Evolution via random mutations is impossible

[tas8831]

Ask yourself why the human genome is now less-functional than what it once was?

What is your evidence that this is the case?

Actual evidence, not ancient middle eastern lore.

 

[tas8831]

No such things a variation due to mutations, OK.



So variance is introduced by mutation after all?

LOL, I'm used to your nonsense but this is a good one, even for you!

Isn't it precious that he thinks interbreeding creates new alleles?

 

[BradB]

Evolution via random mutations is impossible

I am unconvinced by explanations of how random mutations operating with natural selection can account for the complexity of chemical biological life. The basic answer I encounter is that calculating the probability is too complex, and so it is merely assumed that randomness was sufficient. But if something unproven and unseen is the cause, why object when people claim that God intervenes (which is also unprovable)?

I should mention: I believe in evolution. If it can be demonstrated that random mutations is sufficient, I will wholehearted accept it.

There really are only two possible explanations for the existence of complex life. Just natural unguided processes, or there's this ancient book claiming some great intelligent being designed life. So it all boils down to a simple debate over the evidence and which theory does the evidence best fit? Here's the problem... whenever you have two opposing theories in which the same type of evidence is predicted to be observed, then in that particular debate that type of evidence becomes polysemic and useless. It must be thrown out of the debate. I'll give you an example of what I mean.

In the famous Robert Blake murder trial where he was accused of shooting his wife to death, the prosecution claimed that gun shot residue on his hands and cloths was evidence of his guilt. The problem is that his defense argued that any gun owner who goes target practicing often, as Blake does, would be expected to have GSR on his hands and cloths. Both sides predicted GSR and therefore that evidence became polysemic and useless in the trial. Better and stronger evidence was required in order to get a conviction.​

I pointed this out because both naturalism and design theories predict similarity between the organisms. Naturalism says if all life has a universal common ancestor then we predict to observe many similarities in the features of those various organisms. However design says that if all life had a common designer then we predict he would have used many similar design features in the various organisms. Thus similarity argument cannot be used by either side of the issue. These arguments in this debate are polysemic and useless to the debate. Both sides are required to bring better and stronger evidence to the table. That means to prove all life is the result of natural unguided processes then evolutionists must present evidence that the process either did or at least could occur. This evidence would have to be in the form of at least one finely (without giant leaps) graduated chain of fossils between any two major forms. Or at least one example of observed new and beneficial information being added (gene increasing) to the genome of a multi-celled organism. (Note: I stress the words "observed, beneficial, and multi-celled" here.) Likewise Design has to step up their game. They must be able to point to scientifically accepted clues for design and then demonstrate how those clues are in fact observed in all living organisms.

The mainstream world today parades the fact that evolutionary evidence is seen in every fossil and biology lab throughout the world. Indeed I agree they have literally so much evidence supporting evolution that you could probably fill every football stadium in the USA with it all. The kicker is that every last bit of it...relies on similarity arguments. All of it. And since similarity arguments are not evidence in this particular debate then they must be thrown out. This leaves Naturalism with nothing. Zero. Not a single shred of evidence they can bring to the table in a debate between naturalism or design.

So what has Design got to bring to the table? Well the scientifically accepted clues that suggest design are anything which we can observe was formed with a particular intent or purpose. The term for this is specificity. Examples of how specificity is used by scientists today can be seen in the way Archaeologists look for specific design features in objects they dig up. A feature that he/she recognizes from a previous experience that tells them this object was designed rather than naturally formed. Another example would be in the way marine biologists studying dolphins looking for specific sound patterns emitted by the creature that correlate with certain behaviors. This type of specificity tells them they actually have some form of intelligent language. Another example would be the way astronomers with SETI institute search for specific compressed light or radio signals coming from deep space. Such signals are very specified and would suggest an intelligent source. So if specificity suggests strong evidence for design in these cases then why would it not suggest design when we observe it in things like DNA code? This code is so specified that it warps our most intricate and sophisticated computer software codes by comparison. Again with no evidence that the code could have formed by natural processes, the most logical conclusion is design.

