A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

[stevevw]

You've been blowing quite a bit of smoke here, but I still don't see any fire. All you've got boils down to "evolution can't work therefore ID." At some point you are going to have to come clean about what ID is. Even if we accepted your "evolution can't work" the best option on the table is still "therefore we need a better naturalistic theory." Where's the MacGuffin?

Its not my smoke. The EES is fairly well known. It is not a case that evolution does not work but that it is insufficient as it is to explain the many new discoveries that have been found. Just like it was revised and upgraded with Neo-Darwinism some are saying it needs revising and upgrading again. I have already explained what I think ID is. It is about certain features in life which can be explained best by having some intelligence cause rather than by blind chance. We recognize this when we see it and know that there is some intelligence behind an art piece or a sculpture for example rather than a random event that may shape or create something like an eroded rock. It may have a certain level of info that is beyond what a chance occurrence can generate. So we look for the signs of that intelligence and that is all I try to do with the stuff I am posting.

 

[Speedwell]

Its not my smoke. The EES is fairly well known. It is not a case that evolution does not work but that it is insufficient as it is to explain the many new discoveries that have been found. Just like it was revised and upgraded with Neo-Darwinism some are saying it needs revising and upgrading again.

So what? Science marches on.

I have already explained what I think ID is. It is about certain features in life which can be explained best by having some intelligence cause rather than by blind chance. We recognize this when we see it and know that there is some intelligence behind an art piece or a sculpture for example rather than a random even that may shape something. So we look for the signs of that intelligence and that is all I try to do with the stuff I am posting.

Here's the thing: We observe the diversity and adaptability of life and wish to find an explanation for it. The theory of evolution offers such an explanation. In particular, it offers a process mechanism based on randomly distributed heritable phenotypic variation followed by environmental selection, plus several second-order feedback loops on top of that involving the complex relationship between phenotype and genotype which are not yet fully understood.

Whether you accept the theory of evolution or not, it presents you with something to critique. And so you do. So far all I have seen are straw men, mined quotes and bogus post hoc probability calculations, but never mind. One day you may succeed in falsifying the theory of evolution.

What then? All you've got is a falsified theory. “Then must have been designed” you say, blowing off the possibility of any alternative naturalistic theory. What does that even mean? How was it designed? You don't seem to know and don't seem to care. So go ahead and critique the theory of evolution all you want, but until you can propose an alternative mechanism of your own you've got nothing.

 

[pitabread]

We recognize this when we see it and know that there is some intelligence behind an art piece or a sculpture for example rather than a random event that may shape or create something like an eroded rock. It may have a certain level of info that is beyond what a chance occurrence can generate

We don't use probability in those cases though. We use pattern recognition based on pre-existing knowledge that humans construct such things and knowledge of the process of how they are created.

We have no such pre-existing knowledge to apply to deliberately designed life forms. Not until ID proponents can begin suggesting mechanisms for how design was effected in life forms. To date, I'm not aware that they have any proposed mechanisms. Pretty much all ID arguments still boil down to trying to refute evolution and then claim ID as a default. However, ID is not the null hypothesis vis-a-vis evolution.

IMHO, probability is a red herring in discussions of ID.

 

[pitabread]

What does that even mean? How was it designed? You don't seem to know and don't seem to care. So go ahead and critique the theory of evolution all you want, but until you can propose an alternative mechanism of your own you've got nothing.

Exactly.

It's especially telling when reading ID material and trying to decipher what elements of life they consider designed. It's all over the map and there really seems to be little indication of how a designer would have effected design in living things.

 

[pitabread]

yet the main support in the Dover case to refute ID was based around the level of complexity in life (specified complexity)

Huh? The Dover trial wasn't at all about refuting ID. Rather it was about showing the religious motivation behind ID and specifically the religious motivation in reading out a disclaimer re: evolution to students and referring them to the book Of Pandas and People in the Dover High School library.

The validity of ID was largely irrelevant.

And Axe replied to Panda thumbs plus there has been other non religious support for his paper since. Correcting Four Misconceptions about my 2004...

In reading through that response, it looks like it's mostly directed at other criticisms of his paper not specifically what was posted on Panda's Thumb.

He also doesn't address the section of the Panda's Thumb article that discusses other approaches (e.g. the "forward approach") in estimating functional sequences which yield far greater number of functional versus non-functional sequences. I specifically quoted that section back in post #16 of this thread.

