Natural selection v Intelligent design

[Foxhole87]

In considering what might show design, consider how it is that you have a mind which can come to know what is true, which is so in reality. How is this possible, for the most abstract concepts, from natural processes? Is it explained just from that? Why not call something like that design which is not explained from natural processes?

Because that's a textbook argument from ignorance and a textbook argument from incredulity.

 

[Loudmouth]

In considering what might show design, consider how it is that you have a mind which can come to know what is true, which is so in reality. How is this possible, for the most abstract concepts, from natural processes? Is it explained just from that? Why not call something like that design which is not explained from natural processes?

The easiest way is to see if species fall into a nested hierarchy or not.

Human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Evolved things do.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So this indicates design patterns. Otherwise your saying random mutations are choosing particular patterns, colors and shapes which is pointing to design anyway.

No, I'm saying that the predators are eliminating all designs that don't put them off (e.g. eyes, bird droppings, nasty flies, etc). It's a co-evolutionary race, where ever more discriminating predators drive the evolution of ever more deceptive patterns, by a process of elimination, where patterns change by random modification of the current (most successful) pattern and the predators selectively remove variations that don't fool them.

 

[stevevw]

There's nothing else for me to say. Steve's cognitive dissonance is hot enough to boil tungsten. There's simply too much wrong to address everything, both in his assumptions, his conclusions, and his rampant misrepresentation of experts.

You will have to point out where I am wrong about what the experts say. Its easy to make accusations. All I have said about the experts is that they are experts and they know how to decern design better than most. The papers I posted on design compared to random occurrences is straight forward and describes the qualities of design against no ordered events. 9quote]For every correction made, he makes two more errors.[/quote] So now your assuming you are right by saying you are correcting things. What evidence do you have for this or are you doing what you are accusing me of.

He hasn't answered my question about how he discerns a finely-tuned outcome from a tremendously rare yet inevitable outcome.

I have already explained the difference between rare events and fine tuned. You obviously havnt read it yet. There are actually no rare events. A rare event is part of a bigger sequence of events. It can only be a rare event because there are many other events that are related to that rare event as well. Because there are many events its a bit like the multiverse argument.

Because a rare event is one of many events that could also have the potential to be a rare event it is not so fine tuned to just happen on that one rare occasion. In fact the odds are in favor of rare events happening more often than we think. It may only seem like a rare event because we have made it that way. The Improbability Principle comes into play and makes rare events actually quite common when you consider all the circumstances that can happen and do happen.
Why Coincidences, Miracles And Rare Events Happen Every Day
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnnav...es-miracles-and-rare-events-happen-every-day/

 

[stevevw]

No, I'm saying that the predators are eliminating all designs that don't put them off (e.g. eyes, bird droppings, nasty flies, etc). It's a co-evolutionary race, where ever more discriminating predators drive the evolution of ever more deceptive patterns, by a process of elimination, where patterns change by random modification of the current (most successful) pattern and the predators selectively remove variations that don't fool them.

The problem is if you calculated the odds for totaling random blotches or marks to build that specific picture it would be impossible odds. The calculations would have to be all the many colors , all the many color combinations, all the many shapes, all the many shape combinations, all the many locations on the wings, all the many combinations of locations on the wings, all the many locations and shapes put together, all the many combinations of shapes, colors and locations put together ects ect ect. The odds would be impossible to randomly create.

The fact is the moths would be eaten or the random pattern or mark or color would have no selective advantage and be either left as is or have no benefit well before any chance of even a fraction of any meaningful picture was formed. But when you get a person who can design a picture putting everything in place you recognize that there was a designer straight away. An artists doesn't put a blindfold on and dab a blob on the paper and keep trying to paint his masterpiece that way. He would have all the parts and colors in the wrong place and be forever starting again. Either that or he'd end up with a big mess.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The problem is if you calculated the odds for totaling random blotches or marks to build that specific picture it would be impossible odds. The calculations would have to be all the many colors , all the many color combinations, all the many shapes, all the many shape combinations, all the many locations on the wings, all the many combinations of locations on the wings, all the many locations and shapes put together, all the many combinations of shapes, colors and locations put together ects ect ect. The odds would be impossible to randomly create. The fact is the moths would be eaten or the random pattern or mark or color would have no selective advantage and be either left as is or have no benefit well before any chance of even a fraction of any meaningful picture was formed..

