A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[stevevw]

Why would you want to do that? Isn't faith enough for you?

Yes but as the bible says we need to investigate things. Gods creation is known to everyone and we can see it in what He has made. So my understanding is that we should be able to see some of the signs of His creation. Not supernatural signs but processes that God would have ensured life has that are directed and designed to aid life to exist on earth whether that be evolution or through other processes like developmental processes.

This has been gone over several times. We detect design by indications of agency--tool marks, mold lines, the use of non-natural or refined materials, by the recognition of forms which do not normally appear in nature--that kind of thing.

Ok sorry I do remember this but you have elaborated on it. That can be a blurry line as some of the ways a living cell works for example point to indication of agency such as the machines that copy DNA and the other factory like processing processes. My question would be if we are looking for tool marks, mold lines, forms that do not appear in nature is not that specified info in that it is something specific rather than random.

 

[stevevw]

I am at a loss to understand why you imagine I think you are denying evolution. I am treating, specifically, your nonsensical comments on natural selection and disease.

OK maybe not yourself and I was not talking about my comments about selections ability to weed out diseases. Generally my experience has been if someone disputes aspects the standard theory especially the ability of natural selection it is assumed that they completely dispute the entire theory.

Your mention of it is completely unnecessary. No biologist, that I am aware of, in the last century and a half has ever suggested otherwise than what you point. So in what way are you restoring balance? Perspective? You are giving a completely pointless, irrelevant perspective. I mean, if it is your intention to repeatedly state the blindingly obvious then I am wasting my time reading your posts.

OK there may be a misunderstanding here if you have not been following earlier posts. I am talking more about the well known dispute relating to the EES. The EES is a contentious issue. Primarily the main dispute with the EES and similar views of evolution as mentioned by Lynch is that natural selection is over emphasized at the expense of other influences.

Though supporters of the standard evolutionary theory (SET) acknowledge some of the influences within the EES they deny their prominence and relegate this to the fringes as evolutionary noise. Whereas supporters of the EES say that these influences are actually causes of evolution and direct what natural selection can and cannot do. The standard theory gives natural selection and random mutations credit for many variations that actually stem form EES influences So standard thinking is narrow and exclusive and fixated on adaptive evolution. So there is a fundamental disagreement rather than something that is well accepted by mainstream supporters of the Standard theory. The following paper sums up what I am talking about and is only one of many.

The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science1, 2. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.

Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

And yet you base this observation upon a handful of examples, from the hundreds and thousands one might present, that identify, analyse, categorise, discuss and present those very complexities. You might stand a better chance of making your argument if you presented some examples of these supposed individuals (groups? whatever) who insist upon the simplicity of evolution.

No the papers I have linked talk about an industry wide disagreement, a paradigm shift and re-conceptualization of evolutionary theory. For example there was a meeting in Altenberg of 16 well known scientists speaking about how the theory needs to be revised and changed mostly because of the over emphasis of natural selection. The issue made the front page of Nature magazine talking about this divide. So it is a well known dispute which indicates that mainstream science does not accept influences like the EES as causes of evolution. Some may acknowledge these influences but relegate them to the fringes as evolutionary noise rather than actual causes of evolution.
https://www.amazon.com/Altenberg-16-Exposé-Evolution-Industry/dp/1556439245

Here are other prominent scientists mentioning the industry wide divide
Sandwalk who is a well know scientist and advocate of evolution has a good balanced view of things. He comments on an article by Jerry Foder Why Pigs Don't Have Wings
In fact, an appreciable number of perfectly reasonable biologists are coming to think that the theory of natural selection can no longer be taken for granted. This is, so far, mostly straws in the wind; but it’s not out of the question that a scientific revolution – no less than a major revision of evolutionary theory – is in the offing. Unlike the story about our minds being anachronistic adaptations, this new twist doesn’t seem to have been widely noticed outside professional circles. The ironic upshot is that at a time when the theory of natural selection has become an article of pop culture, it is faced with what may be the most serious challenge it has had so far. Darwinists have been known to say that adaptationism is the best idea that anybody has ever had. It would be a good joke if the best idea that anybody has ever had turned out not to be true. A lot of the history of science consists of the world playing that sort of joke on our most cherished theories.
Sandwalk: Why Pigs Don't Have Wings

In my professional education, evolution was never presented as being simple. It was never presented as a "done deal". The Modern Synthesis existed, but so do did a host of unanswered questions, questions that have been answered in part by such matters as hox genes, evo-devo, niche selection and so forth.

