Evidence for God from Science

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 5:45 am What I wrote about was an imagined example where there is one case with possible non-beneficial mutations and one case with possible beneficial mutations and I compared the rate between these two specific cases. The motive for this example was to show that there are two different mechanisms, one linear and one exponential (to which you agree). That doesn’t mean that every case with beneficial mutations is more rapid than some case with non-beneficial mutations.

I agree...

But we do have a fixed point of agreement that six non-beneficial mutations working together to provide a new function exceeds the capability of all life that has ever existed on this planet.
We also have an empirically observed example of two non-beneficial mutations working together to provide a new function at an inverse exponential rate.

And we have the premise that beneficial mutations not only can but actually do (by orders of magnitude) exceed the inherant inverse exponential rate of non-beneficial mutations.
(btw I agree with your statement that beneficial mutations will not necessariy generate new functions at a more rapid rate than non-beneficial mutations for the reasons you describe.)

That all begs the question...
Where are the empiricaly observed examples of beneficial mutations that DO generate new functions at a rate faster than non-beneficial mutations?

You can't create the tree of life with a series of non-beneficial mutations.
You can't create the tree of life with a series of beneficial mutations that, for whatever reason, is slower than non-beneficial mutations.
In order order to create the tree of life you require a series of beneficial mutations that exceed by orders of magnitude the frequency of non-beneficial mutations.

Stipulating to your statement:
"That doesn’t mean that every case with beneficial mutations is more rapid than some case with non-beneficial mutations."
Do you agree with the following statement...
In order to create the tree of life, the number of empirically observable examples of combinations of x beneficial mutations should exceed (by orders of magnitude) the number of empirically observable examples of combinations of x non-beneficial mutations.

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 9:00 am Stipulating to your statement:
"That doesn’t mean that every case with beneficial mutations is more rapid than some case with non-beneficial mutations."
Do you agree with the following statement...
In order to create the tree of life, the number of empirically observable examples of combinations of x beneficial mutations should exceed (by orders of magnitude) the number of empirically observable examples of combinations of x non-beneficial mutations.

I don’t think that is useful to put to much emphasis on speed when you compare the methods of evolution, non-beneficial and beneficial. It’s rather about whether the method is possible to use or not. As you say, if 6 mutations is needed for a function and those mutations are non-beneficial it is virtually impossible that they will occur within an individual. On the other hand evolution with beneficial mutations may be slow or faster. How fast is the question. Nilsson et al estimated that it would take less than 300 000 generations/years to make a functioning eye. Is that fast or slow? In Lempski¨s experiment some beneficial mutations made the E coli bigger in about 20 000 generations. Is that fast or slow?

It’s not only speed that makes combinations of non-beneficial mutations impossible for any advanced function. Changes due to non-beneficial mutations occurs at one moment, in one individual. I don’t know but to me it seems theoretically impossible to build advanced functions in one step, in one individual.

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 8:56 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 9:00 am Stipulating to your statement:
"That doesn’t mean that every case with beneficial mutations is more rapid than some case with non-beneficial mutations."
Do you agree with the following statement...
In order to create the tree of life, the number of empirically observable examples of combinations of x beneficial mutations should exceed (by orders of magnitude) the number of empirically observable examples of combinations of x non-beneficial mutations.

I don’t think that is useful to put to much emphasis on speed when you compare the methods of evolution, non-beneficial and beneficial. It’s rather about whether the method is possible to use or not. As you say, if 6 mutations is needed for a function and those mutations are non-beneficial it is virtually impossible that they will occur within an individual.

It is impossible for six non-beneficial mutations to work together to form a new beneficial function regardless of of whether the six non-beneficial mutations occur within one individual or across multiple individuals across multiple generations.
The exponential rate is a function of the number non-beneficial mutations.

That is the point I am trying to make. Any function that involves six or more non-beneficial mutations working together exceeds the capability of all life that has ever existed on this planet.
At least if we presume RANDOM mutations.
Any biological function that requires more than six non-beneficial adds or substitutions to work together IMHO is evidence of NON-RANDOM mutation which brings us back to an Intelligence of some sort guiding the NON-RANDOM mutations.

On the other hand evolution with beneficial mutations may be slow or faster. How fast is the question. Nilsson et al estimated that it would take less than 300 000 generations/years to make a functioning eye. Is that fast or slow?