How many times has this misconception been addressed? Yet you still persist...

 

[quatona]

All I have said about the experts is that they are experts and they know how to decern design better than most. The papers I posted on design compared to random occurrences is straight forward and describes the qualities of design against no ordered events.

The funny thing is, Steve: If the universe is designed there isn´t anything undesigned. So these experts must be wrong when they conclude that they can determine something to be undesigned. The entire distinction would be obsolete. The conclusion ruins the method.

 

[stevevw]

How many times has this misconception been addressed? Yet you still persist...

I'm talking about random mutations. Natural selection can only work what it is given. So to create that water color mural on the moths wings it will take random mutations throwing up random blotches and marks in any location of the moths wings. Natural selection will only keep what has a strong selective advantage. Chances are a blotch that doesn't mean much will not have a strong selective benefit so will be lost. This could go on forever with random combinations of colors, shapes and locations.

 

[Willis Gravning]

The easiest way is to see if species fall into a nested hierarchy or not.

Human designs do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Evolved things do.

I tinker in electronics and that field there is something of a hierarchy. Components ->circuits->system.

 

[stevevw]

The funny thing is, Steve: If the universe is designed there isn´t anything undesigned. So these experts must be wrong when they conclude that they can determine something to be undesigned. The entire distinction would be obsolete. The conclusion ruins the method.

I dont think its a black and white as that. No one is saying that absolutely everything is designed. There is random things everywhere. A comet hurtling through space and smashing into a planet is random. Something may be initially designed but that doesn't mean it cant act randomly. I guess it all comes down to odds and probabilities. All I know is if you have something that is random the odds of a certain thing happening can be great. So it may never happen and when it does its just luck without any controlling factors causing it to happen. But there are things that will happen in specific times and places and they have controlling factors that make it happen that way. So this is what has to be determined to see whether it has design or is subject to chance and random circumstances.

 

[quatona]

I dont think its a black and white as that. No one is saying that absolutely everything is designed. There is random things everywhere. A comet hurtling through space and smashing into a planet is random.

Ok, so the universe is only partly designed. How was the rest shaped?

I guess it all comes down to odds and probabilities. All I know is if you have something that is random the odds of a certain thing happening can be great. So it may never happen and when it does its just luck without any controlling factors causing it to happen. But there are things that will happen in specific times and places and they have controlling factors that make it happen that way. So this is what has to be determined to see whether it has design or is subject to chance and random circumstances.

Now, first you say it all comes down to odds and probabilities, and two sentences later you say that - regardless the probabilities - it all comes down to determining whether or not there are "controlling factors". That the tap-dance you have been performing for quite some time. First you are all about the odds/probabilities - when it is shown that it is not, you come up with a new idea....and some posts later you are back at pointing at the low probabilities.

How do you determine that this unique, extremely unlikely event of cometA smashing into planetX (so many constants need to be exactly the way they are, so many conditions have to be met to make it happen) isn´t due to "controlling factors", IOW how do you determine that this event wasn´t the very purpose for which the universe is fine-tuned?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The problem is if you calculated the odds for totaling random blotches or marks to build that specific picture it would be impossible odds. The calculations would have to be all the many colors , all the many color combinations, all the many shapes, all the many shape combinations, all the many locations on the wings, all the many combinations of locations on the wings, all the many locations and shapes put together, all the many combinations of shapes, colors and locations put together ects ect ect. The odds would be impossible to randomly create.