 

[Job 33:6]

'So what has Design got to bring to the table? Well the scientifically accepted clues that suggest design are anything which we can observe was formed with a particular intent or purpose. The term for this is specificity. Examples of how specificity is used by scientists today can be seen in the way Archaeologists look for specific design features in objects they dig up. A feature that he/she recognizes from a previous experience that tells them this object was designed rather than naturally formed."

The problem with this, is that we ourselves are the ones who define what "appears" to have "intent" or "purpose". I could say that our planet was created with intent and purpose, because it is round like a bowling ball. How could something round, not have purpose? But if something were not round, how else would a designer make it? If there were no designer, what would unguided forces look like? Is the fact that gravity exists, evidence of design because it makes things round?

There is really no clear way to answer or to really know.

From a scientific perspective, the discussion comes down to what is, and what is not. Its not about what "appears" to be, or what "appears" not to be. Which is why, from a scientific position, really both atheism and theism are unscientific positions, with the exception of things like atheism toward greek or egyption Gods.

From a purely scientific stance, there is no clear logical conclusion of either design, or no design. Its just a speculative debate based around inconclusive observation.

 

[Speedwell]

There really are only two possible explanations for the existence of complex life. Just natural unguided processes, or there's this ancient book claiming some great intelligent being designed life. So it all boils down to a simple debate over the evidence and which theory does the evidence best fit? Here's the problem... whenever you have two opposing theories in which the same type of evidence is predicted to be observed, then in that particular debate that type of evidence becomes polysemic and useless. It must be thrown out of the debate. I'll give you an example of what I mean.

In the famous Robert Blake murder trial where he was accused of shooting his wife to death, the prosecution claimed that gun shot residue on his hands and cloths was evidence of his guilt. The problem is that his defense argued that any gun owner who goes target practicing often, as Blake does, would be expected to have GSR on his hands and cloths. Both sides predicted GSR and therefore that evidence became polysemic and useless in the trial. Better and stronger evidence was required in order to get a conviction.​

I pointed this out because both naturalism and design theories predict similarity between the organisms. Naturalism says if all life has a universal common ancestor then we predict to observe many similarities in the features of those various organisms. However design says that if all life had a common designer then we predict he would have used many similar design features in the various organisms. Thus similarity argument cannot be used by either side of the issue. These arguments in this debate are polysemic and useless to the debate. Both sides are required to bring better and stronger evidence to the table. That means to prove all life is the result of natural unguided processes then evolutionists must present evidence that the process either did or at least could occur. This evidence would have to be in the form of at least one finely (without giant leaps) graduated chain of fossils between any two major forms. Or at least one example of observed new and beneficial information being added (gene increasing) to the genome of a multi-celled organism. (Note: I stress the words "observed, beneficial, and multi-celled" here.) Likewise Design has to step up their game. They must be able to point to scientifically accepted clues for design and then demonstrate how those clues are in fact observed in all living organisms.

The mainstream world today parades the fact that evolutionary evidence is seen in every fossil and biology lab throughout the world. Indeed I agree they have literally so much evidence supporting evolution that you could probably fill every football stadium in the USA with it all. The kicker is that every last bit of it...relies on similarity arguments. All of it. And since similarity arguments are not evidence in this particular debate then they must be thrown out. This leaves Naturalism with nothing. Zero. Not a single shred of evidence they can bring to the table in a debate between naturalism or design.

So what has Design got to bring to the table? Well the scientifically accepted clues that suggest design are anything which we can observe was formed with a particular intent or purpose. The term for this is specificity. Examples of how specificity is used by scientists today can be seen in the way Archaeologists look for specific design features in objects they dig up. A feature that he/she recognizes from a previous experience that tells them this object was designed rather than naturally formed. Another example would be in the way marine biologists studying dolphins looking for specific sound patterns emitted by the creature that correlate with certain behaviors. This type of specificity tells them they actually have some form of intelligent language. Another example would be the way astronomers with SETI institute search for specific compressed light or radio signals coming from deep space. Such signals are very specified and would suggest an intelligent source. So if specificity suggests strong evidence for design in these cases then why would it not suggest design when we observe it in things like DNA code? This code is so specified that it warps our most intricate and sophisticated computer software codes by comparison. Again with no evidence that the code could have formed by natural processes, the most logical conclusion is design.