Since Nilsson's estimate exceeds the rate and scope of empirically observed RANDOM mutations then I would consider it to be fast, and if accurate it would exceed the capability of RANDOM mutations... which would indicate an additional causal factor.

In Lempski¨s experiment some beneficial mutations made the E coli bigger in about 20 000 generations. Is that fast or slow?

The type of mutations required to create the tree of life are adds and substitutions. The overwhelming majority of Lenski's beneficial mutations degraded genetic information.
When we look at the miniscule percentage of beneficial mutations in Lenski's experiments that involved substitutions or adds, you were correct in observing that we would not exist today if the rate of adds and substitutions in Lenski's experiments were 'typical' of evolution in general.

It’s not only speed that makes combinations of non-beneficial mutations impossible for any advanced function. Changes due to non-beneficial mutations occurs at one moment, in one individual. I don’t know but to me it seems theoretically impossible to build advanced functions in one step, in one individual.

I may be wrong here, but in my opinion it is quite possible that multiple mutations did in fact create advanced functions in one individual... especially when we consider the enormous number of irreducably complex systems that appear throughout our biosphere.

This of course eliminates RANDOM mutation as a causal agent for evolution.
But I think RANDOM mutation is already precluded by the difference (by orders of magnitude) between the empirically observed rate and behavior of RANDOM mutation and the rate and behavior of mutations required to create the tree of life and the complexity we see in the DNA of life today.

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 2:31 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 8:56 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 9:00 am Stipulating to your statement:
"That doesn’t mean that every case with beneficial mutations is more rapid than some case with non-beneficial mutations."
Do you agree with the following statement...
In order to create the tree of life, the number of empirically observable examples of combinations of x beneficial mutations should exceed (by orders of magnitude) the number of empirically observable examples of combinations of x non-beneficial mutations.

I don’t think that is useful to put to much emphasis on speed when you compare the methods of evolution, non-beneficial and beneficial. It’s rather about whether the method is possible to use or not. As you say, if 6 mutations is needed for a function and those mutations are non-beneficial it is virtually impossible that they will occur within an individual.

It is impossible for six non-beneficial mutations to work together to form a new beneficial function regardless of of whether the six non-beneficial mutations occur within one individual or across multiple individuals across multiple generations.
The exponential rate is a function of the number non-beneficial mutations.

Yes, I agree.

That is the point I am trying to make. Any function that involves six or more non-beneficial mutations working together exceeds the capability of all life that has ever existed on this planet.
At least if we presume RANDOM mutations.

Perhaps we can stop here for a while and try to summarize. We agree that any function that involves six or more non-beneficial random mutations working together exceeds the capability of all life that has ever existed on this planet. (And as we are discussing the evolution theory, we should stick to random mutations.) This is what we can learn from the malaria case and that case says nothing about the speed of evolution with beneficial mutations so we can skip discussing the malaria case further on. That was Issue 1 in my post #80 that there is no use discussing the malaria case further. We can also leave the discussion about non-beneficial mutations. It has never been used as a potentional mechanism for evolution (but in very special cases). The evolution theory is a theory of beneficial mutations.
Agree?

-------
Some other comments:

On the other hand evolution with beneficial mutations may be slow or faster. How fast is the question. Nilsson et al estimated that it would take less than 300 000 generations/years to make a functioning eye. Is that fast or slow?

Since Nilsson's estimate exceeds the rate and scope of empirically observed RANDOM mutations then I would consider it to be fast, and if accurate it would exceed the capability of RANDOM mutations... which would indicate an additional causal factor.

From where do you get that it exceeds the capability of benficial RANDOM mutations? Nilsson thinks his measure is a conservative one, that there are big marginals.

In Lenski¨s experiment some beneficial mutations made the E coli bigger in about 20 000 generations. Is that fast or slow?

The type of mutations required to create the tree of life are adds and substitutions. The overwhelming majority of Lenski's beneficial mutations degraded genetic information.
When we look at the miniscule percentage of beneficial mutations in Lenski's experiments that involved substitutions or adds, you were correct in observing that we would not exist today if the rate of adds and substitutions in Lenski's experiments were 'typical' of evolution in general.

What I said about “we would not exist today” was not about Lenski’s experiment but about the E Coli evolution over 130 million years. How you came to your conclusion from Lenski’s experiment I don’t know. Lenski hasn’t come to that conclusion.