Well yes; in hindsight you could make exactly the same argument about your own existence: the chances of you having been born where and when you were; the chances that you grew up a Christian rather than a Muslim, or Hindu, or Sikh somewhere else in the world; the chances you survived to have access to the internet and enough intellect to make use of it; the chances of you being exactly the height and weight you are now; the chances of you having the preferences and dislikes you have; the chances of your parents meeting up when they did and having a relationship; the chances of each parent having been born where and when they were so that the relationship would be possible; and so-on. The retrospective probability of the specific causal chain behind any particular event or outcome is astronomically small. This is a variation on the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Don't forget all the species of butterflies that ended up with entirely different patterns on their wings (I gave a link for those with 'eye spots'). The same fallacious argument can be used for each of them too - and for anything else your attention falls on, such as a pebble in the road - what are the chances of that pebble ending up just there?

The fact is the moths would be eaten or the random pattern or mark or color would have no selective advantage and be either left as is or have no benefit well before any chance of even a fraction of any meaningful picture was formed.

If the random variation on the existing pattern wasn't more effective than the current one, yes - if it was no worse it would blend slowly into the population, or - if it was less effective - it would be snuffed out. The population would continue reproducing and being picked off until a slightly more effective variation appeared, which would spread quickly through the population, until the predator adapted to be better at spotting it.

It's an incredibly simple process, and it's used on a daily basis in industrial design to optimize products. One classic result was when an evolutionary algorithm was used by NASA to generate a more effective radio antenna. Starting with a simple functional antenna, successive generations of random variations were selected for best performance, until performance plateaued. The result wasn't a symmetrical array as expected, but a strangely bent wire (see Evolved Antenna). No human could have designed an antenna like that, but a simple algorithm did, and it out-performed the best human designs. This kind of optimization for function is now widely used in industry. The principle is identical to that occurring in nature - heritable random variation with selection (filtering). It's so simple, it doesn't take much imagination to see that it's capable of producing the variations we see; what is hard to see is why you continue to assert your incredulity - it suggests a refusal to grasp it rather than an inability...

But when you get a person who can design a picture putting everything in place you recognize that there was a designer straight away. An artists doesn't put a blindfold on and dab a blob on the paper and keep trying to paint his masterpiece that way. He would have all the parts and colors in the wrong place and be forever starting again. Either that or he'd end up with a big mess.

You're ignoring all the artists that produce carefully crafted works that, to the untrained or uninformed eye, do look like a 'big mess'. Or the chimp paintings that wowed some art critics - until they discovered their origin. A university friend of mine is big in avant-garde improvised (saxophone) music; he draws crowds around the world and has had programmes on his life and work on the radio - yet to me, even with an appreciation of improvised jazz, it's just unstructured noises. Contrariwise, snowflakes, or the iteration of the Mandelbrot Set appear designed to the uninformed. Capabiity Brown was a landscape gardener famed for his realizations of landscapes that looked natural, yet were especially appealing to the appreciation of the time. So does or doesn't look designed or intended is not as clear as canonical exemplars would suggest; without prior knowledge of origin, it's subjective and cultural.

I don't think trying to assert a means to distinguish purposeful design from natural patterns is likely to be a worthwhile pursuit for your argument, such as it is.

 

[Loudmouth]

I tinker in electronics and that field there is something of a hierarchy. Components ->circuits->system.

Is there a hierarchy of computer designs? Do computers fall into a nested hierarchy?

Let's see if they do. If humans forced computer designs into a nested hierarchy, then there would only be one lineage of computers with LCD flat screens. Is that what we see? Nope. We would also expect to see a correlation between the CPU and the GPU. When a lineage of computers established adaptions that included an Intel CPU and an NVIDIA graphics card, from that point forward computers could only have that combination. You should never see swapping between AMD gpus and intel cpus.

Of course, this is not what we see. Humans mix and match different components without trying to force their designs into a nested hierarchy. Why would any designer do that?

 

[Willis Gravning]

Okay. I had to look up 'nested hierarchy'. I was thinking 'hierarchy'. I stand corrected.