Very good. I think that is, on the whole, a succinct and accurate characterization of the "design" position. There are (the usual) false statements about science and the (usual) logical fallacies, but I am not interested in picking them apart--no doubt someone else will be, although in my experience ID proponents are impervious to such critique.

I want to know something more about ID. In my experience, ID proponents are all Biblical creationists at heart. They seem to be using ID as a "wedge," being under the impression that once the presence of "design" in natural objects is admitted, the acceptance of Biblcal creationism will inevitably follow. Certainly that was the position of the Discovery Institute who invented ID and even used the term "wedge" to describe their strategy.

I think it's time for you guys to man up and let us know what you think about the rest of the program. Let us suppose that we admit the presence of intentional design in (some or all) natural objects. What's next? How do we get from here to Fundamentalist Protestantism? I'm not interested in discussing ID with any of you until you reveal your entire agenda.

 

[BradB]

The problem with this, is that we ourselves are the ones who define what "appears" to have "intent" or "purpose". I could say that our planet was created with intent and purpose, because it is round like a bowling ball. How could something round, not have purpose? But if something were not round, how else would a designer make it? If there were no designer, what would unguided forces look like? Is the fact that gravity exists, evidence of design because it makes things round?

There is really no clear way to answer or to really know.

From a scientific perspective, the discussion comes down to what is, and what is not. Its not about what "appears" to be, or what "appears" not to be. Which is why, from a scientific position, really both atheism and theism are unscientific positions, with the exception of things like atheism toward greek or egyption Gods.

From a purely scientific stance, there is no clear logical conclusion of either design, or no design. Its just a speculative debate based around inconclusive observation.

I think you are unintentionally conflating the issues. Shapes to not normally necessarily equated with intelligence. I've seen perfectly round boulders formed by strong water currents and gravity played only a small part in the formation of the shape. Unless you count that gravity is what held the water to the ground and caused it to run down hill with such force. The key to identifying something specified is for the observer to be able to link the object, to a previous experience. For example an archaeologist finds a piece of pottery and his previous knowledge about pottery helps him to recognize it as an intelligently designed piece. Someone with no such knowledge may have cast it off as just an odd shaped rock. Note that the specificity exists rather or not an observer recognizes it or not. So we are discussing how "we" humans can detect something that is intelligently designed or naturally formed. This means that if "we" have observed round things formed naturally then we would have no reason to suspect a round earth was created by design merely because of its shape. Consider snow flakes and car keys. If you look at the shape and pattern of a snow flake it appears very intricate and complex. Compared to the car key the pattern of a snow flake wins the complexity race hands down. However we have never noticed or observed that these patterns in snow flakes do anything in particular. They do not fit in or initiate anything interdependent of them merely by their specific shape. The same is not true for the car key. The pattern observed in a car key (though not near as complex) is known to align perfectly all the tumbles of an ignition switch for one specific car and cause it to start.

Again scientists equate this type of specificity with intelligence all the time in other fields. If a chimp picks up a stick and uses it to fish ants out of an ant hill, scientists recognize it as a tool. They chimp has converted a naturally occurring object into a very specified tool. Only something with intelligence can do this. The arrangement of nucleotides in the DNA molecule of all living things displays incredible specificity. I personally believe the only reason main stream scientists refuse to recognize it is designed is because they are uncomfortable with its ramifications.

 

[BradB]

Very good. I think that is, on the whole, a succinct and accurate characterization of the "design" position. There are (the usual) false statements about science and the (usual) logical fallacies, but I am not interested in picking them apart--no doubt someone else will be, although in my experience ID proponents are impervious to such critique.