It also looks like Axe is making the same fundamental error of his peers when he states that, "if Darwin’s theory turns out not to be up to the task, it would be reasonable to make use of this in making a case for ID."

ID is not and never has been the null hypothesis of evolutionary mechanisms.

 

[Astrophile]

I have already explained what I think ID is. It is about certain features in life which can be explained best by having some intelligence cause rather than by blind chance. We recognize this when we see it and know that there is some intelligence behind an art piece or a sculpture for example rather than a random event that may shape or create something like an eroded rock. It may have a certain level of info that is beyond what a chance occurrence can generate.

Do you think that there is some intelligence behind a spiral galaxy, a planetary nebula, the rings of Saturn, a tornado, a rainbow, or a crystal of quartz or tourmaline? If so, why, and if not, why not?

 

[Kylie]

I would have thought fine tuning is support for some intelligence controlling things so how can fine tuning happen without a designer.

Evolution is how things get fine tuned without a designer.

These papers show how rare it is to create the level of complexity in life. The first paper is about the rarity of producing a functional protein. Though this does not verify God directly it shows that for proteins which are the building blocks of life the level of specificity is beyond probability for naturalistic processes.

The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 1064 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 1077, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.

Which would be a problem if it was happening randomly, but it isn't is it?

The second paper is along a similar line. It gives support for Dembski’s specified complexity and Behe’s irreducible complexity. This lends support to the arguments made from specified info that intelligent designers use. The paper explains and gives a mathematical explanation of what specified complexity is and this can be used to rule out naturalistic explanations about how life evolved. At the same time is shows that the info needed to create life is very rare. These two factors can help build a case for ID. As Dr. Montañez notes in the paper, meeting this requirement “is the entry fee for a probabilistic mechanism even to enter the tournament of competing explanations.”

A mathematical theory of complex specified information is introduced which unifies several prior methods of computing specified complexity. Similar to how the exponential family of probability distributions have dissimilar surface forms yet share a common underlying mathematical identity, we define a model that allows us to cast Dembski’s semiotic specified complexity, Ewert et al.’s algorithmic specified complexity, Hazen et al.’s functional information, and Behe’s irreducible complexity into a common mathematical form. Adding additional constraints, we introduce canonical specified complexity models, for which one-sided conservation bounds are given, showing that large specified complexity values are unlikely under any given continuous or discrete distribution and that canonical models can be used to form statistical hypothesis tests, by bounding tail probabilities for arbitrary distributions.

Well, that's just a bunch of jargon, and I bet it is essentially meaningless to you.

Of course, if you do understand it, please describe for me the difference between a canonical specified complexity model and a non-canonical specified complexity model.

If you can't, then perhaps you don't understand it to the degree required to claim that it supports your claims. Don't feel bad, information theory is notoriously complex and it is well beyond the grasp of those who haven't studied it.

 

[Kylie]

I don't think so. I have not seen any evidence for this. A blind and random process cannot produce the level of complexity seen in life such as living cells. This is supported by the papers posted in the previous post.

But evolution isn't random, is it?

If we are to support an intelligent designer, then one of the predictions would be that we should be able to find mechanisms that are more directed towards helping life to change rather then relying on blind and random chance. Part of that is showing that the level of functional specified complexity is beyond Darwinian evolution and there is not enough time to produce the type of machinery we see in living cells.

Two things.

First, evolution would favour those animals that were better able to adapt and change, so you can't say that the ability (or an increased ability) to adapt and change is an argument for an intelligent designer.

Secondly, another prediction of an intelligent designer is that we should just see the final intended product, not all these intermediary steps.

It is not an argument from incredulity. If someone is to prove that a person has been murdered in a court case, they look at the circumstantial evidence which builds their case. This is the same for support ID. Verifying a creator directly is impossible just like it is impossible for verifying a multiverse directly. So, we build a case from the evidence that points to design in life. If you listen to the video the presenter is showing how the cell has tiny machines and they act like machines. They build proteins that are based on specific language. If we were to see this type of machinery and language in any other area, we would acknowledge that this has the hallmarks of design.

Seems to me like you are saying, essentially, "I can't imagine how all this complicated stuff could have happened if it wasn't designed, so it must have been designed!"

