, I’ll check this.

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).

So far, so good

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.

Yes

As we both like to say...
So far, so good

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.

Here you state that it is required many more than 4 or 5 coordinated mutations to get from a single cell to humans. A completely unsupported assumption!!

This should be intuitively obvious... but here's the support.

The smallest genomes, belonging to primitive, single-celled organisms, contain just over half a million base pairs of DNA.
Humans have around 3.2 billion base pairs of DNA.

So the genetic gap between the most primitive single-celled organisms and humans is around 3 billion base pairs.
It is obvious that it takes more than 4 or 5 coordinated mutations to bridge a genetic gap of 3 billion base pairs between a simple single cell organism and a complex functional selectable state that has multiple complex functional biological mechanisms that work together for the benefit of the biological organism.

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.

“It would”. Do you have any evidence?

From
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 11_01.html

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

That's a whole lot more than 4 or 5 coordinated mutations.

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 4:40 am

Nils wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 2:31 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 8:12 pm Let me try to break it down again

I tried to formalise your argument a bit to be able to examine your argument in detail and you admitted that up to number 5 it was “so far so good”, but when I try to examine the last step, instead of argue you starts from the beginning again. A bit tiresome. But, OK, I’ll check this.

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).

So far, so good

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.

Yes

As we both like to say...
So far, so good

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.

Here you state that it is required many more than 4 or 5 coordinated mutations to get from a single cell to humans. A completely unsupported assumption!!

This should be intuitively obvious... but here's the support.

The smallest genomes, belonging to primitive, single-celled organisms, contain just over half a million base pairs of DNA.
Humans have around 3.2 billion base pairs of DNA.

So the genetic gap between the most primitive single-celled organisms and humans is around 3 billion base pairs.
It is obvious that it takes more than 4 or 5 coordinated mutations to bridge a genetic gap of 3 billion base pairs between a simple single cell organism and a complex functional selectable state that has multiple complex functional biological mechanisms that work together for the benefit of the biological organism.

That is far from obvious. The evolution theory states that evolution is done in small steps, mostly single uncoordinated mutations. 4 or 5 coordinated mutations are not required, why should they?

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.

“It would”. Do you have any evidence?

From
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/libra ... 11_01.html

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

That's a whole lot more than 4 or 5 coordinated mutations.

I am not sure of what you don’t understand. From your reference I cite: “Zoologist Dan-Erik Nilsson demonstrates how the complex human eye could have evolved through natural selection acting on small variations.” There is nothing about 4 or 5 coordinated mutations. If you read Nilsson’s article you will find that he assumes single mutations.

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Aug 26, 2021 1:33 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 4:40 am

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).

So far, so good

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.

Yes

As we both like to say...
So far, so good

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.

Here you state that it is required many more than 4 or 5 coordinated mutations to get from a single cell to humans. A completely unsupported assumption!!

This should be intuitively obvious... but here's the support.

The smallest genomes, belonging to primitive, single-celled organisms, contain just over half a million base pairs of DNA.
Humans have around 3.2 billion base pairs of DNA.

So the genetic gap between the most primitive single-celled organisms and humans is around 3 billion base pairs.
It is obvious that it takes more than 4 or 5 coordinated mutations to bridge a genetic gap of 3 billion base pairs between a simple single cell organism and a complex functional selectable state that has multiple complex functional biological mechanisms that work together for the benefit of the biological organism.

That is far from obvious. The evolution theory states that evolution is done in small steps, mostly single uncoordinated mutations. 4 or 5 coordinated mutations are not required, why should they?

I guess the issue here centers around the meaning of the word "coordinated".

An applicable definition is
"to organize or integrate (diverse elements) in a harmonious operation"

You appear to be claiming that a number of single small steps cannot be coordinated, which is simply false.

In fact you have already agreed with the following statement (see B.)
"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)."

So a number of single mutations that "work together" to perform a specific function are "coordinated" mutations whether they occur at the same time or whether they build upon one other in a series of specific steps over a period of time.

