RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[neo-x]

Yes and why can't a transitional creature not be fully formed ?
Is that some kind of law of science that says this ?

I guess someone forgot to tell this to those poor fruit flies that took part of that 80 year failed macroevolution study that produced absolutely nothing of value

I doubt Bippy, that 80 years is enough on any biological scale, and the purpose of the study wasn't to prove macro-evolution. It was to see gene mutations. Infact, some of the results were very interesting and insightful.

It's good to see you post.

Thanks Neo , I'm trying to post here and there in between slot of hours of working
I believe that the biologists in the fruit fly study found a way to accelerate the time of evolution to the equivalent of 1 million years .

I forgot the technique they used but I clearly remember them talking about it .

Michael Behe was recently vindicated when he stated that bacteria that
Formed a resistance to chloroquine needed a minimum of 2 mutations to accomplish this and the odds are 10 to the 40th power based on the number of cells needed for this to happen . And since each year 10 to the 30th bacterial cells are formed even if you count every year since life began your still under the 10 to the 40th mark needed for this to happen .

Behe was totally vindicated on the point that it's extremely unlikely for chloroquine resistance to happen through natural evolution alone .

When he first made this point the talking heads of evolution basically called him a loon . 2 years ago evolutionary biologists themselves vindicated him on this .

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so ... 87901.html

Recall that the odds against getting two necessary, independent mutations are the multiplied odds for getting each mutation individually. What if a problem arose that required a cluster of mutations that was twice as complicated as a CCC? (Let's call it a double CCC.) For example, what if instead of the several amino acid changes needed for chloroquine resistance in malaria, twice that number were needed? In that case the odds would be that for a CCC times itself. Instead of 1020 cells to solve the evolutionary problem, we would need 1040 cells. Workers at the University of Georgia have estimated that about a billion billion trillion (1030) bacterial cells are formed on the earth each and every year. ... If that number has been the same over the entire several-billion-year history of the world, then throughout the course of history there would have been slightly fewer than 1040 cells, a bit less than we'd expect to need to get a double CCC. The conclusion, then, is that the odds are slightly against even one double CCC showing up by Darwinian processes in the entire course of life on earth.
(Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, p. 135 (Free Press, 2007).)

Remember neo that Behe isn't the typical iDist . He also believes in common descent .
Next post will show how his critics treated him at first and later on

I appreciate the nuanced point Bippy. But you also have to look at other things. For example, whale evolution and shark evolution are totally different. Sharks have evolved little over 400 million years whereas the whales have.

Even the evolution of eyes in various forms of earth have evolved independently.

And I also think that the kind of ID Behe proposes might serve a scientific notion but it doesn't satisfy a theological one. Why should God intervene in such minute cases, not merely to hold the illusion of ID true? I hope not. It just defeats the whole point of creation in the first place. It is so inconsequential that I really don't see the significance of it anymore.

[Audie]

Yes and why can't a transitional creature not be fully formed ?
Is that some kind of law of science that says this ?

I guess someone forgot to tell this to those poor fruit flies that took part of that 80 year failed macroevolution study that produced absolutely nothing of value

I doubt Bippy, that 80 years is enough on any biological scale, and the purpose of the study wasn't to prove macro-evolution. It was to see gene mutations. Infact, some of the results were very interesting and insightful.

It's good to see you post.

Thanks Neo , I'm trying to post here and there in between slot of hours of working
I believe that the biologists in the fruit fly study found a way to accelerate the time of evolution to the equivalent of 1 million years .

I forgot the technique they used but I clearly remember them talking about it .

Michael Behe was recently vindicated when he stated that bacteria that
Formed a resistance to chloroquine needed a minimum of 2 mutations to accomplish this and the odds are 10 to the 40th power based on the number of cells needed for this to happen . And since each year 10 to the 30th bacterial cells are formed even if you count every year since life began your still under the 10 to the 40th mark needed for this to happen .

Behe was totally vindicated on the point that it's extremely unlikely for chloroquine resistance to happen through natural evolution alone .

When he first made this point the talking heads of evolution basically called him a loon . 2 years ago evolutionary biologists themselves vindicated him on this .

