Natural selection v Intelligent design

[pshun2404]

deleted

 

[paulm50]

I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. By saying we first need to understand how to get to that point I mean we must understand scientifically what makes things work first. Then by understanding scientifically we can see how it all works. If scientists didn't understand atoms then they wouldn't be able to see electrons and protons. If they didn't understand protons then they wouldn't be able to see quarks and leptons. They would be able to do experiments with the large Hadron collider and discover the Higgs boson.

Then they wouldn't be discovering this quantum world which is showing us the possibilities of an almost magical world at the point where something can come into existence from nothing. Afterall how does something come into existence from nothing. It has to act in ways that defy the way physics and reality works in the world we see around us. I spend a lot of time researching many subjects and enjoy it. I am sure I have learnt a lot and there's so much more to learn. I am sure it will a very interesting time ahead for science now that we are at these points of discovery. We have taken a long time to get to this point but now we stand on the threshold of something very amazing in which I believe will show that there is a God and there is designing life.

PS did you read any of those links. What did you think.

Science didn't understand atoms, it had to learn. Then it goes onto the next step, and the next.

You keep repeating the same line "how does something come into existence from nothing". Maybe an Asteroid hit the Earth with the elements, maybe the elements were already here, maybe there was a "thing" that created the Asteroid or soup of chemicals from which life sprung.

What's for certain is it has nothing to do with a Christian god or any religious god/creator. And proves all those writers telling how it all started, didn't have a clue.

How did life form from nothing? Yes we're still looking how it started, what you won't find is many claiming a creator that religion has any clue about.

Your links are always pointing to gaps in our knowledge. Point me to proof you are right, not that we haven't discovered enough.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

See creating life in the laboratory.

That's the stuff I was talking about - Venter created a genome from scratch, but not the cell he put it into. It's close enough for the media tag-line 'Creating Life', but he didn't synthesize the whole thing - which is what I'd call really creating life; but it's a fine line - maybe I'm being too picky

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Yet they know that both worlds have been verified so theoretically what can happen in the quantum world could affect our reality.

The quantum world is our reality. What we see is the quantum world at macro-scale. Dig right down and it's all quantum fields.

They are now at the point of experimenting with quantum mechanics to produce effects in our reality.

It's all around you already, in commercial products. Most of our modern technology explicitly relies on quantum effects - LEDs, lasers, modern microprocessors, hard disks, SSDs, MRI scanners and all superconducting technology, etc.

... now we are at this point we are finding that things can go beyond the science and mathematical calculations to something that is almost magical.

Not beyond science and maths at all; we may not understand what's going on 'behind the scenes' as it were, but the mathematics of quantum theory is the most accurate theory we're ever devised - it predicts the results of experiments better than any theory we've had, and to precision beyond our capability to measure.

More than that - now that the Higgs boson - predicted 40 years ago, and required by the Standard Model - has been found, we know that the Standard Model encompasses everything necessary to explain everyday human scales (and a considerable way above and below). It shows that the physics of everyday life can be completely described in terms of protons, neutrons, electrons, the electromagnetic force, and gravity. The strong and the weak force and all other particles are either at scales that don't affect our everyday world, or are too weakly interacting to bother us. This means that there are no new forces or particles out there that are relevant to everyday human life. The implication for the 'interaction problem' posed by the supernatural should be obvious.

I don't expect you to take my word for it - the full explanation needs someone better at explaining it than me, so I'll let one of the leading quantum physicists explain it: Sean Carroll - in 'The Higgs Boson and the Fundamental Nature of Reality' (I recommend watching the whole talk, which starts by describing the Large Hadron Collider and what it does, but the relevant part for our purposes starts 13.5 mins in).

Please note the caveats Carroll makes when explaining what we do and do not currently understand, and what we can and cannot currently explain.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why do keep saying Carson does not understand evolution?

Because there is evidence that he doesn't understand it?

...he most certainly does...you cannot become a neurosurgeon without having studied it far more deeply than you or I have.

I don't know how much or how well Carson has studied it. In any case, his understanding of it appears shaky.

The point here is that just because someone interprets evidence different from current evolutionary biologists or dos not agree with some area of their assessment DOES NOT EQUAL them being incorrect nor does it EQUAL not understanding how evolution IS SAID TO work...

But not understanding how evolution works does equal not understanding how it works. Carson shows signs of a lack of understanding.