The claim (assumption) of "single small steps" is not a "get out of jail free card" to avoid the fact that a number of "single small steps" are in fact coordinated if they work together to perform a specific function.

And the human body has many coordinated organ systems that work together for the well being of the human organism
the integumentary system, skeletal system, muscular system, lymphatic system, respiratory system, digestive system, nervous system, endocrine system, cardiovascular system, urinary system, and reproductive systems.

And each of these systems by themselves require many many more than 4 or 5 mutations to "work together" to produce the functional organ system.
So you have at least two separate levels of coordination required to produce a human organism.
One level of coordination is the coordination required to produce the individual complex organ system.
And then there is another level of coordination for the different organ systems to work together for the benefit of the human organism as a whole.

So leaning on the crutch of single mutations does nothing to rebut the observation that billions of mutations would have to be "coordinated" (or work together) in some manner to produce the incredible complexity and interrelated organ systems found in the human body.

DB,
your last post requires an extensive reply that will take some time to write. I don’t have much time now so I postpone that for a while. In the meantime I would like to comment an issue that we have discussed here and in the thread Why is God invisible. For instance, you say in #35 in that thread:

“So the observed behavior of random mutation in the real world demonstrates that random mutation is incapable of producing the either the scope or rate of change that we see in either the fossil record or the DNA of life today.
That's what the observed behavior of random mutation in the real world [the lab] tells us.
And for me, observed behavior in the real world is much more compelling evidence than unverified speculation [, the evolution theory].” (viewtopic.php?p=252602#p252602)
Our discussion above clearly shows that you are wrong. In for example post #18 in the current thread, your A and B are based on lab data and the first sentence of C is a direct extrapolation of A and B. But then you add “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.” You want to give the impression that this statement also is a conclusion based on facts from the lab but it isn’t. It is clear from your statement “This should be intuitively obvious... “. An intuitions is different from lab data. Also your long discussion in the last post is a clear evidence that this is something else than data from the lab. And this is independent of whether your discussion is correct of not (I think it isn’t, but I come back to that later).
So your conclusion expressed in the citation above is false. The conclusion is based on some evidence (lab data) but also on a discussion that isn’t based on any evidence and certainly not on any lab data.

Nils wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 12:46 am
“So the observed behavior of random mutation in the real world demonstrates that random mutation is incapable of producing the either the scope or rate of change that we see in either the fossil record or the DNA of life today.
That's what the observed behavior of random mutation in the real world [the lab] tells us.
And for me, observed behavior in the real world is much more compelling evidence than unverified speculation [, the evolution theory].” (viewtopic.php?p=252602#p252602)

Our discussion above clearly shows that you are wrong. In for example post #18 in the current thread, your A and B are based on lab data and the first sentence of C is a direct extrapolation of A and B. But then you add “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.” You want to give the impression that this statement also is a conclusion based on facts from the lab but it isn’t. It is clear from your statement “This should be intuitively obvious... “. An intuitions is different from lab data.

I thought it would be "intuitively obvious" that a process that becomes non-viable with 4 or 5 coordinated actions would also be non-viable with billions of coordinated actions.
You challenged me on that statement, and I gave you the data that validated the intuition.

So my argument is based on observed empirical evidence from nature (the exponential nature of coordinated mutations in malaria), empirical evidence in the lab (observed unguided evolution degrades and loses information), and an extrapolation of the observed behavior of malaria to 4 or 5 coordinated mutations.

Once we establish that 4 or 5 coordinated mutations exceeds the observed capability of unguided evolution, then it becomes... yes... intuitively obvious... that a process that requires "billions and billions" of coordinated mutations also exceeds the observed capability of unguided evolution.

In contrast to my data driven argument, your argument is based on two enormous unverified assumptions:
Unguided evolution is capable of introducing enormous amounts of new complex functional code into the DNA of life on our planet.
A path of single uncoordinated beneficial selectable mutations is capable of producing the tree of life.

