Evidence for God from Science

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 12:06 am I listened to the video clip with Behe but I don't understand. He refers to an experiment with the bacteria E. coli that was studied for 30 years. He comments at 4.50 :"there were no molecular machines, no new genes and yet it had so many chances evolutionary theory would have predicted you get something really impressive and it wasn't seen". But why does he expect this? The E. coli bacteria is more than 30 millions year old. If there had been "something really impressive" every 30 year period of the million periods E. coli have existed, it would have developed into something else.

Can anyone explain?

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.

DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 5:06 am

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 12:06 am I listened to the video clip with Behe but I don't understand. He refers to an experiment with the bacteria E. coli that was studied for 30 years. He comments at 4.50 :"there were no molecular machines, no new genes and yet it had so many chances evolutionary theory would have predicted you get something really impressive and it wasn't seen". But why does he expect this? The E. coli bacteria is more than 30 millions year old. If there had been "something really impressive" every 30 year period of the million periods E. coli have existed, it would have developed into something else.

Can anyone explain?

How about we let Behe explain.
Here is a paper that he wrote on the topic
EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION, LOSS-OF-FUNCTION MUTATIONS,
AND “THE FIRST RULE OF ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION”
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

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.

Behe also discusses this behavior in this lecture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24t2eCjPbq4
At 18:30 Behe specifically discusses Richard Lenski's work with evolution in the lab.

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 10:19 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 5:06 am

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 12:06 am I listened to the video clip with Behe but I don't understand. He refers to an experiment with the bacteria E. coli that was studied for 30 years. He comments at 4.50 :"there were no molecular machines, no new genes and yet it had so many chances evolutionary theory would have predicted you get something really impressive and it wasn't seen". But why does he expect this? The E. coli bacteria is more than 30 millions year old. If there had been "something really impressive" every 30 year period of the million periods E. coli have existed, it would have developed into something else.

Can anyone explain?

How about we let Behe explain.
Here is a paper that he wrote on the topic
EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION, LOSS-OF-FUNCTION MUTATIONS,
AND “THE FIRST RULE OF ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION”
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

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.

Behe also discusses this behavior in this lecture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24t2eCjPbq4
At 18:30 Behe specifically discusses Richard Lenski's work with evolution in the lab.

I think it is a bit lazy not answering my question but just referring to some documents and forcing me to read them. However, I read the documents, apparently in vain because they don't answer my question. They don't come even close to the argument of Behe I cited!

Besides:
"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". Yes, of coarse they do. Beneficial mutations are very rare. If they were common the E. coli would have migrated to another species long ago, millions of years ago.

So I ask again the question from #4: Can you or anyone else explain?

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:32 am

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 10:19 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 5:06 am

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 12:06 am I listened to the video clip with Behe but I don't understand. He refers to an experiment with the bacteria E. coli that was studied for 30 years. He comments at 4.50 :"there were no molecular machines, no new genes and yet it had so many chances evolutionary theory would have predicted you get something really impressive and it wasn't seen". But why does he expect this? The E. coli bacteria is more than 30 millions year old. If there had been "something really impressive" every 30 year period of the million periods E. coli have existed, it would have developed into something else.

Can anyone explain?

How about we let Behe explain.
Here is a paper that he wrote on the topic
EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION, LOSS-OF-FUNCTION MUTATIONS,
AND “THE FIRST RULE OF ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION”
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

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.

Behe also discusses this behavior in this lecture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24t2eCjPbq4
At 18:30 Behe specifically discusses Richard Lenski's work with evolution in the lab.

I think it is a bit lazy not answering my question but just referring to some documents and forcing me to read them. However, I read the documents, apparently in vain because they don't answer my question. They don't come even close to the argument of Behe I cited!

Besides:
"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". Yes, of coarse they do. Beneficial mutations are very rare. If they were common the E. coli would have migrated to another species long ago, millions of years ago.

So I ask again the question from #4: Can you or anyone else explain?

Behe's Article and lecture directly answer your question, but I will give the short version.

In order to create the evolutionary "tree of life", specific types of genetic mutations (specifically those that add information to the DNA) need to occur at an 'expected' rate.
Behe is pointing out that the empirically observed type, scope, and rate of evolution seen in the lab and in nature are inconsistent (by enormous orders of magnitude) with the 'expected' type, scope, and rate of genetic mutations required to produce the evolutionary "tree of life".

