Evidence for God from Science

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:14 am

Nils wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 12:47 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:37 am For me the strongest arguments against the adequacy of Darwinistic Evolution come from 40 years of experimentation demonstrating what random mutation and natural selection can and cannot do at the molecular level.

In 2010 Michael Behe wrote an interesting paper for The Quarterly Review of Biology titled “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’”
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/96cf/d ... 1536717721

From the Abstract of the Article

Adaptive evolution can cause a species to gain, lose, or modify a function; therefore, it is of
basic interest to determine whether any of these modes dominates the evolutionary process under
particular circumstances. Because mutation occurs at the molecular level, it is necessary to
examine the molecular changes produced by the underlying mutation in order to assess whether
a given adaptation is best considered as a gain, loss, or modification of function. Although that
was once impossible, the advance of molecular biology in the past half century has made it
feasible. In this paper, I review molecular changes underlying some adaptations, with a particular
emphasis on evolutionary experiments with microbes conducted over the past four decades.
I show that by far the most common adaptive changes seen in those examples are due to the loss
or modification of a pre-existing molecular function, and I discuss the possible reasons for the
prominence of such mutations.

From the Conclusion

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

FCTs as defined by Behe are:

In this review, I focus on adaptive evolution by gain, loss, or modification of what I term Functional Coded elemenTs (FCTs). An FCT is a discrete but not necessarily contiguous region of a gene that, by means of its nucleotide sequence, influences the production, processing, or biological activity of a particular nucleic acid or protein, or its specific binding to another molecule.

A high level overview of Behe's article can be found here:
https://evolutionnews.org/2010/12/micha ... ule_of_ad/

Here are a couple of key points

” In essence, what Behe means is that mutations that cause loss-of-FCT are going to be far more likely and thus far more common than those which gain a functional coding element. In fact, he writes: “the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that would arise from the diminishment or elimination of the activity of a protein is expected to be 100-1000 times the rate of appearance of an adaptive mutation that requires specific changes to a gene.”

In short, the logical outcome of Behe’s finding is that some process other than natural selection and random mutation must be generating new FCTs. If Darwinian evolution is at work, it tends to remove FCTs much faster than it creates them — something else must be generating the information for new FCTs.

The bottom line is forty years of evolutionary experiments have demonstrated that at the molecular level, the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection are incapable of producing either the complexity and structure that we find in the DNA of life today or the changes that we find in the fossil record.

I have no problem with Bele’s article. But I have a problem with your interpretation. Why do you leave out the rest of the conclusion:
“In retrospect, this conclusion is readily understandable from our knowledge of the structure of genetic systems, and is concisely summarized by the first rule of adaptive evolution. Evolution has myriad facets, and this one is worthy of some notice.” [italics added by me]

I have no problem with the rest of the conclusion that you quote.

And nothing in your quote conflicts with the conclusion:
"In short, the logical outcome of Behe’s finding is that some process other than natural selection and random mutation must be generating new FCTs. If Darwinian evolution is at work, it tends to remove FCTs much faster than it creates them — something else must be generating the information for new FCTs."

I don’t understand what you write. In Behe´s comclusion (10 lines above) he says that his findings are a part of the myriads facets of evolution. In the Discovery/Luskin article the conclusion (just above) says that something else than evolution is needed. The statements are contradictory.

DBowling wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:14 am

Why do you cite a Discovery Institute article that misinterprets the article (without mentioning the source, Discovery Institute, which is the headquarter of the Intelligent Design movement).
If what you say is a generally accepted opinion then the problem for evolution would be widely described and analysed in hundreds of scientific articles and in current books on evolution and I don’t find anything about it in Wikipedia for instance. Do you?

I quote a Discovery Institute article, because Michael Behe (the author of the The Quarterly Review of Biology article in question) is a member of the Discovery Institute.
And the Discovery Institute article accurately represents the position of the author, Michael Behe.

Perhaps the Discovery Institute article accurately represents Behe’s position, but it doesn’t represent the contents of Behe’s article in The Quarterly Rewiev.

You didn’t answer my question about Wikipedia.
Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:14 am I don’t understand what you write. In Behe´s comclusion (10 lines above) he says that his findings are a part of the myriads facets of evolution. In the Discovery/Luskin article the conclusion (just above) says that something else than evolution is needed. The statements are contradictory.

They aren't contradictory...