 

[stevevw]

Ok, so the universe is only partly designed. How was the rest shaped

I think you are still seeing things in black and white like there is only one way design works. Some say that God may have set all the laws and quantum physics in place to create the universe. The fact is its hard to explain how something can come from nothing and this makes sense. So everything we see now is the result of that creation. In other words the design blueprints were set in place for everything to operate in the beginning. Its like a computer operating system that you can then build system, add data and info into. Without the original operating software nothing else can be done. Even if God had created the planets and stars ect in place to begin with doesn't mean that everything stays the same. Things are still subject to random forces and this maybe the non designed part of existence.

Now, first you say it all comes down to odds and probabilities, and two sentences later you say that - regardless the probabilities - it all comes down to determining whether or not there are "controlling factors". That the tap-dance you have been performing for quite some time. First you are all about the odds/probabilities - when it is shown that it is not, you come up with a new idea....and some posts later you are back at pointing at the low probabilities.

No I have spoken about both odds and probabilities and about determining the controlling factors. It all is part of determining if something is a random thing or designed. AS we have seen people can think a random process is designed and something that is designed is a natural process. So on the surface many people can be unsure about what is truly causing the effect. All I know is I have stated that its the experts who are the ones who can decern this through engineering and other principles for which I have posted evidence for on a number of occasions.

How do you determine that this unique, extremely unlikely event of cometA smashing into planetX (so many constants need to be exactly the way they are, so many conditions have to be met to make it happen) isn´t due to "controlling factors", IOW how do you determine that this event wasn´t the very purpose for which the universe is fine-tuned?

This is what I was saying earlier. Even you are confused about what is what. This is where the experts have to investigate what is chance, the probabilities and odds ect as well as what has design qualities. This is a whole process of maths which has to be determined. But on the surface I would say that a comet flying through space is a regular occurrence. You are focusing on one comet but if you look at all the comets the individual event is not fined tuned as far as the reasons why comets end up flying through space and the random directions they may take.

Just like with the article I posted about rare event not being as rare as we think. When you look at the conditions for the event happening you find the chances of it happening are quite high. When you consider everything and include all the conditions that may effect it happening the chances are it will happen often and this makes it not so rare. But when it comes to the fine tuning of life there are over 122 physical parameters that need to be pretty exact and some very exact for it to happen. Some so exact that there is no room to consider any alternative position which would normally suggest that it had to be tinkered with to ensure that out of all the possible tuning it ended up in the exact one which was just right for life.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...e_events_and_coincidences_happen_all_the.html

 

[stevevw]

Well yes; in hindsight you could make exactly the same argument about your own existence: the chances of you having been born where and when you were; the chances that you grew up a Christian rather than a Muslim, or Hindu, or Sikh somewhere else in the world; the chances you survived to have access to the internet and enough intellect to make use of it; the chances of you being exactly the height and weight you are now; the chances of you having the preferences and dislikes you have; the chances of your parents meeting up when they did and having a relationship; the chances of each parent having been born where and when they were so that the relationship would be possible; and so-on. The retrospective probability of the specific causal chain behind any particular event or outcome is astronomically small. This is a variation on the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Don't forget all the species of butterflies that ended up with entirely different patterns on their wings (I gave a link for those with 'eye spots'). The same fallacious argument can be used for each of them too - and for anything else your attention falls on, such as a pebble in the road - what are the chances of that pebble ending up just there?[/quote But the pebble doesn't mean anything. The particular picture on the wings of the moth are designed to protect it. Out of all the possible flies that it could have painted it painted the very fly that other creatures knew was one that would make them sick. The pebble on the road doesn't signify anything like that so it is well just a random pebble on the road. So when you go into the finer detail you see that there is purpose and meaning for what is happening.

If the random variation on the existing pattern wasn't more effective than the current one, yes - if it was no worse it would blend slowly into the population, or - if it was less effective - it would be snuffed out. The population would continue reproducing and being picked off until a slightly more effective variation appeared, which would spread quickly through the population, until the predator adapted to be better at spotting it.