I never said an end goal as in one goal. I don’t think that a goal is the right description. It is the fact that the processes highlighted by the EES give direction to evolution and often have specific outcomes that produce well suited and integrated change. As opposed to being subject to blind selection and random mutations. So, it is a directed process as opposed to a blind and random one.

Once again, evolution isn't random.

Those two examples are completely different. For one we know that humans put the dinner plates in the cupboard therefore negating the dinner plate fairies straight away, end of story. Where are the many physical parameters that would be unlikely to happen together that support the dinner plates in the cupboard argument. The fine tuning has many of these highly rare conditions happening together that are recognized by many scientists. Even Stephen Hawkins supports that there is fine tuning.

“The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life”. “For example,” Hawking writes, “if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.”

I certainly find dinner plates in the cupboard more often than I remember putting them there.

And have you heard Douglas Adams' story about the puddle?

 

[stevevw]

So what? Science marches on.

yes that is the case but for some and possibly many anyone would think that it is heresy to even mention that there is any questioning and revision of Darwin's theory.

Here's the thing: We observe the diversity and adaptability of life and wish to find an explanation for it. The theory of evolution offers such an explanation. In particular, it offers a process mechanism based on randomly distributed heritable phenotypic variation followed by environmental selection, plus several second-order feedback loops on top of that involving the complex relationship between phenotype and genotype which are not yet fully understood.

The thing is the EES states that there is variation that is not randomly distributed because other mechanisms produce well suited and integrated phenotype. That the environment does not select in a lot of situations as living things have the capacity to change the environment so that it suits them. That other processes put living things in a better position to adapt rather than being totally disassociated from evolutionary change. As stated by the EES the modern theory is based on gene change and it disputes the gene centric view as there are other ways for change.

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.

These mechanisms are not second order feedback's but causes of evolutionary change as much as selection is because they direct what selection can and cannot do.

Whether you accept the theory of evolution or not, it presents you with something to critique. And so you do. So far all I have seen are straw men, mined quotes and bogus post hoc probability calculations, but never mind. One day you may succeed in falsifying the theory of evolution.

What then? All you've got is a falsified theory. “Then must have been designed” you say, blowing off the possibility of any alternative naturalistic theory. What does that even mean? How was it designed? You don't seem to know and don't seem to care. So go ahead and critique the theory of evolution all you want, but until you can propose an alternative mechanism of your own you've got nothing.

The EES does not set out to disprove the Modern theory. As mentioned it presents some evidence that may revise it. Some of that is about how other mechanisms can give direction to natural selection. Selection still plays a role in the end as the mechanism that will determine which creatures survive. It is just that rather than random mutations being the only source of variations there are variations produced by other processes that are well suited for selection to work on. There are processes that allow creatures to put themselves in a better position to survive thus minimizing natural selection as these have been self selected. It presents a more holistic and interactive theory.

For me it does not matter how life evolves as far as my belief is concerned and I would imagine this is the same for many others who believe in theistic evolution. Though theistic evolution incorporates the modern theory it still incorporates a creator God guiding things. All I am doing is showing that perhaps there are more ways a creator God has aided living things to survive on planet earth so that it ensures the outcomes we see today. It would seem a logical position to take rather than have an entirely blind and random process which may not guarantee producing the life we have today. I am sure for those who believe they would not think that a creator God would take those sort of gambles.

 

[stevevw]

We don't use probability in those cases though. We use pattern recognition based on pre-existing knowledge that humans construct such things and knowledge of the process of how they are created.

We have no such pre-existing knowledge to apply to deliberately designed life forms. Not until ID proponents can begin suggesting mechanisms for how design was effected in life forms. To date, I'm not aware that they have any proposed mechanisms. Pretty much all ID arguments still boil down to trying to refute evolution and then claim ID as a default. However, ID is not the null hypothesis vis-a-vis evolution.

IMHO, probability is a red herring in discussions of ID.

So why cannot the same pattern recognition be used for life. Why cannot the science of cause and effect be used. Why do scientists talk about the large odds against a living cell being produced and why do they talk about the fine tuning for intelligent life. All these are based on the same probability determination we use for other events. For example with the living cell it is not just about showing that the odds of the mechanisms used in evolution are unlikely to produce such things but also that the processes that are involved look and act like the type of mechanisms we regard as intelligently designed ie machines and language sequences that require a high level of specificity, organisation and functionality.