I keep coming back to this basic principle
"for me, observed behavior in the real world is much more compelling evidence than unverified speculation"

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 3:36 am

Nils wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 12:46 am
“So the observed behavior of random mutation in the real world demonstrates that random mutation is incapable of producing the either the scope or rate of change that we see in either the fossil record or the DNA of life today.
That's what the observed behavior of random mutation in the real world [the lab] tells us.
And for me, observed behavior in the real world is much more compelling evidence than unverified speculation [, the evolution theory].” (viewtopic.php?p=252602#p252602)

Our discussion above clearly shows that you are wrong. In for example post #18 in the current thread, your A and B are based on lab data and the first sentence of C is a direct extrapolation of A and B. But then you add “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.” You want to give the impression that this statement also is a conclusion based on facts from the lab but it isn’t. It is clear from your statement “This should be intuitively obvious... “. An intuitions is different from lab data.

I thought it would be "intuitively obvious" that a process that becomes non-viable with 4 or 5 coordinated actions would also be non-viable with billions of coordinated actions.
You challenged me on that statement, and I gave you the data that validated the intuition.

So my argument is based on observed empirical evidence from nature (the exponential nature of coordinated mutations in malaria), empirical evidence in the lab (observed unguided evolution degrades and loses information), and an extrapolation of the observed behavior of malaria to 4 or 5 coordinated mutations.

Once we establish that 4 or 5 coordinated mutations exceeds the observed capability of unguided evolution, then it becomes... yes... intuitively obvious... that a process that requires "billions and billions" of coordinated mutations also exceeds the observed capability of unguided evolution.

In contrast to my data driven argument, your argument is based on two enormous unverified assumptions:
Unguided evolution is capable of introducing enormous amounts of new complex functional code into the DNA of life on our planet.
A path of single uncoordinated beneficial selectable mutations is capable of producing the tree of life.

I keep coming back to this basic principle
"for me, observed behavior in the real world is much more compelling evidence than unverified speculation"

You say (numbering inserted):
“So my argument is based on
1. observed empirical evidence from nature (the exponential nature of coordinated mutations in malaria),
2. empirical evidence in the lab (observed unguided evolution degrades and loses information), and
3. an extrapolation of the observed behavior of malaria to 4 or 5 coordinated mutations.”

1. is OK
2. is a misunderstanding. I you read the article of Lenski, he doesn’t come to the same conclusion as you say.
3. This is the most important issue. You extrapolate not only to 4 or 5 mutations but to millions of mutations. That has to be motivated. You have to show that the mechanism that is used to get the malaria mutation is the same mechanism that governs general evolution. You haven’t done that. You only make an assumption! That’s not enough. Your conclusion depends on this assumption and is only an “unverified speculation”
(The assumption is incorrect but that doesn’t change my argument here).

Nils wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 6:34 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 3:36 am I thought it would be "intuitively obvious" that a process that becomes non-viable with 4 or 5 coordinated actions would also be non-viable with billions of coordinated actions.
You challenged me on that statement, and I gave you the data that validated the intuition.

So my argument is based on observed empirical evidence from nature (the exponential nature of coordinated mutations in malaria), empirical evidence in the lab (observed unguided evolution degrades and loses information), and an extrapolation of the observed behavior of malaria to 4 or 5 coordinated mutations.

Once we establish that 4 or 5 coordinated mutations exceeds the observed capability of unguided evolution, then it becomes... yes... intuitively obvious... that a process that requires "billions and billions" of coordinated mutations also exceeds the observed capability of unguided evolution.

In contrast to my data driven argument, your argument is based on two enormous unverified assumptions:
Unguided evolution is capable of introducing enormous amounts of new complex functional code into the DNA of life on our planet.
A path of single uncoordinated beneficial selectable mutations is capable of producing the tree of life.

I keep coming back to this basic principle
"for me, observed behavior in the real world is much more compelling evidence than unverified speculation"

You say (numbering inserted):
“So my argument is based on
1. observed empirical evidence from nature (the exponential nature of coordinated mutations in malaria),
2. empirical evidence in the lab (observed unguided evolution degrades and loses information), and
3. an extrapolation of the observed behavior of malaria to 4 or 5 coordinated mutations.”