I want to know something more about ID. In my experience, ID proponents are all Biblical creationists at heart. They seem to be using ID as a "wedge," being under the impression that once the presence of "design" in natural objects is admitted, the acceptance of Biblcal creationism will inevitably follow. Certainly that was the position of the Discovery Institute who invented ID and even used the term "wedge" to describe their strategy.

I think it's time for you guys to man up and let us know what you think about the rest of the program. Let us suppose that we admit the presence of intentional design in (some or all) natural objects. What's next? How do we get from here to Fundamentalist Protestantism? I'm not interested in discussing ID with any of you until you reveal your entire agenda.

I should point out that you have probably only noticed biblical creationists are ID'sts because they are the most vocal. But I can assure you there are plenty of Muslim's who believe in intelligent design. Intelligent design is merely the vehicle. All it is, is the theory that the universe and life displays design. All biblical creationists are IDsts but not all IDsts are biblical creationists. We biblical creationists pick up the ball where ID drops it and say that the design observed is in direct agreement with the claims of the Bible. I make no attempts at hiding my agenda. I became a born again Christian when I was 27 over 28 years ago. The thing that won me over totally was when I really honestly took a look at what the scientific evidence shows. As a Christian I am told I should be ready to give a defense always for the reason of the hope I have.

 

[Snappy1]

I should point out that you have probably only noticed biblical creationists are ID'sts because they are the most vocal. But I can assure you there are plenty of Muslim's who believe in intelligent design. Intelligent design is merely the vehicle. All it is, is the theory that the universe and life displays design. All biblical creationists are IDsts but not all IDsts are biblical creationists. We biblical creationists pick up the ball where ID drops it and say that the design observed is in direct agreement with the claims of the Bible. I make no attempts at hiding my agenda. I became a born again Christian when I was 27 over 28 years ago. The thing that won me over totally was when I really honestly took a look at what the scientific evidence shows. As a Christian I am told I should be ready to give a defense always for the reason of the hope I have.

Show me an IDist without an apriori religious belief.

 

[Speedwell]

I should point out that you have probably only noticed biblical creationists are ID'sts because they are the most vocal. But I can assure you there are plenty of Muslim's who believe in intelligent design.

How do you know that they are not Biblical creationists using ID just as you are? You understand, I hope, that Muslims, being "People of the Book," regard the Tenach (along with the Synoptics) as their "Old Testament." Muslim creationists I have come into contact with believe in creationism for the same reason you do--that they take the Genesis stories as accurate literal history.

Intelligent design is merely the vehicle.

For what?

All it is, is the theory that the universe and life displays design. All biblical creationists are IDsts but not all IDsts are biblical creationists. We biblical creationists pick up the ball where ID drops it and say that the design observed is in direct agreement with the claims of the Bible. I make no attempts at hiding my agenda. I became a born again Christian when I was 27 over 28 years ago. The thing that won me over totally was when I really honestly took a look at what the scientific evidence shows. As a Christian I am told I should be ready to give a defense always for the reason of the hope I have.

That seems really bizarre to me. I suppose that if it brought you to Christ it's all to the good.

But I still don't get it. What are you going to do about those of us to do believe that the universe and life are "designed" but that it can't be demonstrated scientifically? What are you going to do about those of us who came to Christ in some other way than the roundabout path you followed through your distrust of science? We need neither ID nor a literal Genesis. What are you going to do about atheists? Once they admit of the existence of a "designer" what is to keep them from becoming, say, Roman Catholics?

 

[BradB]

Show me an IDist without an apriori religious belief.