Many things believed to be true (and some believed to be obvious) by many Evolutionary Biologists ARE NOT established scientific facts...and in many cases the interpretation of data contains a subjective element (based on what the researcher was hoping to find)...

We aren't talking about Carson's interpretation of the data, but his interpretation of what 'evolution' entails. You're confusing the point at issue.

 

[pshun2404]

Because there is evidence that he doesn't understand it?

And what is that? That he has a different opinion? He just does not accept the pat answer you believe he should say...but he does not see that as the correct answer.

But not understanding how evolution works does equal not understanding how it works. Carson shows signs of a lack of understanding.

He knows how it works but just does not see that explanation as a plausible one given the brain's complexities and subtle inter-dependencies.

We aren't talking about Carson's interpretation of the data, but his interpretation of what 'evolution' entails.

And just how do YOU say his interpretation of what evolution entails sheds doubt on his assessment regarding the central matter of his area of expertise? Are you a neurological expert?

You're confusing the point at issue.

You mean the point you are trying to make the issue! What was Steve's point regarding what this BRAIN EXPERT has to say? Do you remember? Carson's understanding of the brain and the nervous system and what they are and how they develop makes most biologists you would bow to look like mental midgets.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because there is evidence that he doesn't understand it?

And what is that? That he has a different opinion? He just does not accept the pat answer you believe he should say...but he does not see that as the correct answer.

I've already addressed the signs of his lack of understanding. We aren't talking about a difference of opinion. We are talking about Carson's understanding of evolution. That's the point at issue, not whether he accepts it or not.

But not understanding how evolution works does equal not understanding how it works. Carson shows signs of a lack of understanding.

He knows how it works but just does not see that explanation as a plausible one given the brain's complexities and subtle inter-dependencies.

I showed you evidence that he doesn't know how it works.

We aren't talking about Carson's interpretation of the data, but his interpretation of what 'evolution' entails.

And just how do YOU say his interpretation of what evolution entails sheds doubt on his assessment regarding the central matter of his area of expertise? Are you a neurological expert?

First, Carson isn't an expert on the evolution of the brain. He's a neurosurgeon. Second, my background is in neuropsychology. I'm obviously not an expert on the evolution of the brain, however, and neither is Carson. Why are you assuming that a background in neurology, neurosurgery, or neuropsychology makes someone an expert on evolution of the brain? It doesn't preclude expertise in that area, but it also doesn't guarantee it.

You mean the point you are trying to make the issue! What was Steve's point regarding what this BRAIN EXPERT has to say? Do you remember? Carson's understanding of the brain and the nervous system and what they are and how they develop makes most biologists you would bow to look like mental midgets.

Again, I don't know why you are assuming that being a "brain expert" must mean that one is also an expert on the evolution of the brain. Do you know how massive "brain science" is as a subject? Carson's background is in paediatric neurosurgery. He doesn't appear to have any discernible background in the phylogeny of the brain that would justify claiming expertise in that area. Carson's apparent misunderstanding of evolution casts further doubt on his qualification as an expert on brain evolution.

 

[stevevw]

Maybe he was also being sarcastic when he said that the brain is too complex to have evolved?

Maybe so but you could tell by the way he was talking and responding to the journalists question like Ive heard it all before.

The original source is not Patheos, but YouTube. You can watch it for yourself. Although cnsnews reported it, you can listen to him for yourself: the audio is available at the Discovery Institute, a notorious creationist outfit.

yes I know and thats where I got the rest of the interview which had more detail. But it takes an atheists site to focus in on something like this and take it out of context and ignore the rest of what he said. That is a typical atheists tactic to make the person look stupid and ridicule them. But he went on to talk about some of the aspects of evolution such as mutations and natural selection which showed he did know more than was made out. But of course Patheos didn't mention that.

He didn't say "apes." He said "monkeys," echoing a common misconception held by creationists. In other words, your "expert" on the evolution of the brain seems to harbour a misconception about evolution common to creationists. Combined with his other comments, this renders his "expertise" dubious.

Its not just a common creationists concept. I am sure Dr Carson and the many creationists are not that stupid to know about what evolution believes. They may just use a simple description to push home the point that evolution believes humans come from animals. But as I stated evolution more or less says we come from an ape type creature be it a monkey, chimp, ape, or some other ancient creature that looks very much like an ape.

Perhaps he was also being sarcastic when he said that the brain is too complex to have evolved? You are special pleading, steve.