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 12:53 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:32 am

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 10:19 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 5:06 am

Nils wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 12:06 am I listened to the video clip with Behe but I don't understand. He refers to an experiment with the bacteria E. coli that was studied for 30 years. He comments at 4.50 :"there were no molecular machines, no new genes and yet it had so many chances evolutionary theory would have predicted you get something really impressive and it wasn't seen". But why does he expect this? The E. coli bacteria is more than 30 millions year old. If there had been "something really impressive" every 30 year period of the million periods E. coli have existed, it would have developed into something else.

Can anyone explain?

How about we let Behe explain.
Here is a paper that he wrote on the topic
EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION, LOSS-OF-FUNCTION MUTATIONS,
AND “THE FIRST RULE OF ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION”
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

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.

Behe also discusses this behavior in this lecture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24t2eCjPbq4
At 18:30 Behe specifically discusses Richard Lenski's work with evolution in the lab.

I think it is a bit lazy not answering my question but just referring to some documents and forcing me to read them. However, I read the documents, apparently in vain because they don't answer my question. They don't come even close to the argument of Behe I cited!

Besides:
"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". Yes, of coarse they do. Beneficial mutations are very rare. If they were common the E. coli would have migrated to another species long ago, millions of years ago.

So I ask again the question from #4: Can you or anyone else explain?

Behe's Article and lecture directly answer your question, but I will give the short version.

In order to create the evolutionary "tree of life", specific types of genetic mutations (specifically those that add information to the DNA) need to occur at an 'expected' rate.
Behe is pointing out that the empirically observed type, scope, and rate of evolution seen in the lab and in nature are inconsistent (by enormous orders of magnitude) with the 'expected' type, scope, and rate of genetic mutations required to produce the evolutionary "tree of life".

Where does he describe the 'expected' type etc and where does he describe how he discovered/determined these "expected" type etc. I missed it. (besides in the short clip you cited in the beginning).

DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 5:22 am

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 12:53 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:32 am

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 10:19 am

DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 5:06 am

How about we let Behe explain.
Here is a paper that he wrote on the topic
EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION, LOSS-OF-FUNCTION MUTATIONS,
AND “THE FIRST RULE OF ADAPTIVE EVOLUTION”
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

From the Conclusion


Behe also discusses this behavior in this lecture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24t2eCjPbq4
At 18:30 Behe specifically discusses Richard Lenski's work with evolution in the lab.

I think it is a bit lazy not answering my question but just referring to some documents and forcing me to read them. However, I read the documents, apparently in vain because they don't answer my question. They don't come even close to the argument of Behe I cited!

Besides:
"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". Yes, of coarse they do. Beneficial mutations are very rare. If they were common the E. coli would have migrated to another species long ago, millions of years ago.

So I ask again the question from #4: Can you or anyone else explain?

Behe's Article and lecture directly answer your question, but I will give the short version.

In order to create the evolutionary "tree of life", specific types of genetic mutations (specifically those that add information to the DNA) need to occur at an 'expected' rate.
Behe is pointing out that the empirically observed type, scope, and rate of evolution seen in the lab and in nature are inconsistent (by enormous orders of magnitude) with the 'expected' type, scope, and rate of genetic mutations required to produce the evolutionary "tree of life".

Where does he describe the 'expected' type etc and where does he describe how he discovered/determined these "expected" type etc. I missed it. (besides in the short clip you cited in the beginning).

The 'expectation' difference is the difference between adding and removing.
Behe alludes to this in your quote.

Nils wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 1:15 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 5:22 am

Nils wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 12:53 pm
Where does he describe the 'expected' type etc and where does he describe how he discovered/determined these "expected" type etc. I missed it. (besides in the short clip you cited in the beginning).

The 'expectation' difference is the difference between adding and removing.
Behe alludes to this in your quote.

OK, then let's go back to #7 where you say:
"In order to create the evolutionary "tree of life", specific types of genetic mutations (specifically those that add information to the DNA) need to occur at an 'expected' rate.
Behe is pointing out that the empirically observed type, scope, and rate of evolution seen in the lab and in nature are inconsistent (by enormous orders of magnitude) with the 'expected' type, scope, and rate of genetic mutations required to produce the evolutionary "tree of life".


What you say is that the frequency of beneficial mutations is too low for the evolutionary process alone to generate new species (the tree of life). To be able to show that you have to show two things.