One of the "myriad facets of evolution" is (to quote from Behe's article)
"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."

This "facet of evolution" that Behe discusses in his article leads to the conclusion given in the Discovery Institute summary.
"In short, the logical outcome of Behe’s finding is that some process other than natural selection and random mutation must be generating new FCTs. If Darwinian evolution is at work, it tends to remove FCTs much faster than it creates them — something else must be generating the information for new FCTs."

40 years of experimentation have shown what the naturalistic processes of Darwinian evolution can and cannot do at the molecular level.
And Michael Behe has been investigating what the Darwinian processes of random mutation and natural selection can and cannot do for a number of years now.

In 2008 Behe wrote the following book:
The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism


And in February of next year (2019) Behe will be putting out another book which explores this topic even further:
Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA that Challenges Evolution


In Darwin Devolves, Behe advances his argument, presenting new research that offers a startling reconsideration of how Darwin’s mechanism works, weakening the theory’s validity even more.
A system of natural selection acting on random mutation, evolution can help make something look and act differently. But evolution never creates something organically. Behe contends that Darwinism actually works by a process of devolution—damaging cells in DNA in order to create something new at the lowest biological levels. This is important, he makes clear, because it shows the Darwinian process cannot explain the creation of life itself. “A process that so easily tears down sophisticated machinery is not one which will build complex, functional systems,” he writes.

You didn’t answer my question about Wikipedia.

Because I don't see where the Wikipedia article provides experimental evidence to rebut either:

From Michael Behe's article:
"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."

Or from the Discovery Institute article:
"In short, the logical outcome of Behe’s finding is that some process other than natural selection and random mutation must be generating new FCTs. If Darwinian evolution is at work, it tends to remove FCTs much faster than it creates them — something else must be generating the information for new FCTs."

And, of course, none of this explains the far more important question as to why there came into existence a universe that many billions of years before did not exist or how there could have been any simple biological life to begin evolving in the first place, along with just the right conditions and essential components It all would have required. Trying to explain how blind, non-intelligent things were capable of the extraordinary and complex is far easier to explain than why and how the many necessary things that long before came into existence which simple life and thus evolution would have not been possible without. Because as massively complex and magical evolution would have been, that would be the much easier thing to explain, as it would have been a far secondary and entirely dependent upon the sudeen coming into existence of those first things of incredible designs, functionalities, and amazing interactions on an unfathomable scale.

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:48 am And, of course, none of this explains the far more important question as to why there came into existence a universe that many billions of years before did not exist or how there could have been any simple biological life to begin evolving in the first place, along with just the right conditions and essential components It all would have required. Trying to explain how blind, non-intelligent things were capable of the extraordinary and complex is far easier to explain than why and how the many necessary things that long before came into existence which simple life and thus evolution would have not been possible without. Because as massively complex and magical evolution would have been, that would be the much easier thing to explain, as it would have been a far secondary and entirely dependent upon the sudeen coming into existence of those first things of incredible designs, functionalities, and amazing interactions on an unfathomable scale.

It appears that this universe came from another physical one. If so that would not mean the bible is false.

Kid: It appears that this universe came from another physical one.

And so, Kid, the established proof of this is where exactly?

Oh, and by the way, where did THAT one come from - as you've only kicked the can of questions down the cosmic road with such an assertion!

Philip wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:52 am

Kid: It appears that this universe came from another physical one.

And so, Kid, the established proof of this is where exactly?

Oh, and by the way, where did THAT one come from - as you've only kicked the can of questions down the cosmic road with such an assertion!

Oh, I mean the theory well more of a hypothesis but still-of the inflation theory.
What I'm asserting is that ultimately it doesn't matter if this universe was the first physical as I can read in some of y'alls posts, since God made the heavens and the earth in the beginning.
There is this, but funny how we humans with our pea brains already knew this LONG before: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4219 ... universes/

As far as other universes, there exists absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest such. But COULD they have existed independently, unconnected, having been created and come and gone before our universe and time, God's purposes for them already realized? Of course...MAYBE. God is an eternal Being Who loves to create - whether in other dimensions or wherever. We must always remember that the Bible was given to mankind and it ONLY addresses OUR universe, time and world. It is silent about whatever God may have created before it. We might live in the first and only physical universe He has created - or maybe there were others. We can't know. But we can know that God never changes and He loves to create. And so an eternal Being that loves to create has always created. Our universe is but one thing God has created - and so why would we suppose He's not been creating for eternity past? Does a great artist, still finding joy in painting, stop after just a few dozen paintings? Course not! Does a talented songwriter stop after writing just a few songs? Now, apply unlimited ability to an eternal Being and perhaps you begin to realize the possibilities that God's capabilities and creative nature make possible. There are many mysteries to what God has done before our time. And He is everywhere at once - cannot be contained. We need to enlarge our thinking about God's capabilities and eternalness!