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/so ... 87901.html

Recall that the odds against getting two necessary, independent mutations are the multiplied odds for getting each mutation individually. What if a problem arose that required a cluster of mutations that was twice as complicated as a CCC? (Let's call it a double CCC.) For example, what if instead of the several amino acid changes needed for chloroquine resistance in malaria, twice that number were needed? In that case the odds would be that for a CCC times itself. Instead of 1020 cells to solve the evolutionary problem, we would need 1040 cells. Workers at the University of Georgia have estimated that about a billion billion trillion (1030) bacterial cells are formed on the earth each and every year. ... If that number has been the same over the entire several-billion-year history of the world, then throughout the course of history there would have been slightly fewer than 1040 cells, a bit less than we'd expect to need to get a double CCC. The conclusion, then, is that the odds are slightly against even one double CCC showing up by Darwinian processes in the entire course of life on earth.
(Michael Behe, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, p. 135 (Free Press, 2007).)

Remember neo that Behe isn't the typical iDist . He also believes in common descent .
Next post will show how his critics treated him at first and later on

I appreciate the nuanced point Bippy. But you also have to look at other things. For example, whale evolution and shark evolution are totally different. Sharks have evolved little over 400 million years whereas the whales have.

Even the evolution of eyes in various forms of earth have evolved independently.

And I also think that the kind of ID Behe proposes might serve a scientific notion but it doesn't satisfy a theological one. Why should God intervene in such minute cases, not merely to hold the illusion of ID true? I hope not. It just defeats the whole point of creation in the first place. It is so inconsequential that I really don't see the significance of it anymore.

What is your take on the statistical things Behe proposes? Some of our friends think it is the smoking nail in the evolution coffin; "Totally vindicated", as in that he has shown ID is essential, proven,
true.

A review of "Edge" that is not much like a vindication https://ncse.com/library-resource/review-edge-evolution

I guess I'd have to see vindication on any substantive point spoken of
in a respectable publication, not a creosite.

[bippy123]

Audie as far as the numbers those are taken straight from the population of malaria, they aren't numbers that are tweaked or proposed . This is a devastating takedown for a malaria adaptation occurring by blind Darwinian forces . Why do you think pz Myers conceded this ?

Myers is the most vociferous and dogmatic Darwinian of them all and he had no choice but to concede it . How do you play with the numbers that come straight from the population itself ?

[bippy123]

Also audi check the date of this review .it basically made the same arguments behes opponents made against behes assertion that 2 mutations were needed for chloroquine resistance . These refutations were demolished by evolutionary biologists themselves in a study in 2014 which is in the link I posted .

Notice that the national Academy of Sciences doesn't address this at all

This shows that the current paradigm has a bias just like most human beings do .

This isn't creationism , this is science and if it's science why isn't behes vindication taught in biology classes at the university level ?

If Darwinian evolutionists are honest with themselves they would admit that Behe is a formidable opponent to Darwinian evolution not to be taken lightly .

The article also lies when it says that Behe has changed his mind and now accepts common descent .behe has always stated that he has no problem with common descent . He never CHANGED his mind .

If there is simply not even enough organisms in the history of life to allow for even these 2 mutations to occur By blind Darwinian forces how could the plethora of life firmed and the massive amount of multiple mutations could have come about ?

The only other reasonable explanation is that some intelligent being with immense power and intellect produced all of this

Sounds uncomfortably like God doesn't it

[bippy123]

But as far as totally proven ? No but it tips the scales heavily on ID's side .
I came to ID from Stephen Meyers signature in the cell but it is this argument from Behe that gives me massive confidence in ID even though my views on the possibilities of how it happened have loosened up a bit . I owe some of that to Rick on this forum and most of it to behe .

[bippy123]

Audie , these are behes views on evolution and intelligent design .

http://www.discovery.org/a/4097

The book’s subtitle speaks of the “limits of Darwinism.” Are you saying that Darwin’s theory is completely wrong?
Not at all. It is an excellent explanation for some features of life, but it has sharp limits. Darwin’s theory is an amalgam of several concepts: 1) random mutation, 2) natural selection, and 3) common descent. Common descent and natural selection are very well-supported. Random mutation isn’t. Random mutation is severely constrained. So the process which produced the elegant structures of life could not have been random.

How does intelligent design differ from the prevailing Darwinist view of evolution?
To a surprising extent prevailing evolutionary theory and intelligent design are harmonious. Both agree that the universe and life unfolded over vast ages; both agree that species could follow species in the common descent of life. They differ solely in the overriding role Darwinism ascribes to randomness. Intelligent design says that, while randomness does exist, its role in explaining the unfolding of life is quite limited.

[neo-x]

I am not impressed by Behe's argument. The bottom line is, Behe accepts all evolution and just adds that an intelligent designer intervened. Many theists jump to Behe for help since he holds quite a unique position, he accepts all evolution science except he adds a theological belief to it. He is literally on the edge of evolution and creationism, pun intended.