OK maybe things are changing but from my experience especially on this site I have never heard anyone acknowledge these things and only speak in adaptive terms where Neo-Darwinism is the only factor. That is all I am saying and I am not disputing evolution as a whole.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Then why do scientists speak about physical constants such as the cosmological constant being so finely tuned at 10 to the power of 120. If this was slightly different it would not produce a universe for intelligent life.

How many possible values were there? If we allow for multiple possible outcomes then we get multiverse ideas. But what if there was only 1 possibility? Apparent fine tuning is a post hoc observation of the only reality we can experience. Unless you can determine the probability space before Big Bang (which we currently have no way of doing), any post hoc calculations are meaningless.

 

[stevevw]

How many possible values were there?

The possible values have been calculated by science. They determine that the physical constants need to be at a certain level otherwise they will not allow the type of conditions we see today. For example

• If the strong nuclear force were slightly more powerful, then there would be no hydrogen, an essential element of life. If it was slightly weaker, then hydrogen would be the only element in existence.
• If the weak nuclear force were slightly different, then either there would not be enough helium to generate heavy elements in stars, or stars would burn out too quickly and supernova explosions could not scatter heavy elements across the universe.
• If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, atomic bonds, and thus complex molecules, could not form.
• If the value of the gravitational constant were slightly larger, one consequence would be that stars would become too hot and burn out too quickly. If it were smaller, stars would never burn at all and heavy elements would not be produced.

If we allow for multiple possible outcomes then we get multiverse ideas. But what if there was only 1 possibility? Apparent fine tuning is a post hoc observation of the only reality we can experience. Unless you can determine the probability space before Big Bang (which we currently have no way of doing), any post hoc calculations are meaningless.

I can't see how that matters as the above shows there are only certain fine tuned levels that will allow our universe. We know our universe had a beginning and it was from that beginning that created what we have today. The fine tuning had to be there from the beginning as far as the cosmological constant is concerned to allow for an increasing faster expanding universe. Otherwise our universe would have collapsed in on itself or flew apart. This was confirmed by Steven Weinburg

Curiously, this observation is in accord with a prediction made by Nobel laureate and physicist Steven Weinberg in 1987, who argued from basic principles that the cosmological constant must be zero to within one part in roughly 10 to the power of 120 (and yet be nonzero), or else the universe either would have dispersed too fast for stars and galaxies to have formed, or else would have recollapsed upon itself long ago.
https://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html
That is an extremely fine tuned parameter.

A multiverse has been proposed to address the fine tuning problem but then we are introducing non verified possibilities. This would be similar to how some say that invoking an intelligent agent such as God which is also non verified. All we can do is work on what we have and that seems to be one universe "ours".

 

[Kylie]

Then why would those papers I posted earlier say when it comes to the genetic networks that build complex organisms natural selection is quantitatively minimal or even insufficient.

Also why would a prominent scientists and supporter of evolution who would know the current status say that most biologists see everything in adaptive terms (adaptations through natural selection). I have read many papers that same something similar plus from my experience with debating on this site I rarely if ever hear anyone acknowledge anything but natural selection as the driving force for evolution. All answers and examples are related to how adaptations through natural selection acting on random mutations can evolve just about anything through gradual slight modifications.

The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

The problem I have is when you consider the papers above that show that natural selection is not quantitatively dominant and even insufficient when it comes to evolving genetic networks in complex organisms and how there are other forces that can be more responsible for providing non random variation in the EES this equates to an important distinction that is being overlooked. It is giving credit to selection when other forces are responsible and even misleading. It is almost like religious belief in that it is like believing in something for the sake of it without verifying it is actually responsible.