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:07 am

Nils wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:14 am I don’t understand what you write. In Behe´s comclusion (10 lines above) he says that his findings are a part of the myriads facets of evolution. In the Discovery/Luskin article the conclusion (just above) says that something else than evolution is needed. The statements are contradictory.

They aren't contradictory...

One of the "myriad facets of evolution" is (to quote from Behe's article)
"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."

This "facet of evolution" that Behe discusses in his article leads to the conclusion given in the Discovery Institute summary.
"In short, the logical outcome of Behe’s finding is that some process other than natural selection and random mutation must be generating new FCTs. If Darwinian evolution is at work, it tends to remove FCTs much faster than it creates them — something else must be generating the information for new FCTs."

This certainly does NOT follow from Behe’s article. He writes, page 439:
“The first rule, gleaned from laboratory evolution experiments, can be used to interpret data from evolution in nature, including human genetic mutations in response to selective pressure by malaria (Table 1). Hundreds of distinct mutations are known that diminish the activities of G6PD or the alpha- or beta- chains of hemoglobin, leading to thalassemia. Yet it is estimated that the gain-of-FCT mutation leading to sickle hemoglobin has arisen independently only a few times, or perhaps just once, within the past 10,000 years (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). Thus, loss-of-FCT adaptive mutations in this situation appeared several orders of magnitude more frequently than did a gain-of-FCT mutation. Nonetheless, the sickle hemoglobin mutation did arise and spread in a regional population. Therefore, if a gain-of-FCT mutation such as the sickle gene has a sufficiently large selection coefficient, then, even though adaptive loss-of-FCT mutations arrive more rapidly and in greater numbers, it is possible for the gain-of-FCT mutation to outcompete them.”
This is according to the standard evolution theory. Mutations that are bad for an individual will be inherited in a smaller extent because the probability for survival is smaller than in the normal population and therefore the bad mutations will disappear eventually. On the other hand, mutations that increases the probability for survival will be inherited in a larger extent. There is no need for the positive mutations to outnumber the negative ones.

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:07 am

You didn’t answer my question about Wikipedia.

Because I don't see where the Wikipedia article provides experimental evidence to rebut either:

From Michael Behe's article:
"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."

Or from the Discovery Institute article:
"In short, the logical outcome of Behe’s finding is that some process other than natural selection and random mutation must be generating new FCTs. If Darwinian evolution is at work, it tends to remove FCTs much faster than it creates them — something else must be generating the information for new FCTs."

I asked about the Wikipedia article because if you were right that “some process other than natural selection and random mutation must generating new FCTs”, then this would be a sensational result and would cause an extensive discussion in the Wikipedia article about evolution. But I can’t find any at all. This seems to indicate the few professionals agree with you.
Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:06 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:07 am One of the "myriad facets of evolution" is (to quote from Behe's article)
"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."

This "facet of evolution" that Behe discusses in his article leads to the conclusion given in the Discovery Institute summary.
"In short, the logical outcome of Behe’s finding is that some process other than natural selection and random mutation must be generating new FCTs. If Darwinian evolution is at work, it tends to remove FCTs much faster than it creates them — something else must be generating the information for new FCTs."

This certainly does NOT follow from Behe’s article.

Sure it does...

He writes, page 439:
“The first rule, gleaned from laboratory evolution experiments, can be used to interpret data from evolution in nature, including human genetic mutations in response to selective pressure by malaria (Table 1). Hundreds of distinct mutations are known that diminish the activities of G6PD or the alpha- or beta- chains of hemoglobin, leading to thalassemia. Yet it is estimated that the gain-of-FCT mutation leading to sickle hemoglobin has arisen independently only a few times, or perhaps just once, within the past 10,000 years (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). Thus, loss-of-FCT adaptive mutations in this situation appeared several orders of magnitude more frequently than did a gain-of-FCT mutation. Nonetheless, the sickle hemoglobin mutation did arise and spread in a regional population. Therefore, if a gain-of-FCT mutation such as the sickle gene has a sufficiently large selection coefficient, then, even though adaptive loss-of-FCT mutations arrive more rapidly and in greater numbers, it is possible for the gain-of-FCT mutation to outcompete them.”