Hugh? Show me an atheist who doesn't believe in naturalism. Religion by definition is a person who believes the universe was caused by a superhuman entity. Atheism likewise is at the other end of the spectrum and believes the universe was ultimately formed by natural causes. Therefore it is impossible to show you a non-religious person who believes in intelligent design...unless he or she is bat axe crazy.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think you are unintentionally conflating the issues. Shapes to not normally necessarily equated with intelligence. I've seen perfectly round boulders formed by strong water currents and gravity played only a small part in the formation of the shape. Unless you count that gravity is what held the water to the ground and caused it to run down hill with such force. The key to identifying something specified is for the observer to be able to link the object, to a previous experience. For example an archaeologist finds a piece of pottery and his previous knowledge about pottery helps him to recognize it as an intelligently designed piece. Someone with no such knowledge may have cast it off as just an odd shaped rock. Note that the specificity exists rather or not an observer recognizes it or not. So we are discussing how "we" humans can detect something that is intelligently designed or naturally formed. This means that if "we" have observed round things formed naturally then we would have no reason to suspect a round earth was created by design merely because of its shape. Consider snow flakes and car keys. If you look at the shape and pattern of a snow flake it appears very intricate and complex. Compared to the car key the pattern of a snow flake wins the complexity race hands down. However we have never noticed or observed that these patterns in snow flakes do anything in particular. They do not fit in or initiate anything interdependent of them merely by their specific shape. The same is not true for the car key. The pattern observed in a car key (though not near as complex) is known to align perfectly all the tumbles of an ignition switch for one specific car and cause it to start.

Again scientists equate this type of specificity with intelligence all the time in other fields. If a chimp picks up a stick and uses it to fish ants out of an ant hill, scientists recognize it as a tool. They chimp has converted a naturally occurring object into a very specified tool. Only something with intelligence can do this. The arrangement of nucleotides in the DNA molecule of all living things displays incredible specificity. I personally believe the only reason main stream scientists refuse to recognize it is designed is because they are uncomfortable with its ramifications.

What is the keyhole, if DNA is a key?

 

[Snappy1]

Hugh? Show me an atheist who doesn't believe in naturalism. Religion by definition is a person who believes the universe was caused by a superhuman entity. Atheism likewise is at the other end of the spectrum and believes the universe was ultimately formed by natural causes. Therefore it is impossible to show you a non-religious person who believes in intelligent design...unless he or she is bat axe crazy.

If ID was a valid scientific concept then a person could look at the available evidence and come to the conclusion of design, regardless of their previous beliefs. If you have to already believe in design to reach the conclusion of design then it is not science, by your own admission.

 

[Speedwell]

Hugh? Show me an atheist who doesn't believe in naturalism. Religion by definition is a person who believes the universe was caused by a superhuman entity. Atheism likewise is at the other end of the spectrum and believes the universe was ultimately formed by natural causes. Therefore it is impossible to show you a non-religious person who believes in intelligent design...unless he or she is bat axe crazy.

The key words here are a priori. Why did you take up with the Discovery Institute? Were you not a Biblical Christian already?

 

[Steve Petersen]

You shouldn't believe.

Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian mates with African is variation (Afro-Asian) seen in the species. Neither the Asian nor the African evolve into the Afro-Asian by mutation or any other method. The Asian remains Asian, the African remains African. This can be observed with every single species. And such is why every single fossil ever observed remains the same from the oldest found to the youngest found.

Even the Grants had to finally admit this after studying actual changes in animals.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277516740_Grant_PR_Grant_BR_Phenotypic_and_genetic_effects_of_hybridization_on_Darwin's_finches_Evolution_48_297-316

"New additive genetic variance introduced by hybridization is estimated to be two to three orders of magnitude greater than that introduced by mutation."

So why would you accept a fantasized claim of mutations and millions of years, when you can see that variance happening when two subspecies mate, right before your eyes?

Asian mates with horse, you get nothing.

 

[BradB]

How do you know that they are not Biblical creationists using ID just as you are? You understand, I hope, that Muslims, being "People of the Book," regard the Tenach (along with the Synoptics) as their "Old Testament." Muslim creationists I have come into contact with believe in creationism for the same reason you do--that they take the Genesis stories as accurate literal history.?