No he was also describing the processes of how the brain worked in great detail. So he seemed to know something about that. Its funny how you will go out of your way to make a great scientists look dumb for the sake of undermining his credibility because he challenges evolution. The fact is he deals with the brain all the time and is one of the greatest brain surgeons who has pioneered techniques in brain surgery. As it was written about him in one of his operations where he separated Siamese twins who were born joined at the head.. It took hours to separate all the nerves and blood vessels in the brain area. To be able to do this would need some knowledge of different parts of the brain.

In 1987, neurosurgeon Ben Carson successfully performed an operation to separate Siamese twins who were born joined at the head. It was a milestone in neurosurgery, but was far from the only noteworthy achievement of Carson's career. He also performed ground-breaking surgery on a twin suffering from an abnormal expansion of the head. Carson was able to relieve the swelling and remove the surplus fluid-all while the unborn twin remained in its mother's uterus. This too was a first, and in other instances Carson has performed operations which have greatly expanded scientific knowledge of the brain and its functions. His "can-do" spirit, combined with his medical expertise, has made him the surgeon of choice for parents with children suffering rare neurological conditions.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3404707133.html

Now surely he would also know about the greatly expanded scientific knowledge of the brain and its functions being the one who performed the operations. I am sure he lectures of the new and expanded scientific knowledge of the brains functions that he himself has pioneered. I have noticed this tactic with those who are against God and his creation. They ridicule the person or the organization rather than give credit where credits due. Rather than deal with the hings that are said they undermine the reputations and credibility of the person so that it makes them look bad. This then allows them to also discredit anything they say. This is what happened to Jesus.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But not understanding how evolution works does equal not understanding how it works. Carson shows signs of a lack of understanding.

He knows how it works but just does not see that explanation as a plausible one given the brain's complexities and subtle inter-dependencies.

This is just the Argument from Incredulity, the same as used by ID proponents with 'irreducible complexity'. Being unable to grasp how something can come about is not a rational argument against the possibility. Providing evidence or a reasoned argument that there is some insurmountable problem would be a start.

For anyone who expresses incredulity about the developmental complexity of some organ, especially the brain, I would suggest a little comparative neurobiology, starting with our closest genetic relatives (e.g. other Primates) and moving out to more distant relations, looking at the structure and complexity of the brain and nervous system, and the environmental context. This will provide clear 'snapshots' of the many levels of structural and functional complexity that provide a good comparison to the progressive stages of increasing complexity through evolution. The evolutionary stages are not identical to the differences between living species today, but there are strong similarities. By examining less complex neurological structures, one can see which changes are required in which areas to produce the next level of complexity; the analogy with evolutionary changes becomes more apparent, and viewing the full range of complexity in all the stages currently available in living creatures gives a good idea of how over deep time (i.e. billions of years), small changes can accumulate to produce surprising complexity from relatively simple beginnings.

A high-level overview of population genetics also helps put these evolutionary changes into perspective. Individuals don't evolve, it is populations that evolve. At any one time, there may thousands of new mutations dispersing through a population, generation by generation. Most are neutral, some detrimental, and some beneficial, but they can't always be labelled simply beneficial or detrimental - some will be dominant, and so more clearly beneficial or detrimental, but many will be recessive, so their effects will depend on whether one or both alleles are inherited. Their effects may interact with each other, so a neutral or slightly detrimental gene may provide 'elbow room' for a different mutation to be beneficial that would otherwise be detrimental - mutational synergism; the effects of many mutations will be interacting. Some may be sex-linked (on the X or Y chromosomes), affecting only one sex, or one sex differently to the other. There is also the environmental context to consider - a mutation that is detrimental or neutral in one context may be beneficial in another, opening up a new niche to exploit for part of the population (which may be the start of speciation) or the whole population. The environment may change so that all but a few of the population with previously neutral or maladaptive genes survive and flourish, and so-on.

It is not a simple case of a series of independently positive or negative mutations in a single family tree producing evolutionary change. That would indeed justify some degree of incredulity.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Maybe so but you could tell by the way he was talking and responding to the journalists question like Ive heard it all before.

So you expect us to take Carson seriously when he dismisses evolution, yet when he shows a poor understanding of it you expect us to take his remarks as sarcasm? Special pleading, steve.

yes I know and thats where I got the rest of the interview which had more detail. But it takes an atheists site to focus in on something like this and take it out of context and ignore the rest of what he said. That is a typical atheists tactic to make the person look stupid and ridicule them.

steve, you were caught mashing two sources together, one a reputable science journal and another a creationist website. Should you really be pointing fingers?