Can you cut and paste the relevant quotes from the articles?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The possible values have been calculated by science. They determine that the physical constants need to be at a certain level otherwise they will not allow the type of conditions we see today. For example

• If the strong nuclear force were slightly more powerful, then there would be no hydrogen, an essential element of life. If it was slightly weaker, then hydrogen would be the only element in existence.
• If the weak nuclear force were slightly different, then either there would not be enough helium to generate heavy elements in stars, or stars would burn out too quickly and supernova explosions could not scatter heavy elements across the universe.
• If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, atomic bonds, and thus complex molecules, could not form.
• If the value of the gravitational constant were slightly larger, one consequence would be that stars would become too hot and burn out too quickly. If it were smaller, stars would never burn at all and heavy elements would not be produced.

I can't see how that matters as the above shows there are only certain fine tuned levels that will allow our universe. We know our universe had a beginning and it was from that beginning that created what we have today. The fine tuning had to be there from the beginning as far as the cosmological constant is concerned to allow for an increasing faster expanding universe. Otherwise our universe would have collapsed in on itself or flew apart. This was confirmed by Steven Weinburg

Curiously, this observation is in accord with a prediction made by Nobel laureate and physicist Steven Weinberg in 1987, who argued from basic principles that the cosmological constant must be zero to within one part in roughly 10 to the power of 120 (and yet be nonzero), or else the universe either would have dispersed too fast for stars and galaxies to have formed, or else would have recollapsed upon itself long ago.
https://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html
That is an extremely fine tuned parameter.

A multiverse has been proposed to address the fine tuning problem but then we are introducing non verified possibilities. This would be similar to how some say that invoking an intelligent agent such as God which is also non verified. All we can do is work on what we have and that seems to be one universe "ours".

You completely miss the point. It doesn't matter that post hoc it has been determined that more than one value is possible. What you don't know, and science cannot currently discover, is whether or not the only possible outcome was the one we have.

Example - a deck of cards has 52! possible combinations. But if I put them in a certain order before dealing, there is only 1 possible combination if I deal them straight out. You have absolutely no idea of the probability space. Any number you choose is meaningless.

 

[stevevw]

Can you cut and paste the relevant quotes from the articles?

Yeah here is the link to the post Thursday at 11:56 PM#382

 

[Speedwell]

Yes but as the bible says we need to investigate things. Gods creation is known to everyone and we can see it in what He has made. So my understanding is that we should be able to see some of the signs of His creation. Not supernatural signs but processes that God would have ensured life has that are directed and designed to aid life to exist on earth whether that be evolution or through other processes like developmental processes.

In general I am suspicious of people who try to use science to prove the existence of God. I don't think it's possible, and I think that God arranged things to be that way. He was careful not to leave any greasy fingerprints on the works. As a practical matter, every time I have seen it tried there is a political agenda behind it. ID is a good example. It was concocted by radical Calvinists at the Discovery Institute as a Trojan Horse for biblical creationism and a "wedge" (as they called it themselves) for the theocratic totalitarian state they wanted to impose on this country.

Ok sorry I do remember this but you have elaborated on it. That can be a blurry line as some of the ways a living cell works for example point to indication of agency such as the machines that copy DNA and the other factory like processing processes. My question would be if we are looking for tool marks, mold lines, forms that do not appear in nature is not that specified info in that it is something specific rather than random.

I'm not convinced that you actually know what "random" means. In science, it generally means nothing more than "unpredictable" and carries no implications whatever about cause or purpose. By extension, it also refers to the "bell curve" distribution of a random variable, which is what it means in the name of the theory: evolution by random variation and natural selection.

 

[pitabread]

It is saying any condition is suitable for producing intelligent life which is not the case. For intelligent life to exists it has to have a specific hole as opposed to any hole.

That's not quite what the puddle argument is saying. The puddle argument is an example of post-hoc reasoning; namely that because the puddle exists, therefore the hole must have been made for its existence.

The fine tuning argument is exactly that: the universe permits intelligent life to exist, therefore the universe must have been designed to support intelligent life.

If the hole didn't exist (indeed if no holes existed), there would be no puddles to wonder about why they fit so nicely in those holes. Likewise if the universe didn't permit the conditions that allow intelligent life to exist, there would be no intelligent life sitting around and contemplating its existence.

It's because the universe permits intelligent life that intelligent life is able to exist. It's not the other way around. The fine tuning argument tries to make it the other way around which is why the fine tuning argument is logically flawed (post hoc reasoning).