1. is OK
2. is a misunderstanding. I you read the article of Lenski, he doesn’t come to the same conclusion as you say.

Ok... so Behe and Lemski come to different conclusions...
Not much of a surprise there...

Does Lemski dispute the accuracy of this conclusion from Behe...
"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."

3. This is the most important issue. You extrapolate not only to 4 or 5 mutations but to millions of mutations. That has to be motivated. You have to show that the mechanism that is used to get the malaria mutation is the same mechanism that governs general evolution.

Malaria is an actual real world example of observable unguided evolution. Different organisms have different mutation rates, but the most important data point from the malaria example is the observed exponential relationship between the number of coordinated mutations and the rate at which an organism arrives at a specific beneficial selectable state that requires those coordinated mutations to "work together" to perform a specific function.

When we are dealing with exponential behavior, the difference between single digits and billions very rapidly becomes insurmountable even with expected variation.

I have presented data from observed unguided evolution in nature and in the lab.
You continue to complain about "assumptions", while presenting an argument that is nothing but unverified assumptions.

I'm still waiting for you to provide ANY observable empirical data to support your unverified assumptions.
Feel free to provide a real world example where empirically observed coordinated beneficial selectable mutations support your position.

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 7:40 am

Nils wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 6:34 am You say (numbering inserted):
“So my argument is based on
1. observed empirical evidence from nature (the exponential nature of coordinated mutations in malaria),
2. empirical evidence in the lab (observed unguided evolution degrades and loses information), and
3. an extrapolation of the observed behavior of malaria to 4 or 5 coordinated mutations.”

1. is OK
2. is a misunderstanding. I you read the article of Lenski, he doesn’t come to the same conclusion as you say.

Ok... so Behe and Lemski come to different conclusions...
Not much of a surprise there...

Does Lemski dispute the accuracy of this conclusion from Behe...
"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."

3. This is the most important issue. You extrapolate not only to 4 or 5 mutations but to millions of mutations. That has to be motivated. You have to show that the mechanism that is used to get the malaria mutation is the same mechanism that governs general evolution.

Malaria is an actual real world example of observable unguided evolution. Different organisms have different mutation rates, but the most important data point from the malaria example is the observed exponential relationship between the number of coordinated mutations and the rate at which an organism arrives at a specific beneficial selectable state that requires those coordinated mutations to "work together" to perform a specific function.

When we are dealing with exponential behavior, the difference between single digits and billions very rapidly becomes insurmountable even with expected variation.

I have presented data from observed unguided evolution in nature and in the lab.
You continue to complain about "assumptions", while presenting an argument that is nothing but unverified assumptions.

I'm still waiting for you to provide ANY observable empirical data to support your unverified assumptions.
Feel free to provide a real world example where empirically observed coordinated beneficial selectable mutations support your position.

Concerning bullet 2: You say “observed unguided evolution degrades and loses information“, I interpret this as information is lost in the long run. Behe in his article says “.. at the molecular level, loss-of-FCT and diminishing modification-of-function adaptive mutations predominate." Even if destructive mutations predominate, there are beneficial mutations and those are surviving.

Then we have to define some words.

With Coordinated mutations I mean mutations that are close in time. So close that they don’t disappear even if they aren’t beneficial.

With Unguided evolution I think you mean evolution that is guided by an intelligence. I also used the word in that way but it is a bit misleading because the evolution is in some way guided by nature through natural selection. In the future I will try to be more exact.

Now I’ll try to explain the mistake you are doing.. There are two different mechanisms (at least) at work during evolution. One is the about mutations that are not beneficial for survival. This is discussed in Lempski´s article and in the malaria case. In those cases there are two mutations that each isn’t beneficial but the two together are. There is no substantial influence of natural selection and the mathematics is simple. The probability of those two mutations to occur is approximately the product of the probabilities of each mutation. (You may call it exponential behaviour). It is important that they are coordinated in time. That means that the second mutation has to occur before the first disappears, for instance by genetic drift.