 

[stevevw]

Do you think that there is some intelligence behind a spiral galaxy, a planetary nebula, the rings of Saturn, a tornado, a rainbow, or a crystal of quartz or tourmaline? If so, why, and if not, why not?

No as there are still natural chance and random processes within the overall scheme of things. Even for theistic evolution people support natural processes. But if we look at what science says about how the universe came about they even acknowledge that there had to be some very specific conditions/parameters to produce the type of universe we have today.

So spiral galaxy for example may be a result of that. Intelligent life may be a result of that as they would not exist if those conditions were not right, the universe would not exist in the way it does. But I would imagine tornadoes and the like as a consequence of the weather patterns which are also subject to many factors such as climate change which are random. But the type of atmosphere and position of the moon for example that produce our overall weather we have on earth is the result of its position and other physical parameters that have allowed the earth to be produced within a fine tuned universe.

 

[stevevw]

Evolution is how things get fine tuned without a designer.

Maybe but that does not mean that there were other mechanisms that created the creature and feature for evolution (natural selection) to refine. IE natural selection is good at explaining survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest.

Which would be a problem if it was happening randomly, but it isn't is it?

But Natural selection is blind and acts on random mutations so it has no overall purpose. It cannot see ahead to know what would is needed. As mentioned the EES mentions that there are many processes that produce phenotype that are not random. It can dictate what natural selection can and cannot do.

Well, that's just a bunch of jargon, and I bet it is essentially meaningless to you.

Of course, if you do understand it, please describe for me the difference between a canonical specified complexity model and a non-canonical specified complexity model.
If you can't, then perhaps you don't understand it to the degree required to claim that it supports your claims. Don't feel bad, information theory is notoriously complex and it is well beyond the grasp of those who haven't studied it.

Yes there is a lot of complex math that is over my head. But I can understand enough through the summaries and commentaries how it offers a general mathematical definition of specified complexity and how this can be used to measure if something has specified complexity or not. It is a fallacy to say that a person cannot use a paper as support if they cannot completely understand it at the level of the author in that area. If this was the case no one could make any claims because all we would have is specialist in those fields and personal claims which would be even less supported. I am pretty sure that of all the claims on this thread they are all not from professionals at the degree or masters level.

But this is what I find a lot is that the claim is made that there is no support for ID or its measurement and when there is all sorts of fallacies are put forward like people don't understand enough to comment or the source is suspect in some way.

 

[stevevw]

But evolution isn't random, is it?

Evolution works with blind selection which cannot know what is needed ahead of time and random mutations that can throw up anything which selection has to sift through. That creates a hit and miss process where non-beneficial mutations are entered into the mix which can undermine situations especially where specific info is needed for complexity despite selection trying to weed this out. In fact this process can be detrimental to complex systems that are delicate and require specificity.

That is why the processes mentioned in the EES make more sense. They throw up well suited and integrated features which are not a risk or problem to the living thing and make it easier for selection to consolidate.

Two things.

First, evolution would favour those animals that were better able to adapt and change, so you can't say that the ability (or an increased ability) to adapt and change is an argument for an intelligent designer.

yes why not. Supporters of theistic evolution take this position.

Secondly, another prediction of an intelligent designer is that we should just see the final intended product, not all these intermediary steps.

No see that is the misconception of ID. It is a science so it will look for the smaller steps and anything that can be scientifically supported to show how an intelligent designer would use with the way life develops and is self organised to achieve the outcomes.

Seems to me like you are saying, essentially, "I can't imagine how all this complicated stuff could have happened if it wasn't designed, so it must have been designed!"

From the position of someone who believes in a creator we will say that it cannot happen without God. Whether that is creationism (supernatural) or theistic evolution (supernatural and scientific). I and some others just happen to think there should be more evidence out there which is just adding some more science to the equation. But it is not just a case of life being complex so God must have done it because I am looking for the scientific evidence that I believe should be out there. It is really just theistic evolution with some add on's I guess.

Once again, evolution isn't random.

I guess I may be taking a bigger view of things. How the universe was geared just right to allow earth. How earth was geared just right to allow life. How life has certain inbuilt mechanisms that ensure life will adapt to earth and produce the type of life we have today. I don't think Darwinian evolution guarantees that.

I certainly find dinner plates in the cupboard more often than I remember putting them there.

I often find spoons missing. Could it be the dinner plate fairies evolving.