 

[stevevw]

You completely miss the point. It doesn't matter that post hoc it has been determined that more than one value is possible. What you don't know, and science cannot currently discover, is whether or not the only possible outcome was the one we have.

Example - a deck of cards has 52! possible combinations. But if I put them in a certain order before dealing, there is only 1 possible combination if I deal them straight out. You have absolutely no idea of the probability space. Any number you choose is meaningless.

But it seems there is evidence for showing that the specific physical constants we have are the only ones that will support intelligent life. Not just intelligent life but a universe that will support intelligent life. Scientists have shown through the same science we use to verify physics that even having a slightly different value to those physical constants will not produce the right sort of universe for intelligent life.

That because science uses the same constants to support other theories and they need those constants to be just right especially with the cosmological constant as this supports dark energy. They admit that even a slight change would cause the universe to completely fly apart of collapse. because they are basing the science on randomness from the big bang they have to allow for random outcomes which could produce any possible values for our universe. Otherwise we would have to admit agency and say that something was directing the outcome to happen precisely in a way that would produce intelligent life. That is why scientists appeal to the multiverse as it counters the fine tuning argument. The fact they appeal to the multiverse idea shows they acknowledge the problem of the fine tuning argument.

 

[SLP]

We went through that scenario earlier in this thread. As I mentioned then that example does not address the fine tuning. It just assumes because we are here the right conditions must also be present otherwise we would not be here. It is a circular argument. If we say the shape of the hole are the many fine tuned parameters and the water is intelligent life because the water is fluid it will conform to whatever shape the hole is. But that does not determine the conditions needed for intelligent life. It is saying any condition is suitable for producing intelligent life which is not the case. For intelligent life to exists it has to have a specific hole as opposed to any hole.

Works out the same - it is the same logic.

 

[pitabread]

Then why do they put odds on the fine tuning argument for example.

I don't know who "they" are specifically. In the case of those individuals arguing for a designed universe, I find they resort to probabilities because they are trying to razzle-dazzle an audience that doesn't know any better.

 

[stevevw]

In general I am suspicious of people who try to use science to prove the existence of God. I don't think it's possible, and I think that God arranged things to be that way. He was careful not to leave any greasy fingerprints on the works. As a practical matter, every time I have seen it tried there is a political agenda behind it. ID is a good example. It was concocted by radical Calvinists at the Discovery Institute as a Trojan Horse for biblical creationism and a "wedge" (as they called it themselves) for the theocratic totalitarian state they wanted to impose on this country.

I agree and ultimately we cannot verify God through science. But I think there is some indirect support. The problem with this is that the same indirect evidence can be interpreted more than one way. So I guess it does come down to faith in the end. But you often here about those who believe in a creator God expressing support for creation through intuition in that what they see is a logical consequence of an all powerful and knowledgeable God.

I like how Professor Lennox expresses this when debating about how science can calculate the universe through math and yet a universe full of math would logically point to a mind behind that math.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RjlFJX6OjY

I'm not convinced that you actually know what "random" means. In science, it generally means nothing more than "unpredictable" and carries no implications whatever about cause or purpose. By extension, it also refers to the "bell curve" distribution of a random variable, which is what it means in the name of the theory: evolution by random variation and natural selection.

Maybe not but I do know when the science shows that there are non-random way that produce variation that allow living things to adapt besides natural selection acting on random mutations. I may take this and form personal views about what that represents and that this may be Gods way of ensuring life survives but the science behind the non-random process is scientifically verified which I have quoted.

 

[Speedwell]

Maybe not but I do know when the science shows that there are non-random way that produce variation that allow living things to adapt besides natural selection acting on random mutations. I may take this and form personal views about what that represents and that this may be Gods way of ensuring life survives but the science behind the non-random process is scientifically verified which I have quoted.

No, sorry, it isn't "non-random" if the distribution of variation is still a bell curve. In any case, natural selection doesn't act on random mutations, it acts on randomly distributed phenotypic variation.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

But it seems there is evidence for showing that the specific physical constants we have are the only ones that will support intelligent life. Not just intelligent life but a universe that will support intelligent life. Scientists have shown through the same science we use to verify physics that even having a slightly different value to those physical constants will not produce the right sort of universe for intelligent life.