It’s not only speed that makes combinations of non-beneficial mutations impossible for any advanced function. Changes due to non-beneficial mutations occurs at one moment, in one individual. I don’t know but to me it seems theoretically impossible to build advanced functions in one step, in one individual.

I may be wrong here, but in my opinion it is quite possible that multiple mutations did in fact create advanced functions in one individual... especially when we consider the enormous number of irreducably complex systems that appear throughout our biosphere.

This of course eliminates RANDOM mutation as a causal agent for evolution.
But I think RANDOM mutation is already precluded by the difference (by orders of magnitude) between the empirically observed rate and behavior of RANDOM mutation and the rate and behavior of mutations required to create the tree of life and the complexity we see in the DNA of life today.

Are you deliberately trying to confuse the discussion? You now bring in non-random mutions and then don’t discriminate between beneficial and non-beneficial mutations. This makes a hopeless mess of the discussion.

If you want to discuss Intelligent Design, we can do it but not at the same time as discussing the evolution theory.

Nils wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:41 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Tue Jan 11, 2022 2:31 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 8:56 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Mon Jan 10, 2022 9:00 am Stipulating to your statement:
"That doesn’t mean that every case with beneficial mutations is more rapid than some case with non-beneficial mutations."
Do you agree with the following statement...
In order to create the tree of life, the number of empirically observable examples of combinations of x beneficial mutations should exceed (by orders of magnitude) the number of empirically observable examples of combinations of x non-beneficial mutations.

I don’t think that is useful to put to much emphasis on speed when you compare the methods of evolution, non-beneficial and beneficial. It’s rather about whether the method is possible to use or not. As you say, if 6 mutations is needed for a function and those mutations are non-beneficial it is virtually impossible that they will occur within an individual.

It is impossible for six non-beneficial mutations to work together to form a new beneficial function regardless of of whether the six non-beneficial mutations occur within one individual or across multiple individuals across multiple generations.
The exponential rate is a function of the number non-beneficial mutations.

Yes, I agree.

That is the point I am trying to make. Any function that involves six or more non-beneficial mutations working together exceeds the capability of all life that has ever existed on this planet.
At least if we presume RANDOM mutations.

Perhaps we can stop here for a while and try to summarize. We agree that any function that involves six or more non-beneficial random mutations working together exceeds the capability of all life that has ever existed on this planet. (And as we are discussing the evolution theory, we should stick to random mutations.) This is what we can learn from the malaria case and that case says nothing about the speed of evolution with beneficial mutations so we can skip discussing the malaria case further on. That was Issue 1 in my post #80 that there is no use discussing the malaria case further. We can also leave the discussion about non-beneficial mutations. It has never been used as a potentional mechanism for evolution (but in very special cases). The evolution theory is a theory of beneficial mutations.
Agree?

It looks like this is a point where we have vastly differing opinions.

My premise is that the empirically observed examples of beneficial mutations do not demonstrate the presumed but unverified capability of a series of beneficial mutations.
And more importantly there is no empirical evidence to demonstrates that in real life, a series of beneficial mutations creates coordinated mutations at a rate that is orders of magnitude faster than a series of non-beneficial mutations.

We agree that a series of non-benificial mutations is incapable of producing the tree of life.
We have yet to see any empirical evidence to validate the unverified premise that a series of benificial mutations is any more capabie in the real world than non-beneficial mutations.

Until we see empirically observable evidence that beneficial mutations are able to produce coordinated adds and substitutions at a rate orders of magnitude faster than the observed capability of non-beneficial mutations, then the observable evidence indicates that the capability of non-beneficial mutations could very well be the norm instead of the exception in the real world.
... at least in regards to RANDOM mutations.

That is why I think the empirically observed capabilities of non-beneficial mutations (such as the malaria example) are such an important part of the evidence and this discussion.

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:59 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:41 am Perhaps we can stop here for a while and try to summarize. We agree that any function that involves six or more non-beneficial random mutations working together exceeds the capability of all life that has ever existed on this planet. (And as we are discussing the evolution theory, we should stick to random mutations.) This is what we can learn from the malaria case and that case says nothing about the speed of evolution with beneficial mutations so we can skip discussing the malaria case further on. That was Issue 1 in my post #80 that there is no use discussing the malaria case further. We can also leave the discussion about non-beneficial mutations. It has never been used as a potentional mechanism for evolution (but in very special cases). The evolution theory is a theory of beneficial mutations.
Agree?

It looks like this is a point where we have vastly differing opinions.