And have you heard Douglas Adams' story about the puddle?

yeah but I don't think that applies here either. That would be like someone getting a hose and filling the hole up with water. But then we would know that an intelligent agent did that. A better example for fine tuning would be if the there was frozen lump of water with all its jagged edges and a hole was found that just happened to fit that frozen water shape. That would seem too perfect to be by chance.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The second paper is along a similar line. It gives support for Dembski’s specified complexity and Behe’s irreducible complexity. This lends support to the arguments made from specified info that intelligent designers use. The paper explains and gives a mathematical explanation of what specified complexity is and this can be used to rule out naturalistic explanations about how life evolved. At the same time is shows that the info needed to create life is very rare. These two factors can help build a case for ID. As Dr. Montañez notes in the paper, meeting this requirement “is the entry fee for a probabilistic mechanism even to enter the tournament of competing explanations.”

A mathematical theory of complex specified information is introduced which unifies several prior methods of computing specified complexity. Similar to how the exponential family of probability distributions have dissimilar surface forms yet share a common underlying mathematical identity, we define a model that allows us to cast Dembski’s semiotic specified complexity, Ewert et al.’s algorithmic specified complexity, Hazen et al.’s functional information, and Behe’s irreducible complexity into a common mathematical form. Adding additional constraints, we introduce canonical specified complexity models, for which one-sided conservation bounds are given, showing that large specified complexity values are unlikely under any given continuous or discrete distribution and that canonical models can be used to form statistical hypothesis tests, by bounding tail probabilities for arbitrary distributions.

A paper from BIO-Complexity? Lol

Lots of jargon and fancy language there, but all it really says is "We have a method to look at things that have evolved that makes them appear to have been improbable." Nothing new here.

 

[stevevw]

A paper from BIO-Complexity? Lol

Lots of jargon and fancy language there, but all it really says is "We have a method to look at things that have evolved that makes them appear to have been improbable." Nothing new here.

Like I mentioned to Kylie in post 152
But this is what I find a lot is that the claim is made that there is no support for ID or its measurement and when there is all sorts of fallacies are put forward like people don't understand enough to comment or the source is suspect in some way.

So the entire paper and the authors work is trashed because of the association and not the content. That is one big logical fallacy. Nothing new except people were quick to discredit complex specified info and irreducible complexity.

By the way the other paper posted from Douglas Axe was made in a the Journal of Molecular Biology so does that mean its OK lol.

 

[Speedwell]

yes that is the case but for some and possibly many anyone would think that it is heresy to even mention that there is any questioning and revision of Darwin's theory.

That's just one of your straw men.

The thing is the EES states that there is variation that is not randomly distributed because other mechanisms produce well suited and integrated phenotype. That the environment does not select in a lot of situations as living things have the capacity to change the environment so that it suits them. That other processes put living things in a better position to adapt rather than being totally disassociated from evolutionary change. As stated by the EES the modern theory is based on gene change and it disputes the gene centric view as there are other ways for change.

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.

These mechanisms are not second order feedback's but causes of evolutionary change as much as selection is because they direct what selection can and cannot do.

That's why I referred to them as I did. They influence variation and respond to selection.

The EES does not set out to disprove the Modern theory. As mentioned it presents some evidence that may revise it. Some of that is about how other mechanisms can give direction to natural selection. Selection still plays a role in the end as the mechanism that will determine which creatures survive. It is just that rather than random mutations being the only source of variations there are variations produced by other processes that are well suited for selection to work on. There are processes that allow creatures to put themselves in a better position to survive thus minimizing natural selection as these have been self selected. It presents a more holistic and interactive theory.

Not just EES. It's been many years since random mutations were regarded as the only cause of variation.

For me it does not matter how life evolves as far as my belief is concerned and I would imagine this is the same for many others who believe in theistic evolution. Though theistic evolution incorporates the modern theory it still incorporates a creator God guiding things.

Not all theistic evolutionists believe that.

All I am doing is showing that perhaps there are more ways a creator God has aided living things to survive on planet earth so that it ensures the outcomes we see today.

You haven't shown us any "ways." All you have done is try to show us that the theory of evolution is wrong. You haven't even shown us that a creator God would need to "ensure the outcomes we see today."

It would seem a logical position to take rather than have an entirely blind and random process which may not guarantee producing the life we have today. I am sure for those who believe they would not think that a creator God would take those sort of gambles.