The other mechanism is different. It’s the standard mechanism in The Theory of Evolution, mutations AND natural selection. You tend to forget the latter. The mutations that are beneficial will survive (are selected) and are spreading to the whole population. If something extra is achieved by a second mutation there is no time limit between the first and the second because the first will remain because it is beneficial by it self. The two mutation don’t have to be coordinated in time. This mechanism is not unguided, it is guided by nature/environment through natural selection.
So there are two alternative mechanisms. The first is what is studied in the Lempsi experiment. The second is what is most common in natural selection even if the first occurs. It seems that you aren’t aware of this. What you have shown is that the first mechanism alone isn’t enough for evolution and that is correct.

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 8:54 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 7:40 am

Nils wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 6:34 am You say (numbering inserted):
“So my argument is based on
1. observed empirical evidence from nature (the exponential nature of coordinated mutations in malaria),
2. empirical evidence in the lab (observed unguided evolution degrades and loses information), and
3. an extrapolation of the observed behavior of malaria to 4 or 5 coordinated mutations.”

1. is OK
2. is a misunderstanding. I you read the article of Lenski, he doesn’t come to the same conclusion as you say.

Ok... so Behe and Lemski come to different conclusions...
Not much of a surprise there...

Does Lemski dispute the accuracy of this conclusion from Behe...
"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."

3. This is the most important issue. You extrapolate not only to 4 or 5 mutations but to millions of mutations. That has to be motivated. You have to show that the mechanism that is used to get the malaria mutation is the same mechanism that governs general evolution.

Malaria is an actual real world example of observable unguided evolution. Different organisms have different mutation rates, but the most important data point from the malaria example is the observed exponential relationship between the number of coordinated mutations and the rate at which an organism arrives at a specific beneficial selectable state that requires those coordinated mutations to "work together" to perform a specific function.

When we are dealing with exponential behavior, the difference between single digits and billions very rapidly becomes insurmountable even with expected variation.

I have presented data from observed unguided evolution in nature and in the lab.
You continue to complain about "assumptions", while presenting an argument that is nothing but unverified assumptions.

I'm still waiting for you to provide ANY observable empirical data to support your unverified assumptions.
Feel free to provide a real world example where empirically observed coordinated beneficial selectable mutations support your position.

Concerning bullet 2: You say “observed unguided evolution degrades and loses information“, I interpret this as information is lost in the long run. Behe in his article says “.. at the molecular level, loss-of-FCT and diminishing modification-of-function adaptive mutations predominate." Even if destructive mutations predominate, there are beneficial mutations and those are surviving.

Then we have to define some words.

That's a good idea.

With Coordinated mutations I mean mutations that are close in time. So close that they don’t disappear even if they aren’t beneficial.

When I refer to 'coordinated mutations', I am referring to whether or not two or more mutations work together to perform some sort of new function. The number of iterations or amount of time it takes for multiple mutations to work together is irrelevant to the definition of the term "coordinated mutations". The relevant issue to the definition of "coordinated mutations" is the functional aspect of two or more mutations working together... regardless of when or why they work together.

With Unguided evolution I think you mean evolution that is guided by an intelligence.

By unguided evolution I am referring to evolution that is caused by "random" mutation
As opposed to guided evolution which would be caused by guided non-random processes (or entities)

I do "assume" that empirically observed mutations, like malaria and Lemski's lab experiments, are unguided and involve "random mutations".

There are two different mechanisms (at least) at work during evolution. One is the about mutations that are not beneficial for survival. This is discussed in Lempski´s article and in the malaria case. In those cases there are two mutations that each isn’t beneficial but the two together are. There is no substantial influence of natural selection and the mathematics is simple. The probability of those two mutations to occur is approximately the product of the probabilities of each mutation. (You may call it exponential behaviour). It is important that they are coordinated in time. That means that the second mutation has to occur before the first disappears, for instance by genetic drift.