1. You have to know the frequency of mutations that are beneficial in the long term. Behe's article is about the short term properties. He cites the leading evolutionist Lemski's experiment that runs over 30 years and says that it is by far the longest experiment, but 30 years is nothing in the evolutionary perspective of thousands and millions of years. He also makes a point of the fact that most beneficial mutations are degrading functions.

Lemski argues in a blog (about Behs's book where Behe comments the Behe article we discuss) : "Behe points to many examples of evolution in which genes and their functions have been degraded, but he largely ignores the ways that evolution generates new functions and thereby produces complexity.

2. You have to know how big mutation rate you need to create the evolution we observe in a reasonable time without any external Godly interference (what you call the "expected rate") This is indeed a very complex issue because you need to know in detail how different species have evolved and current knowledge is far from that. But Behe's article doesn't even touch upon the subject. I haven't read his book but he doesn't refer to it or any other source when he utter his astonishing sentence I referred to in post #4.

So how can he or you say anything about the speed being too low ("are inconsistent by enormous orders of magnitude") when you don't know what to compare with?

DBowling wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 5:55 pm
I discuss the empirically observed rate of point mutations (which occur much more frequently and are much more 'selectable' than insertions which are required to add new information) here
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 38#p252631

If four or five coordinated point mutations exceed the capability of selectable 'random mutation' for the duration of time that life has existed on earth.
Then four or five coordinated insertions is even more improbable.
And four or five coordinated insertions is child's play compared to the coordinated insertions and substitutions required to create the tree of life.

Nils wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 12:41 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 5:55 pm
I discuss the empirically observed rate of point mutations (which occur much more frequently and are much more 'selectable' than insertions which are required to add new information) here
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 38#p252631

If four or five coordinated point mutations exceed the capability of selectable 'random mutation' for the duration of time that life has existed on earth.
Then four or five coordinated insertions is even more improbable.
And four or five coordinated insertions is child's play compared to the coordinated insertions and substitutions required to create the tree of life.

I state your arguments in more detail. If I misinterpret you please clarify. I write your arguments in bold and comment in normal style. (In brackets I comment the source(s) of the statement)

1. It has been observed that a single point mutation is required for malaria to develop resistance to atovaquone. The observed rate of that specific mutation is one in 10^12
(Observation)This comes from your text. I have no objections.
2. It has been observed that two specific single point mutations are required for malaria to develop resistance to chloroquine. The observed rate of those two specific mutations occurring is one in 10^20 (Observation)
This comes from your text. I have no objections.
3. The rate change is exponential depending on the number single point mutations so three single point mutation is probably less than one in 10^28 and four less than one in 10^36. (Conclusion from 1. and 2.)
You indicate this and I have no objections.
4. Around 10^30 bacterial cells are formed on the earth every year so one in 10^36 implies only one four point mutation every 64 million years worldwide. (Observation and 3.)
This comes from you text with some modifications. No objections.
5. Four (or more) point mutations only are apparently too few to support unguided evolution. (4. and assumption)
This comes from your text. No objections.

6. Unguided evolution requires four (and more) point mutations at least in some critical evolutional paths. (Assumption)
I base this wording on what you said elsewhere and in the last post: "... And four or five coordinated insertions is child's play compared to the coordinated insertions and substitutions required to create the tree of life."
This is not at all what the Evolution Theory claims. It's just an unsupported assumption. The Evolution Theory relies on small steps, mostly on one single point mutations. Some times on double point mutations or large-scale mutations as segment duplication and deletions etc. (see Wikipedia on mutations).

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 5:26 am

Nils wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 12:41 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 5:55 pm
I discuss the empirically observed rate of point mutations (which occur much more frequently and are much more 'selectable' than insertions which are required to add new information) here
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 38#p252631

If four or five coordinated point mutations exceed the capability of selectable 'random mutation' for the duration of time that life has existed on earth.
Then four or five coordinated insertions is even more improbable.
And four or five coordinated insertions is child's play compared to the coordinated insertions and substitutions required to create the tree of life.