"Blind and random" is another one of your straw men. I think your problem is that you have led yourself into a metaphysical blind alley by supposing that a physical process with a randomizing element like evolution can't be the vehicle of divine Telos.

 

[Speedwell]

So the entire paper and the authors work is trashed because of the association and not the content. That is one big logical fallacy. Nothing new except people were quick to discredit complex specified info and irreducible complexity.

Yes, it doesn't take very long for people who know something about math and information theory. It can be done quickly. And that is part of the problem you are having with your present line of argument. You may find it convincing, but for the rest of us it has been debunked for years. It was only ever a hoax anyway, concocted by a bunch of radical Calvinists at the Discovery Institute as a Trojan Horse for their political agenda. Is there really anything to ID? I don't know. In a way it's like Cold Fusion. People are still tinkering with it, and who knows what they may eventually discover? But Fleischmann and Pons will be pariahs forever.

 

[lasthero]

A better example for fine tuning would be if the there was frozen lump of water with all its jagged edges and a hole was found that just happened to fit that frozen water shape. That would seem too perfect to be by chance.

It could just be that the water was poured into the hole, frozen, then taken out. That would be the logical conclusion, I think. I certainly wouldn't assume that someone designed the ice to fit in the hole. I suppose it's possible that someone cut the ice just right to fit in a hole that they designed, but since it's easier to just pour water in the hole and freeze it, I'd assume that was happened.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Like I mentioned to Kylie in post 152
But this is what I find a lot is that the claim is made that there is no support for ID or its measurement and when there is all sorts of fallacies are put forward like people don't understand enough to comment or the source is suspect in some way.

So the entire paper and the authors work is trashed because of the association and not the content. That is one big logical fallacy. Nothing new except people were quick to discredit complex specified info and irreducible complexity.

By the way the other paper posted from Douglas Axe was made in a the Journal of Molecular Biology so does that mean its OK lol.

I started by laughing that you think a paper in an ID mouthpiece should be taken as anything other than a biased article.

I then pointed out that the article says nothing new and provides no new support for ID.

You have misunderstood my first point and ignored the second.

 

[stevevw]

That's just one of your straw men.

Just about every article I read about the EES and the like mentions how supporters of the traditional theory make accusations against people even questioning the modern theory for example the same article posted above states

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.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

That's why I referred to them as I did. They influence variation and respond to selection.

What do you mean respond to selection.

Not just EES. It's been many years since random mutations were regarded as the only cause of variation.

The problem is most people do not see it that way. They see everything in adaptive terms with random mutations producing the variations and natural selection sifting these to produce just about every feature and creature there is. Any other influence is regarded as minor and not causes. As the article states

Evolutionary biology has incorporated developments consistent with the tenets of the modern synthesis. One such is ‘neutral theory’, which emphasizes random events in evolution. However, standard evolutionary theory (SET) largely retains the same assumptions as the original modern synthesis, which continues to channel how people think about evolution.

The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.

So basically it is saying people still think in traditional ways and make natural selection and random mutations as the sole force. Anything else is secondary, even minor, importance.
As the paper states these other forces in the EES are not minor but actual causes that dictate what selection can do thus directing evolution. As far as I understand it from debating on this thread most people think in traditional terms and when explaining evolution referring to how natural selection can build bit by bit just about everything acting on random mutations while weeding out the non-beneficial.

Not all theistic evolutionists believe that.

Supporters of theistic evolution have a broad range of beliefs as to Gods role. But they all believe God had some guiding influence even if that was just setting the controls at the very beginning be it with the creation of everything or the creation of the first universal living cell. Otherwise why have a creator God. Does not creator mean He creates.

You haven't shown us any "ways." All you have done is try to show us that the theory of evolution is wrong. You haven't even shown us that a creator God would need to "ensure the outcomes we see today.""Blind and random" is another one of your straw men. I think your problem is that you have led yourself into a metaphysical blind alley by supposing that a physical process with a randomizing element like evolution can't be the vehicle of divine Telos.

I mentioned earlier that I am open to evolution theory as it is being one way for how God created life. That is more of a theistic evolutionary approach. I just think there is more to it than that.

For the record I have attempted to show how ID works and that we can see design in life here #110, here #116 and here #130. But the OP was about evolution being impossible rather than proving ID.