Further Behe, forgets to add or explain all the mutations that can be explained via NS. That there could be more than one path to mutation and so on and so forth. Plus lets say Behe is right, what has that proven essentially that God intervened? no. thats a GOG but lets say we say he is right and accept his GOG, then what? You have lost special creation anyway plus a lot of creation doctrine.

I assume rather that is the reason he published a book rather than a peer reviewed paper.

And to be honest I don't have anything against ID as a belief. And the type of ID Behe proposes is really "meh" to me. Why even God bothers at this little stage?

So there's millions dying in the world but God is more busy in tuning another 2 amino acids to fit the right mutation in malaria beacuse the system he placed is lame and can't accomplish things?

So anyone believes God causes earthquakes as well? I mean literally tinkering with it just like ID in evolution? Because what Behe suggests lets me think of it as why not?
Earthquakes are important geological things and shape life and the weather and planet etc. So they are essentially important to life, just as mutations etc.

[bippy123]

Neo behes type of belief is not the typical theistic evolution . Most theistic evolutionists believe that God somehow front loaded evolution to that it would eventually lead to us .
Just because Behe believes that most mutations happen by intelligent design doesn't mean he believes that God didn't endow humans with a different soul then other animals . Remember that Behe is Catholic and if he follows the catechism he must by definition believe that there was some form of supernatural intervention into man .

As far as the rest of your post that's mostly trying to read into the mind of God so your guess is as good as mine . But I don't see how behes paper is a God of the Gaps argument ? It's simply great science that gives us an inference to the best explanation .

Behe doesn't mention God at all in this paper .

Why aren't you impressed with behes science ?

If Audie can't find a lot wrong with it why do you ?

[hughfarey]

Juggling probability is always a little tricky, and Behe's calculations regarding chloroquine resistance in malarial parasites are far from indisputable. He takes as his foundation a passage from Nicholas J. White "Antimalarial Drug Resistance", which needs quoting for a proper understanding of the numbers. The relevant paragraph reads:

"Resistance to chloroquine in P. falciparum has arisen spontaneously less than ten times in the past fifty years. This suggests that the per-parasite probability of developing resistance de novo is on the order of 1 in 10^20 parasite multiplications. [...] To put this in context, an adult with approximately 2% parasitemia has 10^12 parasites in his or her body."

Behe contends that this is impossible by random mutation. From the evolutionnews article cited: "Whatever molecular mechanisms may be behind a CCC, empirical data showed that 10^20 cells are required in order to produce one. Behe pointed out that if a trait required the molecular equivalent of two CCC's before providing any advantage, then that would pose major problems for Darwinian evolution." By "major problems", he really means total collapse.

But wait a minute - where does Behe get his "empirical data [showing] that 10^20 cells are required in order to produce one [single mutation]"? Nicholas White says that 10^20 cell multiplications are required to produce chloroquine resistance, however many mutations are required. Rather than claiming that two mutations require 10^20 squared (10^40), Behe should surely be claiming, from this empirical evidence, that each one requires 10^20 square-rooted (10^10), which is much less absurd, given that there about 10^18 parasites about at any one time.

What's more, Behe insists on simultaneity, but that's unjustified. If each mutation has no effect on reproductive success individually, then they would both multiply unnoticed, perhaps over many years, so that there was a huge pool of individuals susceptible to the second, operative mutation when it occurred.

Finally, Behe's few quantified examples of "intelligent design" seem somewhat random to me. What intelligence requires the spontaneous resistance of P. falciparium to chloroquine ten times in fifty years?

[bippy123]

Hugh where did you get this answer from . I'm sure that this is a link from someone who believes that he refuted this ? And where did you get the number 10 to the 18th from? I seriously doubt that Behe would have overlooked this number as well as pz Myers since Myers basically conceded this to him .

Give me some links to these numbers please . That is generally how a sound response works Hugh

[Audie]

Juggling probability is always a little tricky, and Behe's calculations regarding chloroquine resistance in malarial parasites are far from indisputable. He takes as his foundation a passage from Nicholas J. White "Antimalarial Drug Resistance", which needs quoting for a proper understanding of the numbers. The relevant paragraph reads:

"Resistance to chloroquine in P. falciparum has arisen spontaneously less than ten times in the past fifty years. This suggests that the per-parasite probability of developing resistance de novo is on the order of 1 in 10^20 parasite multiplications. [...] To put this in context, an adult with approximately 2% parasitemia has 10^12 parasites in his or her body."