The other mechanism is different. It’s the standard mechanism in The Theory of Evolution, mutations AND natural selection. The mutations that are beneficial will survive (are selected) and are spreading to the whole population. If something extra is achieved by a second mutation there is no time limit between the first and the second because the first will remain because it is beneficial by it self. The two mutation don’t have to be coordinated in time.

This mechanism is not unguided, it is guided by nature/environment through natural selection.
So there are two alternative mechanisms. The first is what is studied in the Lempsi experiment. The second is what is most common in natural selection even if the first occurs. It seems that you aren’t aware of this. What you have shown is that the first mechanism alone isn’t enough for evolution and that is correct.

A couple of comments...

First we need to understand the roles of mutation and natural selection in evolution.
Mutation is the causal agent that introduces change. Natural selection doesn't "cause" any changes. Natural selection simply decides which mutations survive and which don't. So when I refer to guided or unguided I am referring to the causal agent of evolution, which is mutations.
in unguided evolution, "random" mutation provides natural selection something to select from.
In guided evolution, non-random or guided mutations provide natural selection something to select from.

As far as coordinated mutations goes, the question at hand is how long does it take for "random" unguided mutations (through any means) to produce coordinated beneficial mutations for natural selection to propagate. In malaria we have seen that a new selectable function requiring two coordinated mutations occurred at a rate of around 1 in 10^20. I have looked and have yet to find any examples of new selectable functions that were the function of 3 empirically observed coordinated mutations (whether by a single mutation or a series of multiple mutations).
If you have any empirically observed examples of 3 coordinated mutations I would love to see them.
However it is very possible that a path to 3 coordinated mutations (whether simultaneous or in a series of mutations) is empirically unobservable based on an extrapolated rate of around 1 in 10^30.

And this is the point Behe was making about Lemski's work. After years and years of evolution in the lab, we don't see evidence of "random" mutation producing new functions involving multiple coordinated mutations... even over time and many iterations.
We see just the opposite. The beneficial mutations coming out of Lemski's experiments show that beneficial mutations that are propagated by natural selection overwhelmingly degrade or remove genetic information.
Which contradicts the unverified assumption that "random" mutations are somehow able to regularly produce new complex coordinated code and functions in organisms.

Natural evolution according to the evolution theory is about evolution using mutations AND selection, mostly by creating mutations that are advantageous by themselves and then selected for.

The malaria case is about how two mutations that aren’t beneficial alone cooperate in some rare cases to create a new function.

Please explain how the malaria case (two mutations without selection) can say anything about the possibility of general evolution (single beneficial mutations that are selected for).

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:54 am Natural evolution according to the evolution theory is about evolution using mutations AND selection, mostly by creating mutations that are advantageous by themselves and then selected for.

Agreed

The malaria case is about how two mutations that aren’t beneficial alone cooperate in some rare cases to create a new function.

Please explain how the malaria case (two mutations without selection) can say anything about the possibility of general evolution (single beneficial mutations that are selected for).

Malaria gives us two specific data points.

It tells us how long it takes for "random" mutation (and natural selection) to provide resistance to atovaquone with a single uncoordinated mutation (1 in 10^12)
And it tells us how long it takes for random mutation (and natural selection) to provide resistance to chloroquine with two specific coordinated mutations (1 in 10^20)

We don't know if the chloroquine example involved simultaneous mutations or a series of mutations. We do not know that resistance to chloroquine involved "two mutations without selection"
All we know is the most efficient path to a new selectable function involving 2 coordinated mutations occurred at a rate of around 1 in 10^20.

And the most efficient rate that is capable of producing coordinated mutations is critical in determining whether or not there have been enough life forms in the history of life on our planet for specific functional coordinated mutations to have occurred using the empirically observed rate of "random" mutation (and natural selection).

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 6:33 am

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:54 am Natural evolution according to the evolution theory is about evolution using mutations AND selection, mostly by creating mutations that are advantageous by themselves and then selected for.