I state your arguments in more detail. If I misinterpret you please clarify. I write your arguments in bold and comment in normal style. (In brackets I comment the source(s) of the statement)

1. It has been observed that a single point mutation is required for malaria to develop resistance to atovaquone. The observed rate of that specific mutation is one in 10^12
(Observation)This comes from your text. I have no objections.
2. It has been observed that two specific single point mutations are required for malaria to develop resistance to chloroquine. The observed rate of those two specific mutations occurring is one in 10^20 (Observation)
This comes from your text. I have no objections.
3. The rate change is exponential depending on the number single point mutations so three single point mutation is probably less than one in 10^28 and four less than one in 10^36. (Conclusion from 1. and 2.)
You indicate this and I have no objections.
4. Around 10^30 bacterial cells are formed on the earth every year so one in 10^36 implies only one four point mutation every 64 million years worldwide. (Observation and 3.)
This comes from you text with some modifications. No objections.
5. Four (or more) point mutations only are apparently too few to support unguided evolution. (4. and assumption)
This comes from your text. No objections.

So far so good...

6. Unguided evolution requires four (and more) point mutations at least in some critical evolutional paths. (Assumption)
I base this wording on what you said elsewhere and in the last post: "... And four or five coordinated insertions is child's play compared to the coordinated insertions and substitutions required to create the tree of life."
This is not at all what the Evolution Theory claims. It's just an unsupported assumption. The Evolution Theory relies on small steps, mostly on one single point mutations. Some times on double point mutations or large-scale mutations as segment duplication and deletions etc. (see Wikipedia on mutations).

I understand the theory

But for me, empirically observed reality is more important than unverified theory.
In malaria, the observed difference between 1 selectable substitution and 2 coordinated selectable substitutions is the difference between 1 in 10^12 and 1 in 10^20.

We don't know whether the 2 coordinated point mutations required for malaria to reach the selectable state of resistance to chloroquine involves a single step with two coordinated mutations or if it involves two single mutations that eventually reached the selectable state of resistance to chloroquine.
The key point here is that the fastest path to the 2 coordinated mutations required to reach a specific selectable state in malaria is 1 in 10^20.

The math doesn't speak to the path required to reach 2 coordinated single point mutations, it just speaks to how long it takes to eventually get to a specific selectable state involving 2 coordinated point mutations.

So...

1. In malaria the observed rate for reaching a specific selectable state involving 1 point mutation is 1 in 10^12.
And the observed rate foe reaching a specific selectable state involving 2 coordinated point mutations is 1 in 10^20.
I accept those as empirically observed facts.

2. Based on the difference between the rate required to reach a specific single point mutation and the rate required to reach 2 specific coordinated mutations (regardless of the number of steps in the path), we can see that there is an exponential relationship between the number of coordinated mutations and the rate required to reach a specific selectable state requiring that number of coordinated mutation (again... regardless of the number of steps in the path).
I accept this as an empirically observed fact.

3. One more note, these rates are for substitutions, which are relatively common mutations.
Insertions are much more rare than substitutions, and survivable selectable insertions are even more rare since insertions are overwhelmingly damaging or lethal to the organism.
I accept this as an empirically observed fact.

==>
If we extrapolate the observed exponential rate for coordinated selectable mutations observed in malaria (regardless of path) to 4 or 5 coordinated mutations, then we quickly exceed the number of life forms that have ever existed on this planet.
This is an extrapolation of an empirically observed rate, not an assumption.

And if 4 or 5 coordinated selectable point mutations exceeds the 'normal' observable capability of 'random' mutation.
(which I believe the above empirically observed behavior of evolution in malaria demonstrates)
Then coordinated mutations involving the huge number of insertions and substitutions required for the tree of life goes way beyond the observed capability of "random" mutation.

Note...
I am not claiming that mutation and natural selection were not involved in the creation of the tree of life.
(I think that the fossil and DNA evidence demonstrates that mutations probably played a very significant role in the creation of the tree of life)

However, based on what I have seen to date, the empirically observed scope and rate of "random" mutation is incapable of creating the tree of life.

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 12:20 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 5:26 am

Nils wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 12:41 pm

DBowling wrote: ↑Sun Aug 15, 2021 5:55 pm
I discuss the empirically observed rate of point mutations (which occur much more frequently and are much more 'selectable' than insertions which are required to add new information) here
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 38#p252631

If four or five coordinated point mutations exceed the capability of selectable 'random mutation' for the duration of time that life has existed on earth.
Then four or five coordinated insertions is even more improbable.
And four or five coordinated insertions is child's play compared to the coordinated insertions and substitutions required to create the tree of life.