But he went on to talk about some of the aspects of evolution such as mutations and natural selection which showed he did know more than was made out. But of course Patheos didn't mention that.

Of course they didn't mention it; it's irrelevant.

Its not just a common creationists concept. I am sure Dr Carson and the many creationists are not that stupid to know about what evolution believes. They may just use a simple description to push home the point that evolution believes humans come from animals. But as I stated evolution more or less says we come from an ape type creature be it a monkey, chimp, ape, or some other ancient creature that looks very much like an ape.

They use an inaccurate description. Remember, you are claiming that this guy is an expert on the evolution of the human brain. Yet he doesn't even appear to know how primate lineages are related to one another. If he can be mistaken about something so basic, what leads you to believe that he could not be mistaken about something like the evolution of the human brain? You are picking-and-choosing when to uphold Carson as an authority out of convenience. He apparently isn't an authority when he talks about the lineage of homo sapiens, but he is an authority when he talks about the evolution of the brain of homo sapiens? Come on, steve... that's ridiculous.

No he was also describing the processes of how the brain worked in great detail.

So what? I can ramble on about the processes of the brain too. (Ask me about episodic memory and the medial temporal lobes). That doesn't make me an expert on the evolution of the human brain!

So he seemed to know something about that. Its funny how you will go out of your way to make a great scientists look dumb for the sake of undermining his credibility because he challenges evolution.

I'm not making Carson look dumb on this subject. I'm merely pointing out that he is not an expert on the evolution of the human brain. In fact, I don't even think he claims to hold such expertise; you claim that he does. You seem to think that knowing something about the brain equates to knowing how it evolved. As we've already established, "brain science" is an enormous field of inquiry; being an expert in paediatric neurosurgery doesn't automatically make Carson an expert in every other area of brain research.

The fact is he deals with the brain all the time and is one of the greatest brain surgeons who has pioneered techniques in brain surgery.

Surgery being the key word in that sentence. What techniques has pioneered to investigate the evolution of the brain? What papers has he published on that matter?

As it was written about him in one of his operations where he separated Siamese twins who were born joined at the head.. It took hours to separate all the nerves and blood vessels in the brain area. To be able to do this would need some knowledge of different parts of the brain.

That's anatomy, not phylogeny! His anatomical knowledge was never in dispute! It's his qualification as an "expert" on the evolution of the brain that is in question.

I have noticed this tactic with those who are against God and his creation. They ridicule the person or the organization rather than give credit where credits due.

steve, this is a dishonest remark, IMO. This entire discussion is about giving credit where credit is due. What should Carson be credited with? He should be credited for the expertise he genuinely possesses in paediatric neurosurgery, a field to which he has contributed substantially. He should NOT be credited for expertise he does not possess! Carson does not have any discernible expertise in the evolution of the human brain. He does not receive credit for work in a field that he is not even part of.

Rather than deal with the hings that are said they undermine the reputations and credibility of the person so that it makes them look bad. This then allows them to also discredit anything they say.

You continue to confuse the point at issue in a dishonest attempt to make it appear that I am presenting an ad hominem argument. We aren't questioning Carson's credibility as a paediatric neurosurgeon. It's his credibility as an expert on the evolution of the human brain that is in question.

 

[pshun2404]

It was said that This is just the Argument from Incredulity, the same as used by ID proponents with 'irreducible complexity'. Being unable to grasp how something can come about is not a rational argument against the possibility.

Frumious...I do not disagree with this embolded statement in any way. Likewise based on that same fact, having a different view of how something comes about or why it functions as it does does not make that different view impossible.

Imagine if this argument you just made had been applied to Newtonian Mechanics? We never would have graduated to Relativity. And if applied as the reason to not reject Relativity we never would have graduated to Quantum mechanics....these all started with someone seeing the same evidence in a different way (open mindedness and seeing outside the accepted box is a very important allowance for the advancement of science).

Being able to "grasp" how it "can come about" in fact leaves open the possibility that it may not come about in just that way. I never said "being unable to grasp" argues against the possibility....it is always and only Arche and Paulm (from your own camp) who use the "unable to grasp" argument as to why they must be correct. IMO you have misplaced the need for this point and you should be making it to them.