And this supports the point that Behe (as well as the Discovery Institute) is making.

The scope and frequency of the gain of FTP mutation that Behe has noted is totally incompatible with the scope and frequency of mutations that are required at the molecular level to produce the changes in the fossil record or the complexity and structure that we find in the life of DNA today.

The difference that Behe has observed is "several orders of magnitude".
The Discovery Institute article is absolutely correct,
"If Darwinian evolution is at work, it tends to remove FCTs much faster ('several orders of magnitude' faster according to Behe's article) than it creates them — something else must be generating the information for new FCTs."

I asked about the Wikipedia article because if you were right that “some process other than natural selection and random mutation must generating new FCTs”, then this would be a sensational result and would cause an extensive discussion in the Wikipedia article about evolution.

You are right about one thing here... it is 'sensational'.
Observing how random mutation and natural selection work at the molecular level has definitely produced some 'sensational results'. And as a result, many evolutionary scientists (other than Behe) are actively trying to identify processes other than random mutation and natural selection that could possibly explain the generation of new FCTs that evolution requires.

Wikipedia is just not up to speed on the implications of the latest experiments of evolution at the molecular level.

Genetic research does provide scientific support for the principle of 'common descent'.
Natural selection provides a mechanism for the 'survival of the fittest'.
But experiments on evolution have demonstrated that 'random mutation' (or any other observed 'naturalistic' process) is a totally inadequate process for generating the new FCTs at the molecular level that the required by evolutionary theory.

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:06 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:06 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:07 am One of the "myriad facets of evolution" is (to quote from Behe's article)
"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."

This "facet of evolution" that Behe discusses in his article leads to the conclusion given in the Discovery Institute summary.
"In short, the logical outcome of Behe’s finding is that some process other than natural selection and random mutation must be generating new FCTs. If Darwinian evolution is at work, it tends to remove FCTs much faster than it creates them — something else must be generating the information for new FCTs."

This certainly does NOT follow from Behe’s article.

Sure it does...

He writes, page 439:
“The first rule, gleaned from laboratory evolution experiments, can be used to interpret data from evolution in nature, including human genetic mutations in response to selective pressure by malaria (Table 1). Hundreds of distinct mutations are known that diminish the activities of G6PD or the alpha- or beta- chains of hemoglobin, leading to thalassemia. Yet it is estimated that the gain-of-FCT mutation leading to sickle hemoglobin has arisen independently only a few times, or perhaps just once, within the past 10,000 years (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). Thus, loss-of-FCT adaptive mutations in this situation appeared several orders of magnitude more frequently than did a gain-of-FCT mutation. Nonetheless, the sickle hemoglobin mutation did arise and spread in a regional population. Therefore, if a gain-of-FCT mutation such as the sickle gene has a sufficiently large selection coefficient, then, even though adaptive loss-of-FCT mutations arrive more rapidly and in greater numbers, it is possible for the gain-of-FCT mutation to outcompete them.”

And this supports the point that Behe (as well as the Discovery Institute) is making.

Please show me where Behe in his The Quarterly article writes that the conclusion is “If Darwinian evolution is at work, it tends to remove FCTs much faster than it creates them — something else must be generating the information for new FCTs." or something similar.

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:06 pm
The scope and frequency of the gain of FTP mutation that Behe has noted is totally incompatible with the scope and frequency of mutations that are required at the molecular level to produce the changes in the fossil record or the complexity and structure that we find in the life of DNA today.

The difference that Behe has observed is "several orders of magnitude".
The Discovery Institute article is absolutely correct,
"If Darwinian evolution is at work, it tends to remove FCTs much faster ('several orders of magnitude' faster according to Behe's article) than it creates them — something else must be generating the information for new FCTs."

You confuse two things. Behe’s article is about the relation between beneficial and deleterious mutations. You and Discovery institute make conclusions of the speed of beneficial mutations. That’s a completely different thing.

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:06 pm

I asked about the Wikipedia article because if you were right that “some process other than natural selection and random mutation must generating new FCTs”, then this would be a sensational result and would cause an extensive discussion in the Wikipedia article about evolution.