I state your arguments in more detail. If I misinterpret you please clarify. I write your arguments in bold and comment in normal style. (In brackets I comment the source(s) of the statement)

1. It has been observed that a single point mutation is required for malaria to develop resistance to atovaquone. The observed rate of that specific mutation is one in 10^12
(Observation)This comes from your text. I have no objections.
2. It has been observed that two specific single point mutations are required for malaria to develop resistance to chloroquine. The observed rate of those two specific mutations occurring is one in 10^20 (Observation)
This comes from your text. I have no objections.
3. The rate change is exponential depending on the number single point mutations so three single point mutation is probably less than one in 10^28 and four less than one in 10^36. (Conclusion from 1. and 2.)
You indicate this and I have no objections.
4. Around 10^30 bacterial cells are formed on the earth every year so one in 10^36 implies only one four point mutation every 64 million years worldwide. (Observation and 3.)
This comes from you text with some modifications. No objections.
5. Four (or more) point mutations only are apparently too few to support unguided evolution. (4. and assumption)
This comes from your text. No objections.

So far so good...

6. Unguided evolution requires four (and more) point mutations at least in some critical evolutional paths. (Assumption)
I base this wording on what you said elsewhere and in the last post: "... And four or five coordinated insertions is child's play compared to the coordinated insertions and substitutions required to create the tree of life."
This is not at all what the Evolution Theory claims. It's just an unsupported assumption. The Evolution Theory relies on small steps, mostly on one single point mutations. Some times on double point mutations or large-scale mutations as segment duplication and deletions etc. (see Wikipedia on mutations).

I understand the theory

But for me, empirically observed reality is more important than unverified theory.
In malaria, the observed difference between 1 selectable substitution and 2 coordinated selectable substitutions is the difference between 1 in 10^12 and 1 in 10^20.

We don't know whether the 2 coordinated point mutations required for malaria to reach the selectable state of resistance to chloroquine involves a single step with two coordinated mutations or if it involves two single mutations that eventually reached the selectable state of resistance to chloroquine.
The key point here is that the fastest path to the 2 coordinated mutations required to reach a specific selectable state in malaria is 1 in 10^20.

The math doesn't speak to the path required to reach 2 coordinated single point mutations, it just speaks to how long it takes to eventually get to a specific selectable state involving 2 coordinated point mutations.

So...

1. In malaria the observed rate for reaching a specific selectable state involving 1 point mutation is 1 in 10^12.
And the observed rate foe reaching a specific selectable state involving 2 coordinated point mutations is 1 in 10^20.
I accept those as empirically observed facts.

2. Based on the difference between the rate required to reach a specific single point mutation and the rate required to reach 2 specific coordinated mutations (regardless of the number of steps in the path), we can see that there is an exponential relationship between the number of coordinated mutations and the rate required to reach a specific selectable state requiring that number of coordinated mutation (again... regardless of the number of steps in the path).
I accept this as an empirically observed fact.

3. One more note, these rates are for substitutions, which are relatively common mutations.
Insertions are much more rare than substitutions, and survivable selectable insertions are even more rare since insertions are overwhelmingly damaging or lethal to the organism.
I accept this as an empirically observed fact.

==>
If we extrapolate the observed exponential rate for coordinated selectable mutations observed in malaria (regardless of path) to 4 or 5 coordinated mutations, then we quickly exceed the number of life forms that have ever existed on this planet.
This is an extrapolation of an empirically observed rate, not an assumption.

And if 4 or 5 coordinated selectable point mutations exceeds the 'normal' observable capability of 'random' mutation.
(which I believe the above empirically observed behavior of evolution in malaria demonstrates)
Then coordinated mutations involving the huge number of insertions and substitutions required for the tree of life goes way beyond the observed capability of "random" mutation.

Note...
I am not claiming that mutation and natural selection were not involved in the creation of the tree of life.
(I think that the fossil and DNA evidence demonstrates that mutations probably played a very significant role in the creation of the tree of life)

However, based on what I have seen to date, the empirically observed scope and rate of "random" mutation is incapable of creating the tree of life.

It would be good if we could agree on as much as possible. Therefore I could change my 5. to include your discussion about insertions "Insertions are much more rare than substitutions, and survivable selectable insertions are even more rare since insertions are overwhelmingly damaging or lethal to the organism." and change my 6. accordingly. But is that important to you?
I presume that you agree with 7. Conclusion: Unguided evolution is impossible.
Correct?