Agreed

The malaria case is about how two mutations that aren’t beneficial alone cooperate in some rare cases to create a new function.

Please explain how the malaria case (two mutations without selection) can say anything about the possibility of general evolution (single beneficial mutations that are selected for).

Malaria gives us two specific data points.

It tells us how long it takes for "random" mutation (and natural selection) to provide resistance to atovaquone with a single uncoordinated mutation (1 in 10^12)
And it tells us how long it takes for random mutation (and natural selection) to provide resistance to chloroquine with two specific coordinated mutations (1 in 10^20)

We don't know if the chloroquine example involved simultaneous mutations or a series of mutations. We do not know that resistance to chloroquine involved "two mutations without selection"

We know that the resistance to chloroquine did involve "mutations without selection" because:
Selection only works on mutations that are beneficial or disadvantageous. That’s what selection is about. Those individuals that have a beneficial mutation are better suited to survive and so they survive (they are selected by the environment). If a mutation is selected for, it follows that that mutation is spreading in the population. In the long run, there wouldn’t be a 1 in 10^12 figure of their presence. It would almost always be present. If the mutation is disadvantageous it will disappear. (In the following I will neglect disadvantageous mutations to simplify the discussion).
What is important is that the resistance to chloroquine is achieved by two mutations that both are not beneficial. None of them was common in the population (as they would if they were beneficial). That’s why the probability is as low as 1 in 10^20.

All we know is the most efficient path to a new selectable function involving 2 coordinated mutations occurred at a rate of around 1 in 10^20.

And the most efficient rate that is capable of producing coordinated mutations is critical in determining whether or not there have been enough life forms in the history of life on our planet for specific functional coordinated mutations to have occurred using the empirically observed rate of "random" mutation (and natural selection).

It’s here you are mistaken. Trying to explain this I have to go back to you definition of “coordinated” in #15: “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)”. I said OK to that definition earlier but now I find that it is unsatisfying. It is to diffuse. What do you mean by “work together”? In development of any function there may thousands or millions of mutations in the evolutionary path. Do you call all of these “coordinated”? Then every mutation that sooner or later is useful is coordinated. Then he term would be substituted by the term “useful”. However, what’s important is if they are beneficial or not.
If two non-benficial mutations A and B have to cooperate to create a function the probability for both existing is p(A) x p (B) where p stands for the probability which is about 10^-10 in the malaria case. If a mutation C is beneficial then p(C) may be as low as 10^-10 initially but when it has spread through the population it will become close to 1. If later D occurs with p(D) 10^-10 and the product p(C) x p(D) will become 1 x 10^-10 because p(C) is equal to 1. If the combination C and D is beneficial it will spread through the population and p(C) x p(D) will sooner or later also become close to 1. If a third mutation E occurs and the combination C, D, and E is beneficial the probability of that combination will become close to 1 etc etc.
This is a critical discussion so please ask if you don’t understand or object if you think this is wrong.

The conclusion is that the big difference is between two mutations that aren’t beneficial and two that are. Only to the former the exponential formula applies. And, as you say, evolution only using non-beneficial mutations is impossible. That’s why evolution is supposed to build in small steps on beneficial mutations.

Nils wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 1:45 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 6:33 am

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:54 am Natural evolution according to the evolution theory is about evolution using mutations AND selection, mostly by creating mutations that are advantageous by themselves and then selected for.

Agreed

The malaria case is about how two mutations that aren’t beneficial alone cooperate in some rare cases to create a new function.

Please explain how the malaria case (two mutations without selection) can say anything about the possibility of general evolution (single beneficial mutations that are selected for).

Malaria gives us two specific data points.