You are right about one thing here... it is 'sensational'.
Observing how random mutation and natural selection work at the molecular level has definitely produced some 'sensational results'. And as a result, many evolutionary scientists (other than Behe) are actively trying to identify processes other than random mutation and natural selection that could possibly explain the generation of new FCTs that evolution requires.

Wikipedia is just not up to speed on the implications of the latest experiments of evolution at the molecular level.

Genetic research does provide scientific support for the principle of 'common descent'.
Natural selection provides a mechanism for the 'survival of the fittest'.
But experiments on evolution have demonstrated that 'random mutation' (or any other observed 'naturalistic' process) is a totally inadequate process for generating the new FCTs at the molecular level that the required by evolutionary theory.

Please give some reference that supports the last statement. Preferably a reference to a scientific article in a peer reviewed journal.
Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:26 am Please show me where Behe in his The Quarterly article writes that the conclusion is “If Darwinian evolution is at work, it tends to remove FCTs much faster than it creates them — something else must be generating the information for new FCTs." or something similar.

Let's start with what the Discovery Institute Article actually says:
"In short, the logical outcome of Behe’s finding is that some process other than natural selection and random mutation must be generating new FCTs. If Darwinian evolution is at work, it tends to remove FCTs much faster than it creates them — something else must be generating the information for new FCTs."

The Discovery Institute article states that "the logical outcome" of Behe’s finding is that some process other than natural selection and random mutation must be generating new FCTs.
That conclusion in the Discovery Institute Article is an accurate statement regarding the "logical outcome" of Behe's article.

Specific quotes from Behe's article that point to this "logical outcome" are:
"Yet it is estimated that the gain-of-FCT mutation leading to sickle hemoglobin has arisen independently only a few times, or perhaps just once, within the past 10,000 years (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). Thus, loss-of-FCT adaptive mutations in this situation appeared several orders of magnitude more frequently than did a gain-of-FCT mutation."
and
"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."

In a Discovery Institute article on his book "The Edge of Evolution", Michael Behe emphasizes this fundamental principle of evolution yet again:
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/11/best_of_behe_a/
"To summarize, my argument concerns the evolutionary construction of biochemical features of specificity similar to malarial chloroquine resistance. The little-appreciated point I wanted to emphasize is that the likelihood of success decreases enormously if even a single mutational step of a pathway is disfavored. With more such steps, its improbability becomes prohibitive."

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:06 pm Genetic research does provide scientific support for the principle of 'common descent'.
Natural selection provides a mechanism for the 'survival of the fittest'.
But experiments on evolution have demonstrated that 'random mutation' (or any other observed 'naturalistic' process) is a totally inadequate process for generating the new FCTs at the molecular level that the required by evolutionary theory.

Please give some reference that supports the last statement.

Two good sources of information would be the book and article by Michael Behe that we've been discussing
1. The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism

2. “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’”
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/96cf/d ... 1536717721

this is why most people agree with theistic/deistic evolution

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:07 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 12:26 am Please show me where Behe in his The Quarterly article writes that the conclusion is “If Darwinian evolution is at work, it tends to remove FCTs much faster than it creates them — something else must be generating the information for new FCTs." or something similar.

Let's start with what the Discovery Institute Article actually says:
"In short, the logical outcome of Behe’s finding is that some process other than natural selection and random mutation must be generating new FCTs. If Darwinian evolution is at work, it tends to remove FCTs much faster than it creates them — something else must be generating the information for new FCTs."

The Discovery Institute article states that "the logical outcome" of Behe’s finding is that some process other than natural selection and random mutation must be generating new FCTs.
That conclusion in the Discovery Institute Article is an accurate statement regarding the "logical outcome" of Behe's article.

Specific quotes from Behe's article that point to this "logical outcome" are:
"Yet it is estimated that the gain-of-FCT mutation leading to sickle hemoglobin has arisen independently only a few times, or perhaps just once, within the past 10,000 years (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). Thus, loss-of-FCT adaptive mutations in this situation appeared several orders of magnitude more frequently than did a gain-of-FCT mutation."
and
"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."

This “logical outcome” is erroneous as I written several times and I have tried to explain why. If you don’t understand my explanation then ask and I will try to explain in more detail. But stop just repeating your misunderstanding. Behe doesn’t agree with you either, see below.