My premise is that the empirically observed examples of beneficial mutations do not demonstrate the presumed but unverified capability of a series of beneficial mutations.
And more importantly there is no empirical evidence to demonstrates that in real life, a series of beneficial mutations creates coordinated mutations at a rate that is orders of magnitude faster than a series of non-beneficial mutations.

We agree that a series of non-benificial mutations is incapable of producing the tree of life.
We have yet to see any empirical evidence to validate the unverified premise that a series of benificial mutations is any more capabie in the real world than non-beneficial mutations.

Until we see empirically observable evidence that beneficial mutations are able to produce coordinated adds and substitutions at a rate orders of magnitude faster than the observed capability of non-beneficial mutations, then the observable evidence indicates that the capability of non-beneficial mutations could very well be the norm instead of the exception in the real world.
... at least in regards to RANDOM mutations.

That is why I think the empirically observed capabilities of non-beneficial mutations (such as the malaria example) are such an important part of the evidence and this discussion.

It’s good that you describe your position clearly, but I really don’t understand what the motivation is.

There are two potential methods for evolution. One using non-beneficial and one using beneficial mutations. We agree on that and also on that the non-beneficial method isn’t possible for more than two or perhaps three necessary mutations. This makes it impossible for advanced functions. This makes evolution by beneficial mutations the only alternative. You seem to agree on that as well.

Now you ask for a comparison between the speed of an impossible method and a probable method but an impossible method doesn’t have any speed. As you know x/0 is infinite independent of x. What you should ask for is the speed of the beneficial method. I can’t see any reason why you should try to compare the methods.
Concerning the malaria case, we have already learnt the impossibility of several non-beneficial mutations. What more could we learn? I think is simplifies our discussion if we leave the malaria case now.

----

In the beginning of your post you say that “the empirically observed examples of beneficial mutations do not demonstrate the presumed but unverified capability of a series of beneficial mutations.” That is what you have said repeatedly and which we discuss. Now you say that that is your “premise”. I really don’t know how to comment. What do you mean? Are you kidding? Do you know the entire literature on evolution so well that you can say what is a premise to you? A thing that we currently are discussing. I don’t understand.

Nils wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:41 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:59 pm Until we see empirically observable evidence that beneficial mutations are able to produce coordinated adds and substitutions at a rate orders of magnitude faster than the observed capability of non-beneficial mutations, then the observable evidence indicates that the capability of non-beneficial mutations could very well be the norm instead of the exception in the real world.
... at least in regards to RANDOM mutations.

That is why I think the empirically observed capabilities of non-beneficial mutations (such as the malaria example) are such an important part of the evidence and this discussion.

It’s good that you describe your position clearly, but I really don’t understand what the motivation is.

There are two potential methods for evolution. One using non-beneficial and one using beneficial mutations. We agree on that and also on that the non-beneficial method isn’t possible for more than two or perhaps three necessary mutations. This makes it impossible for advanced functions. This makes evolution by beneficial mutations the only alternative. You seem to agree on that as well.

Yes and no...

I agree that it is impossible for RANDOM mutations to generate 'advanced functions' involving more than 6 non-beneficial mutations.
I do not see any empiricaly observable evidence that beneficial RANDOM mutations generate advanced functions at a rate that is exponentially faster than non-beneficial mutations.
Therefore I see no empirically observable evidence that RANDOM beneficial mutations are any more capable than RANDOM non-beneficial mutations of working together together to create 'advanced functions' that involve multiple coordinated mutations.

So based on on all the evidence I have seen, and that has been presented in this thread.
It is impossible for RANDOM non-beneficial mutations to generate advanced functions
And it is also impossible for RANDOM beneficial mutations to generate advanced functions (especially at a rate that is exponentially faster than non-beneficial mutations).

Thus if the observable behavior of RANDOM mutations (both beneficial and non-benificial) are not capable of generating advanced functions.
Then the only logical conclusion to me is that the mutations responsible for generating the tree of life and the DNA of life today are by necessity NON-RANDOM.

Once we acknowledge the necessity of NON-RANDOM mutations (both beneficial and non-beneficial) in generating the tree of life and the DNA of life today, then my motivation should be obvious.

In the beginning of your post you say that “the empirically observed examples of beneficial mutations do not demonstrate the presumed but unverified capability of a series of beneficial mutations.” That is what you have said repeatedly and which we discuss. Now you say that that is your “premise”. I really don’t know how to comment.