That because science uses the same constants to support other theories and they need those constants to be just right especially with the cosmological constant as this supports dark energy. They admit that even a slight change would cause the universe to completely fly apart of collapse. because they are basing the science on randomness from the big bang they have to allow for random outcomes which could produce any possible values for our universe. Otherwise we would have to admit agency and say that something was directing the outcome to happen precisely in a way that would produce intelligent life. That is why scientists appeal to the multiverse as it counters the fine tuning argument. The fact they appeal to the multiverse idea shows they acknowledge the problem of the fine tuning argument.

So what? If that is the only possible outcome there is no fine tuning or improbability.

Let me say this again, and please think about what I am saying - you have absolutely no idea about the probability space for the beginning of our universe. Any probability calculation you make is meaningless.

 

[pitabread]

<snip>

There are a number of papers out that use similar methods. It is not about verifying specified complexity itself. It is about showing that random chance cannot account for certain things. That the odds for chance producing them go beyond chance. This then infers specified complexity. That is what those papers I posted were about. People get things wrong when they think that we need to verify specified complexity. It is more about showing how random chance cannot account for what we see.

It's getting unwieldy to keep responding paragraph-by-paragraph, so I'm going to condense my response into a few key points.

1) The way "specified complexity" is being used in these discussions is entirely too vague.

If the intention is to argue that it is a quantifiable property that can be used to determine if a thing has intelligent origins, then it needs to be formalized and empirically verified. There is no getting away from that.

On the other hand, if the intent is to use "specified complexity" in a colloquial fashion then trying to argue it as a quantifiable property of intelligently designed objects is moot. There is no point in even using the terminology in an argument because it clearly cannot be defended as such.

2) For probability arguments, when it comes to biology trying to calculate probabilities of viable biological outcomes is problematic because the probability space of viable outcomes isn't known.

There are too many variables and too many unknowns to even begin such a calculation. We just don't have perfect information. Plus not everything in the universe is strictly random either. Chemical reactions are not random. Natural selection isn't purely random.

The fact that Dembski's formulation of specified complexity relies on a probability argument is part of the reason it is inherently flawed. This is discussed as part of the criticisms of specified complexity in relation to probability: Specified complexity - Wikipedia

3) You reference the fine tuning argument a couple times in your post. The fine tuning argument is logically flawed, so I wouldn't advise likening specified complexity to the fine tuning argument.

4) Arguing that the 2004 Axe paper demonstrates that protein evolution is too rare to happen by chance is a complete misuse of Axe's experiment and outcome. I suggest reading the Panda's Thumb article on the very same: Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function

I think that covers the main points I wanted to respond to.

 

[stevevw]

Works out the same - it is the same logic.

Here is why the puddle example does not address the fine tuning argument.
In an argument if someone claimed that the universe is not fine tuned for intelligent life as the puddle analogy tries to show then they should be able to come up with some reasons why. The the puddle analogy gives no reason. It just claims fine tuning is not an argument and ignores the data. The puddle analogy only tries to appeal to a naturalistic presupposition that life happens to exist because the physical constants just happen to be where they are to permit life. This is assuming what is being argued and begging the question.

It is also not based on the same logic. The hole is suppose to represent the universe and the puddle is life but unlike our universe the hole does not have any specific settings of its shape, its just a hole, any hole. Our universe is not any universe but one with specific physical constants that allow life. Any different and there would be no life as supported by the calculations of changing those settings.
http://answersforhope.org/destroying-the-puddle-analogy/

 

[Speedwell]

The puddle analogy only tries to appeal to a naturalistic presupposition that life happens to exist because the physical constants just happen to be where they are to permit life. This is assuming what is being argued and begging the question.

That's not a naturalistic presupposition, it's a fact. Life happens to exist because the physical constants just happen to be where they are to permit life. Why they happen to be where they are is not a question which science addresses. If you want to attribute it to a particular deity, go right ahead, but you will get no support from science in trying to convince anyone who has a different cause in mind.

 

[stevevw]

It's getting unwieldy to keep responding paragraph-by-paragraph, so I'm going to condense my response into a few key points.

1) The way "specified complexity" is being used in these discussions is entirely too vague.

If the intention is to argue that it is a quantifiable property that can be used to determine if a thing has intelligent origins, then it needs to be formalized and empirically verified. There is no getting away from that.