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:07 pm In a Discovery Institute article on his book "The Edge of Evolution", Michael Behe emphasizes this fundamental principle of evolution yet again:
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/11/best_of_behe_a/
"To summarize, my argument concerns the evolutionary construction of biochemical features of specificity similar to malarial chloroquine resistance. The little-appreciated point I wanted to emphasize is that the likelihood of success decreases enormously if even a single mutational step of a pathway is disfavored. With more such steps, its improbability becomes prohibitive."

Now Behe is talking of “more such steps” i.e. two or more consecutive steps, not a single step that he is discussing in the Quarterly article. That is logically OK even if he is wrong for other reasons.

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:07 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:06 pm Genetic research does provide scientific support for the principle of 'common descent'.
Natural selection provides a mechanism for the 'survival of the fittest'.
But experiments on evolution have demonstrated that 'random mutation' (or any other observed 'naturalistic' process) is a totally inadequate process for generating the new FCTs at the molecular level that the required by evolutionary theory.

Please give some reference that supports the last statement.

Two good sources of information would be the book and article by Michael Behe that we've been discussing
1. The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism

2. “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’”
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/96cf/d ... 1536717721

I wrote “Please give some reference that supports the last statement. Preferably a reference to a scientific article in a peer reviewed journal.”. I know that the statement comes from Behe but the only new reference you give is to Behe’s own book. Not very convincing. Why do you chose to trust Behe instead of thousands of evolution scientist that don’t see the problems you see with the evolution theory. For instance The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 was given to scientists that used evolutionary mechanisms to generate now enzymes https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemi ... s-release/.
Nils

thatkidakayoungguy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 11:12 am this is why most people agree with theistic/deistic evolution

Well, misunderstanding or ignorance of evolution is rather common.
Nils

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Oct 07, 2018 1:58 pm This “logical outcome” is erroneous as I written several times and I have tried to explain why. If you don’t understand my explanation then ask and I will try to explain in more detail. But stop just repeating your misunderstanding.
Behe doesn’t agree with you either.

Asserting that the logical outcome of the Discovery Institute article is erroneous does not make it erroneous. That is just an inaccurate assertion on your part.
The Discovery Institute article is factually accurate, and it is also consistent with Behe's other published works, such as Edge of Evolution.

I'm not the one disagreeing with Behe here.

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 4:07 pm Genetic research does provide scientific support for the principle of 'common descent'.
Natural selection provides a mechanism for the 'survival of the fittest'.
But experiments on evolution have demonstrated that 'random mutation' (or any other observed 'naturalistic' process) is a totally inadequate process for generating the new FCTs at the molecular level that the required by evolutionary theory.

Please give some reference that supports the last statement.

Two good sources of information would be the book and article by Michael Behe that we've been discussing
1. The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism

2. “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’”
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/96cf/d ... 1536717721

I wrote “Please give some reference that supports the last statement. Preferably a reference to a scientific article in a peer reviewed journal.”. I know that the statement comes from Behe but the only new reference you give is to Behe’s own book. Not very convincing.

Well I referenced a peer reviewed article by Behe and a book by Behe that deals with a similar topic.

You have already said that you had no problems with Behe's article. So Edge of Evolution (written by the same author) should be a 'convincing' source of information to clear up which of us is accurately representing what Behe is claiming in his peer reviewed article.

So have you read Edge of Evolution by Behe?

Why do you chose to trust Behe instead of thousands of evolution scientist that don’t see the problems you see with the evolution theory.

I trust Behe, because Behe has actually analyzed what evolution can and cannot do at the molecular level based on actual experimentation.

And Behe is not the only scientist questioning the adequacy of random mutation either.
https://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewD ... oad&id=660

For instance The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 was given to scientists that used evolutionary mechanisms to generate now enzymes https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemi ... s-release/.

The evolutionary mechanism used by the Nobel Prize winners is 'directed evolution'.
"Directed evolution (DE) is a method used in protein engineering that mimics the process of natural selection to steer proteins or nucleic acids toward a user-defined goal."

Directed evolution by definition is not random mutation.

Behe is not questioning the principle of natural selection.
Behe is pointing out that decades of evolutionary experiments have demonstrated that random mutation is an inadequate process to produce the changes at the molecular level that are required for evolution to occur.

Behe embraces natural selection.
Behe even embraces common descent.
However, based on decades of evolutionary experimentation (which Behe lays out in his peer reviewed article), Behe rejects the adequacy of random mutation.