It tells us how long it takes for "random" mutation (and natural selection) to provide resistance to atovaquone with a single uncoordinated mutation (1 in 10^12)
And it tells us how long it takes for random mutation (and natural selection) to provide resistance to chloroquine with two specific coordinated mutations (1 in 10^20)

We don't know if the chloroquine example involved simultaneous mutations or a series of mutations. We do not know that resistance to chloroquine involved "two mutations without selection"

We know that the resistance to chloroquine did involve "mutations without selection" because:
Selection only works on mutations that are beneficial or disadvantageous. That’s what selection is about. Those individuals that have a beneficial mutation are better suited to survive and so they survive (they are selected by the environment). If a mutation is selected for, it follows that that mutation is spreading in the population. In the long run, there wouldn’t be a 1 in 10^12 figure of their presence. It would almost always be present. If the mutation is disadvantageous it will disappear. (In the following I will neglect disadvantageous mutations to simplify the discussion).
What is important is that the resistance to chloroquine is achieved by two mutations that both are not beneficial. None of them was common in the population (as they would if they were beneficial). That’s why the probability is as low as 1 in 10^20.

Like I said, I don't know for a fact if malaria's resistance to chloroquine is a result of simultaneous mutations or sequential mutations, so I'm not really in a position to argue one way or the other.
The significant data point for me is that a known example of evolution producing a new function involving 2 coordinated mutations occurs at a rate of 1 in 10^20.
I am unaware of any examples where two coordinated mutations produce a new function at a rate that is faster than 1 in 10^20... through either simultaneous or sequential mutations.
If you are aware of other examples, I would love to see them.

All we know is the most efficient path to a new selectable function involving 2 coordinated mutations occurred at a rate of around 1 in 10^20.

And the most efficient rate that is capable of producing coordinated mutations is critical in determining whether or not there have been enough life forms in the history of life on our planet for specific functional coordinated mutations to have occurred using the empirically observed rate of "random" mutation (and natural selection).

It’s here you are mistaken. Trying to explain this I have to go back to you definition of “coordinated” in #15: “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)”. I said OK to that definition earlier but now I find that it is unsatisfying. It is to diffuse. What do you mean by “work together”? In development of any function there may thousands or millions of mutations in the evolutionary path. Do you call all of these “coordinated”? Then every mutation that sooner or later is useful is coordinated. Then he term would be substituted by the term “useful”. However, what’s important is if they are beneficial or not.
If two non-benficial mutations A and B have to cooperate to create a function the probability for both existing is p(A) x p (B) where p stands for the probability which is about 10^-10 in the malaria case. If a mutation C is beneficial then p(C) may be as low as 10^-10 initially but when it has spread through the population it will become close to 1. If later D occurs with p(D) 10^-10 and the product p(C) x p(D) will become 1 x 10^-10 because p(C) is equal to 1. If the combination C and D is beneficial it will spread through the population and p(C) x p(D) will sooner or later also become close to 1. If a third mutation E occurs and the combination C, D, and E is beneficial the probability of that combination will become close to 1 etc etc.
This is a critical discussion so please ask if you don’t understand or object if you think this is wrong.

The conclusion is that the big difference is between two mutations that aren’t beneficial and two that are. Only to the former the exponential formula applies. And, as you say, evolution only using non-beneficial mutations is impossible. That’s why evolution is supposed to build in small steps on beneficial mutations.

I understand your premise, but I don't see any empirical evidence to support your premise.
Your premise presumes that sequential mutations will produce a new function involving coordinated mutations at a faster rate than coordinated simultaneous mutations.
You also presume that the observed 1 in 10^20 rate of 2 coordinated mutations is due to it being a simultaneous mutation.
And you also presume that two sequential selectable mutations that produce a new function will occur at a rate that is much faster than the 1 in 10^20 rate for resistance to chloroquine.

If your assumptions are factually accurate then we should have expected to observe many sequential coordinated mutations producing a new function at a much faster rate within the time it took us to observe malaria developing resistance to chloroquine.
The other possibility is that sequential mutations may not produce new a new function involving coordinated mutations any faster than simultaneous mutations.

The ONLY empirically observed data point I have for 2 coordinated mutations producing a new function is 1 in 10^20.
I have seen no empirical evidence to indicate that a significantly faster rate is possible.

Again... If you have evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.