On the other hand, if the intent is to use "specified complexity" in a colloquial fashion then trying to argue it as a quantifiable property of intelligently designed objects is moot. There is no point in even using the terminology in an argument because it clearly cannot be defended as such.

I agree it is an ambiguous concept which I acknowledged earlier and therefore something no one can use to support ID. How I understand specified complexity is that its proponents say it is not about proving specified complexity itself but showing that the odds of a natural random and chance process could not produced certain things that can be measured such as human made machines and art etc and therefore it must be specified and complex. This is more of an argument from inferring specified complexity.

Like I said I do not subscribe to ID in the same way that supporters do but rather like some of the ideas. That is why I was proposing that there must be some specificity in the info of design by an agent be it human, alien or a god because like the particular marks a human would make on a stone tool they conform to a specific way of doing things as opposed to something created by a chance event.

2) For probability arguments, when it comes to biology trying to calculate probabilities of viable biological outcomes is problematic because the probability space of viable outcomes isn't known.

There are too many variables and too many unknowns to even begin such a calculation. We just don't have perfect information. Plus not everything in the universe is strictly random either. Chemical reactions are not random. Natural selection isn't purely random.

Then why do scientists including non-religious ones try to show the probability such as in the origins of life argument or with protein evolution.

The fact that Dembski's formulation of specified complexity relies on a probability argument is part of the reason it is inherently flawed. This is discussed as part of the criticisms of specified complexity in relation to probability: Specified complexity - Wikipedia

Acknowledged as above.

3) You reference the fine tuning argument a couple times in your post. The fine tuning argument is logically flawed, so I wouldn't advise likening specified complexity to the fine tuning argument.

How is the fine tuning argument logically flawed.

4) Arguing that the 2004 Axe paper demonstrates that protein evolution is too rare to happen by chance is a complete misuse of Axe's experiment and outcome. I suggest reading the Panda's Thumb article on the very same: Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function

I think that covers the main points I wanted to respond to.

I have read this and you have to remember this is not a peer reviewed article in response to Axe's paper but a blog by Art Hunt and Panda thumbs so I am not sure why it is being held in such high regard. Axe has replied to these objections as well showing the mistakes and misconceptions made
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/03/in_response_to/

Also from memory there is other support for Axe's findings from mainstream science showing the rarity of functional protein folds but I will have to get back on this as it is late and I will have to find them.

 

[pitabread]

How I understand specified complexity is that its proponents say it is not about proving specified complexity itself but showing that the odds of a natural random and chance process could not produced certain things that can be measured such as human made machines and art etc and therefore it must be specified and complex. This is more of an argument from inferring specified complexity.

This still implies that specified complexity is a measurable property of designed objects that one can quantify. Which is why if one wishes to make this argument, one needs to demonstrate the validity of specified complexity as a measurable property of designed things and that can it can be used as a form of design detection.

Again, see the problems with it here: Specified complexity - Wikipedia

Then why do scientists including non-religious ones try to show the probability such as in the origins of life argument or with protein evolution.

This depends on the context.

However, this doesn't invalidate that probability used as an argument for design is inherently flawed where the probability cannot be meaningfully calculated, as well as the problem of calculating probabilities after the fact.

Acknowledged as above.

I don't see it being acknowledged. Did you read it?

How is the fine tuning argument logically flawed.

The fine tuning argument argues that since the universe supports life, therefore it was created for that purpose. It's a form of the post-hoc fallacy.

I have read this and you have to remember this is not a peer reviewed article in response to Axe's paper but a blog by Art Hunt and Panda thumbs so I am not sure why it is being held in such high regard. Axe has replied to these objections as well showing the mistakes and misconceptions made
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/03/in_response_to/

Axe's response in that article deals with various responses to his paper (mostly not from the Hunt article). It also doesn't address everything raised in the Hunt article.

As for the Hunt article not being peer-reviewed, that's a bit of a moot point. It doesn't invalidate the criticism of the way ID proponents have misused the results of Axe's 2004 paper.

Also from memory there is other support for Axe's findings from mainstream science showing the rarity of functional protein folds but I will have to get back on this as it is late and I will have to find them.

The Panda's Thumb article discusses just that. I suggest reading it: Axe (2004) and the evolution of enzyme function