Actually Muslims believe both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible are corrupt and do not accept them at all as scripture with the exceptions of small portions quoted in the Koran. The Koran states that all creation took Allah Six days in Sura 7:54, therefore their belief in creation is based on the Koran and not on the Bible. However their belief in intelligent design may be for the same reasons as me, because of the observable evidence showing design. (side note: in Sura 41:9-12 it took Allah eight days for creation.)

But I still don't get it. What are you going to do about those of us to do believe that the universe and life are "designed" but that it can't be demonstrated scientifically?

I am going to point you to Romans 1:20 and pray that you see that such a notion is in direct opposition of God's word, and then I am going to point you to the evidence where we observe design. Then I'm going to pray pray pray that the Holy Spirit is able to help you see and acknowledge the truth. It isn't my place to do anything else.

What are you going to do about those of us who came to Christ in some other way than the roundabout path you followed through your distrust of science?

I praise God for whatever method brings someone to a true saving faith in Christ. But I want to clarify I had no distrust for science prior to becoming a Christian. In fact that was one of my main distrusts I had for the Bible. Science said the world and universe was billions of years old and all life formed by evolutionary processes, and the Bible said the universe and life was formed in 6 days by a divine being. For most of my life I just took it for granted that evolution really is supported by the evidence. My thoughts were that if the Bible were divinely inspired then it wouldn't disagree with known science. Then to my surprise I one day discovered a finely graduated chain fossils between any two major forms was not existent. That was the catalyst that started me searching. I came to realize we can trust everything the Bible says. All "66" books. Then I believed it when it said I had sinned against God and was headed for an eternal hell. I believed the Bible when it said Jesus was the Christ the Son of God who came into the world destroy sin and death which came into the world when the first man Adam sinned against God. I accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and savior and at that moment my whole life radically changed. I became a new person. It really was like being "born again."

What are you going to do about atheists? Once they admit of the existence of a "designer" what is to keep them from becoming, say, Roman Catholics?

Most Roman Catholics that I have encountered have very little understanding of what their own religions actually teach. Most have a true saving faith in Jesus Christ, but are just confused by some of the other teachings in RC. If they knew their Bibles and also knew what the doctrines of the RC church and the Vatican really were they would run from their churches like I recently did my church of 11 years when I discovered my pastor was teaching a false doctrine that conflicts with essential salvation doctrines. When I get an atheist to acknowledge a designer then I teach them about the designer of the Bible and show them He is the only one that can be the true designer. The basic two steps to salvation are summed up in Hebrews 11:6. Step 1. believe that God is, Step 2. believe that He will reward those who diligently seek Him.

 

[BradB]

The key words here are a priori. Why did you take up with the Discovery Institute? Were you not a Biblical Christian already?

What makes you think I am in any ways affiliated or connected to Discovery Institute?

 

[Speedwell]

What makes you think I am in any ways affiliated or connected to Discovery Institute?

You're pushing their doctrine; that would be a clue.

 

[BradB]

You're pushing their doctrine; that would be a clue.

Oh so you mean that if any two people both arrive at the same truth they "MUST" be in some way affiliated? Fact of the matter is I know very little about Discovery Institute or what they teach. If it happens to agree with me then maybe it is they who are pushing my doctrine? Lol.

 

[BradB]

What is the keyhole, if DNA is a key?

This video I made on the validity of intelligent design may help.

 

[Speedwell]

I am going to point you to Romans 1:20 and pray that you see that such a notion is in direct opposition of God's word, and then I am going to point you to the evidence where we observe design. Then I'm going to pray pray pray that the Holy Spirit is able to help you see and acknowledge the truth. It isn't my place to do anything else.

I prefer the opening lines of the 19th Psalm myself, but neither one tells me that Intelligent Design must be demonstrable by the scientific method.

Step 1. believe that God is, Step 2. believe that He will reward those who diligently seek Him.

What about the rest of the steps? The step to belief that the Genesis stories must be 100% accurate literal history? The step to correct belief in other key creationist doctrines; about guns, gays, immigrants, AGW and who should have won the Civil War?