So the chances of the entire picture happening is impossible. Its the entire picture that works and not part of it or half of it. But even so if it was able to get to the point of getting half the picture, "which half". A scattering of half the picture makes a jumbled mess and means nothing but a scrambled pattern. But I believe it would even get that far. It would be a never ending process of blobs and marks all over the place which will never be selected.

It's an incredibly simple process, and it's used on a daily basis in industrial design to optimize products. One classic result was when an evolutionary algorithm was used by NASA to generate a more effective radio antenna. Starting with a simple functional antenna, successive generations of random variations were selected for best performance, until performance plateaued. The result wasn't a symmetrical array as expected, but a strangely bent wire (see Evolved Antenna). No human could have designed an antenna like that, but a simple algorithm did, and it out-performed the best human designs. This kind of optimization for function is now widely used in industry. The principle is identical to that occurring in nature - heritable random variation with selection (filtering). It's so simple, it doesn't take much imagination to see that it's capable of producing the variations we see; what is hard to see is why you continue to assert your incredulity - it suggests a refusal to grasp it rather than an inability...

No one denies that there is a certain level of evolution at work. Creatures are able to change and adapt to their environments. Natural selection works within species. But what is in question is the level and capability that evolution can occur. Evolutionists give it more creative power than it has. They take what has been proven and is true and them spectulate that it can move beyond the species and create new types of animal.s In fact the process is said to have created every creature on earth from a micro organism. There is no direct evidence for this.

You're ignoring all the artists that produce carefully crafted works that, to the untrained or uninformed eye, do look like a 'big mess'. Or the chimp paintings that wowed some art critics - until they discovered their origin. A university friend of mine is big in avant-garde improvised (saxophone) music; he draws crowds around the world and has had programmes on his life and work on the radio - yet to me, even with an appreciation of improvised jazz, it's just unstructured noises.

I am not sure about the so called expert opinion on these mish mashed paintings or musics. They have been presented with kids paintings and have declared them masterpieces. This says to me that there is a pretty big scope for misinterpreting things. But all this is more along the lines of a newly created appreciation for something different and may not necessarily indicate design. I think some of the abstract art does have some symmetry which can be seen when closely examining it. But the average person could see this and it needs an expert.

Contrariwise, snowflakes, or the iteration of the Mandelbrot Set appear designed to the uninformed.

Snowflakes actually reflect the complexity of water molecules in that they have many different shapes. They will always form hexagonal shapes. So there us an element of pre set design in them which relects the world of physics.

Capabiity Brown was a landscape gardener famed for his realizations of landscapes that looked natural, yet were especially appealing to the appreciation of the time. So does or doesn't look designed or intended is not as clear as canonical exemplars would suggest; without prior knowledge of origin, it's subjective and cultural.

Well first the gardener could be showing design in nature by copying the design in nature. There was a famous farmer who created landscapes that reflected the way nature worked. He used these methods in farming as well like mixed crops and using the natural terrain. He placed certain trees and plants in areas where they all supported each other. The end result was he could restore barren areas back to life and have some of the best crops in the world.

But I have said a number of times that on the surface its hard to tell what is designed and what is a natural random process and you need to investigate the causes. This is left to the experts who can assess the probabilities of something happening and the signatures of design which has to conform to a certain criteria.But in using nature to improve things or reflect art may be just another example of how there is design in everything that goes beyond something that came from a chance process. You have to remember that its the physics, laws, and genetic codes that drive everything we see. So what we end up seeing may be the result of designed principles that were created in the first place and are just the end results of these.

I don't think trying to assert a means to distinguish purposeful design from natural patterns is likely to be a worthwhile pursuit for your argument, such as it is.

Thats right as it is a very hard thing to decern sometimes. I just think the original point of the fine tuned universe for life is a fairly strong one that has been acknowledge by many. Other examples are more ambiguous and need more investigation. But one thing that does come through and that is what appears on the surface isn't exactly what is going on underneath.