As for your first part, I was reading about the basic requirements of biological systems in biology text books long before the phrase "irreducible complexity" became a negative buzz-word for EBs and thus if it is an "argument from incredulity" then the fault lies with the many decades of scientists that are not ID theorists. It is an OBVIOUS, DEMONSTRABLE, and TEST PROVEN fact that any given biological system has requirements BASIC TO their functional existence...(I hate to say it but DUH!)...imagine a cell without some mechanism in place for producing energy, or without a functional semi-permeable membrane, or lacking genetic material necessary for its reproduction!?!

 

[pshun2404]

Here is a new item to consider….I would hope both sides would view this discovery for what it says first as I have done, and then give their interpretations of what this could mean for a second pass though the article…

Dr. Robert Balaban and associates using Electron Microscopsy have made a revolutionary discovery. The energy flow from Mitochondria does not occur by the simple electro-chemical diffusion as agreed upon by the many EBs for over a decade, but rather by directed and specified “conduction” via a network of connective structures present for this specific function. Mitochondria are NOT individual powerhouses that would exist outside of or preceding cellular structure (also speculated by many EBs) but are an inter-connected purposeful and meaningful network akin to the powergrid connecting parts of a sophisticated powerplant or even a city.

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jul2015/nhlbi-30.htm

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v523/n7562/full/nature14614.html

IMO the implications this holds against a slow, billion year, by chance, evolutionary model is staggering. It is likewise as magnanimous in favor of the notion of design that many scientists are coming to realize play a major role. It is apparent to more and more researchers that information precedes aggregation! For these elements to become functional forms, information had to be present prior to their construction. They were developed to fulfill a PURPOSE that their necessity demonstrates pre-formative INTENT. Laws and principles which would guide the processes must precede the processes. Information is not matter or energy. Matter and energy respond and follow these laws and principles in order to become what we see and know. When one get this, they begin a new journey in critical thought, and no longer just buy into what they are told or taught is factual.

Again IMO the presence of the need for pre-formative information here is so overwhelmingly evident that it will have to be denied to fit the preconceived theory. Thus I await the predictable onslaught of attacks and papers explaining away what some will say this observation obviously demonstrates.

I am sure the first line of attack on forums like this will be some form of he is not a “current Evolutionary Biologist” as if that should make definitive demands against his area of expertise. Or that they or we are "unable to grasp" how this happens from an unguided process.

IMO, no purposeful, intentional, inter-dependable and highly sophisticated network such as this just comes about from an endless number of monkeys with typewriters over billions of years (just being sarcastically figurative) but now I will sit back and watch the theoretical rebuttals and excuses to make the data fit into the accepted preconception of the present pedagoguery.

 

[pshun2404]

That's the stuff I was talking about - Venter created a genome from scratch, but not the cell he put it into. It's close enough for the media tag-line 'Creating Life', but he didn't synthesize the whole thing - which is what I'd call really creating life; but it's a fine line - maybe I'm being too picky

No you are not being picky at all, but folks like Paulm and Arche miss the most important part...the precursory basis of the whole thing...

Every aspect is created and designed by an intelligent force that had an INTENTION and used pre-formative INFORMATION (knowledge possessed by Venter and his team) in making it happen (and this for only one artificial "life-form"). Once genetic material is placed into an already extant cell (as we see with virus's) the transcription/translation process still performs its intentionally designed program/function...so what...

So now I am sure there will be many more frankensteins produced along the same lines by other intelligent designers...

Who knows what contructive or destructive results could occur when one day they are released into the general biological communities...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Every aspect is created and designed by an intelligent force that had an INTENTION and used pre-formative INFORMATION (knowledge possessed by Venter and his team) in making it happen (and this for only one artificial "life-form"). Once genetic material is placed into an already extant cell (as we see with virus's) the transcription/translation process still performs its intentionally designed program/function...so what...

So, fascinating though it is, genome assembly is moving from science to engineering, it's technology now; and genetic engineering is almost within reach of hobbyists. Which is why I'm more interested in plausible naturalistic models of how life got started without intelligent agency.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...It is an OBVIOUS, DEMONSTRABLE, and TEST PROVEN fact that any given biological system has requirements BASIC TO their functional existence...

At what level of complexity does a relatively simple replicator qualify as a biological system? categories tend to blur the closer you look; the basic requirements for a replicator are very simple.