Premise might have been a poor choice of word in that particular sentence.
The empirically observable evidence demonstrates that 2 coordinated beneficial substitutions do not produce new functions any faster than 2 coordinated non-beneficial substitutions.
(And 2 coordinated mutations appears to be the extent of what is actually empirically observable - malaria again)

Based on what is empirically observable for 2 coordinated mutations, I then come to the conclusion that the same same general behavior that we observe with 2 coordinated mutations (malaria) is also true for 6 coordinated mutations which are unobservable.

Now comes the premise...
If RANDOM beneficial mutations are no more capable than RANDOM non-beneficial mutations of working together to form 'advanced functions'.
Then NON-RANDOM mutations are required to form the 'advanced functions' we observe in the fossil record and the DNA of life today.'

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:35 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:41 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:59 pm Until we see empirically observable evidence that beneficial mutations are able to produce coordinated adds and substitutions at a rate orders of magnitude faster than the observed capability of non-beneficial mutations, then the observable evidence indicates that the capability of non-beneficial mutations could very well be the norm instead of the exception in the real world.
... at least in regards to RANDOM mutations.

That is why I think the empirically observed capabilities of non-beneficial mutations (such as the malaria example) are such an important part of the evidence and this discussion.

It’s good that you describe your position clearly, but I really don’t understand what the motivation is.

There are two potential methods for evolution. One using non-beneficial and one using beneficial mutations. We agree on that and also on that the non-beneficial method isn’t possible for more than two or perhaps three necessary mutations. This makes it impossible for advanced functions. This makes evolution by beneficial mutations the only alternative. You seem to agree on that as well.

Yes and no...

I agree that it is impossible for RANDOM mutations to generate 'advanced functions' involving more than 6 non-beneficial mutations.

Yes.

I do not see any empiricaly observable evidence that beneficial RANDOM mutations generate advanced functions at a rate that is exponentially faster than non-beneficial mutations.

That is about what you see, so no objection.

Therefore I see no empirically observable evidence that RANDOM beneficial mutations are any more capable than RANDOM non-beneficial mutations of working together together to create 'advanced functions' that involve multiple coordinated mutations.

That is still about what you see, so no objection.

So based on on all the evidence I have seen, and that has been presented in this thread.
It is impossible for RANDOM non-beneficial mutations to generate advanced functions
And it is also impossible for RANDOM beneficial mutations to generate advanced functions (especially at a rate that is exponentially faster than non-beneficial mutations).

BUT THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW!
From what you have not seen it doesn’t follow that it is impossible for random beneficial mutations to generate advanced functions. To say something is impossible you have to show that. From that you haven’t seen any black swan you can’t postulate there is no black swan.

What we learn from the malaria case is that “It is impossible for RANDOM non-beneficial mutations to generate advanced functions” but we don’t learn anything about beneficial mutations.
This is why I think we should leave the malaria case and non-beneficial mutations and instead discuss random beneficial mutations.

I think we have to come to an agreement on what is written above before advancing to beneficial mutations (I always presume random mutations if I don’t say otherwise). We will advance more rapidly if we take small steps in the discussion. You tend to repeat your ultimate conclusion long before you present a rigid discussion.

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 10:37 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:35 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:41 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 7:59 pm Until we see empirically observable evidence that beneficial mutations are able to produce coordinated adds and substitutions at a rate orders of magnitude faster than the observed capability of non-beneficial mutations, then the observable evidence indicates that the capability of non-beneficial mutations could very well be the norm instead of the exception in the real world.
... at least in regards to RANDOM mutations.

That is why I think the empirically observed capabilities of non-beneficial mutations (such as the malaria example) are such an important part of the evidence and this discussion.

It’s good that you describe your position clearly, but I really don’t understand what the motivation is.

There are two potential methods for evolution. One using non-beneficial and one using beneficial mutations. We agree on that and also on that the non-beneficial method isn’t possible for more than two or perhaps three necessary mutations. This makes it impossible for advanced functions. This makes evolution by beneficial mutations the only alternative. You seem to agree on that as well.

Yes and no...

I agree that it is impossible for RANDOM mutations to generate 'advanced functions' involving more than 6 non-beneficial mutations.

Yes.

I do not see any empiricaly observable evidence that beneficial RANDOM mutations generate advanced functions at a rate that is exponentially faster than non-beneficial mutations.