Behe contends that this is impossible by random mutation. From the evolutionnews article cited: "Whatever molecular mechanisms may be behind a CCC, empirical data showed that 10^20 cells are required in order to produce one. Behe pointed out that if a trait required the molecular equivalent of two CCC's before providing any advantage, then that would pose major problems for Darwinian evolution." By "major problems", he really means total collapse.

But wait a minute - where does Behe get his "empirical data [showing] that 10^20 cells are required in order to produce one [single mutation]"? Nicholas White says that 10^20 cell multiplications are required to produce chloroquine resistance, however many mutations are required. Rather than claiming that two mutations require 10^20 squared (10^40), Behe should surely be claiming, from this empirical evidence, that each one requires 10^20 square-rooted (10^10), which is much less absurd, given that there about 10^18 parasites about at any one time.

What's more, Behe insists on simultaneity, but that's unjustified. If each mutation has no effect on reproductive success individually, then they would both multiply unnoticed, perhaps over many years, so that there was a huge pool of individuals susceptible to the second, operative mutation when it occurred.

Finally, Behe's few quantified examples of "intelligent design" seem somewhat random to me. What intelligence requires the spontaneous resistance of P. falciparium to chloroquine ten times in fifty years?

Sometimes a researcher is unjustly criticized, of course. Nobody gets a free pass, vigorous
criticism is a vital component of science.

The more radical and challenging to prior ideas the claims are, the more critical
examination. Plate trctonics and dark matter were not instant hits.
Then too, we get publicity hounds with unsupportable ideas, drifting off into
woo woo sometimes.

And then the whole "no intelligence allowed" crowd comes out to say it shows
the psychic dog guy or whoevs is the victim of the conspiracy.

Behe seems to fit in there somewhere.

[bippy123]

Audie I studied Rupert sheldrakes psychic dog study .
What did you find erroneous with it other then the study being about a psychic dog ?

[bippy123]

Hugh please don't tell me that your quoting from Kenneth Miller please
Most of the times I hate my extreme OCD , but this isn't oneof those times .

Hugh yes or no ?
Are you quoting from Kenneth Miller ?
If you are then you know that I have a refutation to your refutation .

Come clean my friend and next times direct link would have saved me the bit of time my crazy ocd mind took to find this .

Kenneth Miller yes or no ?
Not that there's anything wrong with him as I used him a lot when I was arguing from the side of evolution eons ago

[hughfarey]

Kenneth Miller? Certainly not. My 10^18 was an extrapolation from White's 10^12 parasites in a malarial person multiplied, arbitrarily, by a million. Actually Behe says there are about a billion people infected by malaria at any one time, which means there are 10^21 parasites infecting humans.

Now I must go and see what Miller has to say about it - you've piqued my curiosity!

[hughfarey]

Well I've done that, and then gone back to Behe, and then the evolutionnews article, and I think the whole thing is a bit more convoluted than I thought, but still Behe seems to have double standards. So abandon what I said before, and see if this represents the situation better.

1) Spontaneous resistance to chloroquine arises as a result of mutation 1 in every 10^20 times. Everybody seems to agree with that.

2) This is the result of more than one individual mutation. Everybody seems to agree with that.

3) These mutations do not need to have to have occurred simultaneously. I think everybody agrees with that. I think that if either of the mutations was deleterious, then plasmodia carrying it might not have survived long enough to enjoy the benefits of the second one, but it seems that they are neutral individually, and so spread out among the population as easily as any other.

4) If the first mutation was very rare (or propagated poorly), then the second could have to be very common in order to produce the observed probability, and vice versa. The chances of each have to be a factor of the observed 1/10^20, such as 1/10^10 x 1/10^10, or 1/10 x 1/10^19. Consequently this data alone cannot tell us the frequency of any single mutation.

6) It is Behe's contention that something similar to chloroquine resistance, but needing 4 mutations, requires that we multiply the chances for 2 mutations together, namely 1/10^20 x 1/10^20, which is 1/10^40, which is impossible, and that therefore any 4-mutation complex cannot have been random.

7) However, he is making the 'simultaneous' mistake that he was careful to avoid earlier on. The frequency of occurrence of a cluster of mutations tells us very little about the frequency of occurrence of any one. Therefore Behe cannot extrapolate from the malarial parasite and assume that any 4-mutation occurrence could only occur so rarely by chance as to be impossible.

How does that sound? I have deliberately stuck entirely to the mathematical here, and ignored the other, biological and theological arguments against Behe's contention.