(I hate to say it but DUH!)...imagine a cell without some mechanism in place for producing energy, or without a functional semi-permeable membrane, or lacking genetic material necessary for its reproduction!?!

Well, no; but I don't think anyone is suggesting a functioning prokaryotic cell suddenly appeared in a soup of chemicals, like a tornado in a junk yard assembling a Boeing jet (although there are some simplified summaries that might give that impression, e.g. the Glasgow University project; but if you read the full detail, it's not like that; and there are a large number of other hypotheses, of varying plausibility, about these early pre-biotic stages and how cell templates may have developed).

Which is why I talk about replicators rather than cells; what counts is the preservation of a molecular pattern, typically a sequence of molecules. For example, I can trivially imagine an environment rich in organic groups that have a tendency to polymerize in certain conditions and which can also pair up with complementary groups, much like the purines & pyrimidines of RNA & DNA. If, periodically, conditions are suitable for suitable for pairing to create complementary amino acid chains, and, periodically, the conditions lead to pairing bonds being broken, individual sequences (and their complements) will multiply over time, as they attract pairs to form complementary sequences which are split off and themselves attract new pairs to form new complementary sequences, and so-on.

I'm not saying this is what happened, it's a grossly simplified hypothetical, but it shows it is easy to conceive of simple organic chain replicators, using a process conceptually similar to that used by real life, that - in the right circumstances - could multiply without all the complex support gubbins of a cellular structure, although, as mentioned previously, polar molecules like phospholipids do self-assemble into membranes and vesicles. The energy source driving replication would just be thermal or pH gradients in the environment that would drive the direction of pairing or unpairing of the groups (or the activation/deactivation of other groups that weakened pair bonds, analogous to enzymes). What is more difficult is to work through all the potential variations for simple organic replicator generation in all plausible chemical environments...

 

[paulm50]

That's the stuff I was talking about - Venter created a genome from scratch, but not the cell he put it into. It's close enough for the media tag-line 'Creating Life', but he didn't synthesize the whole thing - which is what I'd call really creating life; but it's a fine line - maybe I'm being too picky

Yes there are things we still need to learn. We will always be learning.

What it does is put bible creationism in a hole they can't get out of. They're all completely wrong, and obviously none of them had any divine guidance.

 

[paulm50]

The bible's version of creation has been proven over and over to be wrong. No matter how hard creationists look for gaps in our knowledge, they can't deny the writers of Genesis had no divine guidance. They were making it up. The mistakes are rife until it becomes impossible to defend.

So no divine guidance and unfulfilled promises. So is it likely this was a book written with fables that had no basis in fact? Very likely indeed. Leaving the creationists clutching straws.

 

[paulm50]

So, fascinating though it is, genome assembly is moving from science to engineering, it's technology now; and genetic engineering is almost within reach of hobbyists. Which is why I'm more interested in plausible naturalistic models of how life got started without intelligent agency.

Nature has a way of killing off what doesn't fit in. A mutant in the Natural world has a short life, in fact only the fittests get passed their first birthday. These may get a chance to mate, in many species they don't.

So is that intelligent design or just a design by requirement?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The bible's version of creation has been proven over and over to be wrong. No matter how hard creationists look for gaps in our knowledge, they can't deny the writers of Genesis had no divine guidance. They were making it up. The mistakes are rife until it becomes impossible to defend.

That's as may be, but Intelligent Design attempts to avoid or conceal those problems by adopting the appearance of science. It's 'Cargo Cult' science; not the innocent kind that originated the phrase, but deliberate pseudoscience. It can, and has been, debunked on rational scientific grounds, without the need for arguments about scriptural metaphors, etc.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A mutant in the Natural world has a short life, in fact only the fittests get passed their first birthday. These may get a chance to mate, in many species they don't.

Not really, no. The vast majority of creatures in the natural world are mutants - for example, humans have been calculated to have an average of around 60 mutations per person; the majority of these are neutral in terms of selective advantage/disadvantage.

So is that intelligent design or just a design by requirement?

In my opinion it's not really design at all in the commonly understood meaning (usage) of the word as a purposeful, or deliberate, or intentional, or planned activity. It can be viewed as a design in retrospect in much the same way as, and only to the same extent as, the branching fractal pattern of the channels of a river delta can be viewed as a design, or the symmetrical patterns of snowflakes.

Our conceptualization of design is ambiguous and biased by our agent-centric viewpoint, and the usage of the word reflects this.