That is about what you see, so no objection.

Therefore I see no empirically observable evidence that RANDOM beneficial mutations are any more capable than RANDOM non-beneficial mutations of working together together to create 'advanced functions' that involve multiple coordinated mutations.

That is still about what you see, so no objection.

So based on on all the evidence I have seen, and that has been presented in this thread.
It is impossible for RANDOM non-beneficial mutations to generate advanced functions
And it is also impossible for RANDOM beneficial mutations to generate advanced functions (especially at a rate that is exponentially faster than non-beneficial mutations).

BUT THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW!
From what you have not seen it doesn’t follow that it is impossible for random beneficial mutations to generate advanced functions. To say something is impossible you have to show that. From that you haven’t seen any black swan you can’t postulate there is no black swan.

But I can say with confidence that the number of observable black swans is not orders of magnitude greater than the number of observable white swans.

What we learn from the malaria case is that “It is impossible for RANDOM non-beneficial mutations to generate advanced functions” but we don’t learn anything about beneficial mutations.
This is why I think we should leave the malaria case and non-beneficial mutations and instead discuss random beneficial mutations.

But if the number of observable beneficial mutations creating new functions does not exceed the number of observable non-beneficial mutations creating new functions, then there is no observable evidence that beneficial mutations are any more capable than non-beneficial mutations of creating new functions.

DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:28 am

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 10:37 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:35 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 2:41 am
There are two potential methods for evolution. One using non-beneficial and one using beneficial mutations. We agree on that and also on that the non-beneficial method isn’t possible for more than two or perhaps three necessary mutations. This makes it impossible for advanced functions. This makes evolution by beneficial mutations the only alternative. You seem to agree on that as well.

Yes and no...

I agree that it is impossible for RANDOM mutations to generate 'advanced functions' involving more than 6 non-beneficial mutations.

Yes.

I do not see any empiricaly observable evidence that beneficial RANDOM mutations generate advanced functions at a rate that is exponentially faster than non-beneficial mutations.

That is about what you see, so no objection.

Therefore I see no empirically observable evidence that RANDOM beneficial mutations are any more capable than RANDOM non-beneficial mutations of working together together to create 'advanced functions' that involve multiple coordinated mutations.

That is still about what you see, so no objection.

So based on on all the evidence I have seen, and that has been presented in this thread.
It is impossible for RANDOM non-beneficial mutations to generate advanced functions
And it is also impossible for RANDOM beneficial mutations to generate advanced functions (especially at a rate that is exponentially faster than non-beneficial mutations).

BUT THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW!
From what you have not seen it doesn’t follow that it is impossible for random beneficial mutations to generate advanced functions. To say something is impossible you have to show that. From that you haven’t seen any black swan you can’t postulate there is no black swan.

But I can say with confidence that the number of observable black swans is not orders of magnitude greater than the number of observable white swans.

A fancy argument

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

The malaria case doesn’t say anything about the possibilities and speed of multiple (random) beneficial mutations. Lenski’s experiments say some things about the speed but nothing that indicates that there is no possibility of evolving advanced functions generally.

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

I think the logic is simple and straightforward...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think the logic is simple and straightforward...

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

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

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

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

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

You apparently don’t see the mistake you make so it’s good that you summarize it in the end of your argument. You write:

“Simply put….
1) If C requires A to be orders of magnitude greater than B
2) And A is shown NOT to be orders of magnitude greater than B
3) Then C is shown to be FALSE”

The conclusion follows from the two premises but the problem is that the second isn’t true. What you have said in your argument above is:

“And so far in this discussion (and in everything I've read) the number of observable examples of two beneficial mutations performing a new function is 0, which is not even close to orders of magnitude greater than number of examples of two non-beneficial mutations performing a new function.”

which in short says that there are no observations, or “simply put”:
2a) And A is NOT shown to be orders of magnitude greater than B

2a) is not the same as 2) and
3) does NOT follow from 1) and 2a).

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

What you have argued in this thread is 3).

You have made this mistake repeatedly in earlier posts but it was unusually clear in this post.

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:02 pm

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

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

I think the logic is simple and straightforward...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:02 pm

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

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

I think the logic is simple and straightforward...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you agree with my conclusion in my last post? I must know that before continuing.

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

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:02 pm

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

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

I think the logic is simple and straightforward...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per my post above I am ok stipulating to:

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

Is that what you mean?