 

[Foxhole87]

I dont think its a black and white as that. No one is saying that absolutely everything is designed. There is random things everywhere. A comet hurtling through space and smashing into a planet is random. Something may be initially designed but that doesn't mean it cant act randomly. I guess it all comes down to odds and probabilities. All I know is if you have something that is random the odds of a certain thing happening can be great. So it may never happen and when it does its just luck without any controlling factors causing it to happen. But there are things that will happen in specific times and places and they have controlling factors that make it happen that way. So this is what has to be determined to see whether it has design or is subject to chance and random circumstances.

But you can't tell me what is designed and what isn't designed unless you (the directed *you*, not the general *you) have apparently been told whether or not there is a designer in the first place.

And you still haven't answered my very simple and straightforward question, which I believe to be the most important and vital question your argument needs to overcome before anyone should offer it any more consideration than someone pitching a "free energy machine".

How do you discern something that is finely tuned from something that is the result of an rare yet inevitable outcome?

 

[quatona]

How do you discern something that is finely tuned from something that is the result of an rare yet inevitable outcome?

So far his answer was: You ask the experts.

 

[stevevw]

But you can't tell me what is designed and what isn't designed unless you (the directed *you*, not the general *you) have apparently been told whether or not there is a designer in the first place.

I dont understand what you mean by the directed me or the general me. But I dont think anyone needs to know there is a designer or not to determine intelligent design. When you see a distress message on a beach that says help or read a sentence that gives instructions we immediately recognize that it didn't come from a chance and random process that somehow lucked the letters and words into the right place to give meaning. We know it is the product of something that had intelligence enough to understand the meanings and instructions.

And you still haven't answered my very simple and straightforward question, which I believe to be the most important and vital question your argument needs to overcome before anyone should offer it any more consideration than someone pitching a "free energy machine".

How do you discern something that is finely tuned from something that is the result of an rare yet inevitable outcome?

I have answered this. I have posted peer reviewed papers which show the difference between design and events that come from chance and random situations whether rare or not. I have also posted info on how rare events are not really rare. When you consider all the factors that go into why an event will happen or not it puts it into perspective as to why it can happen. When you consider the rare event in the light of all the info available it is more likely to happen then not. So this doesn't compare to the over 122 physical constants that need to be in place within very restricted parameters. Some so exact that there is really no room to consider any alternatives. So to think that all these conditions are met by chance is impossible.

For example the rare event of a comet hitting the earth. Its not so rare when you consider the possibility of all comets hitting all planets. We know that comets have hit other planets even as I am writing this somewhere in the universe. But as with life we only know that life is on earth and the universe is just right to have that life. This is why scientists want to include the idea of a multiverse. Because this allows many universes with many different tunings which then makes our specially fine tuned universe not so special.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnnav...es-miracles-and-rare-events-happen-every-day/

 

[stevevw]

Here is the crystal structure of a protein binding to DNA:

Using those equations, determine if that protein is designed.
Show us how they are objective and can be applied to biology.

The best way to show that the protein picture you posted is designed or at least cannot be created by random mutations is from the tests done. Proteins have very complex 3D shapes which are necessary for that particular biological function. This is determined by the sequence of the different amino acids that make up that protein. So a mistake or a misshape in the folds will cause damage and therefore render it useless.

Sequences that produce stable, functional 3D structures in proteins are very rare and hard to produce. Scientists can’t randomly create stable proteins and have to resort to reverse engineering to make artificial proteins because they are so complex. So everything about proteins is designed to the point that humans have to study that design and make computer programs to even have a chance to make them. Indeed, our supercomputers are not powerful enough to crunch the variables and locate novel 3D structures.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/computing_the_b098101.html

Test have been done to show that random mutations cannot evolve new functions in proteins let alone create them entirely.
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.
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 10(77), adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

So the chances of evolution producing even a simple functional protein fold is 1 in 10(77). This is written out as 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000). For all practical purposes, this has no chance of success. So if evolution cant even do this which is way simpler then how can be expect evolution to evolve the entire genetic makeups of creatures to produce functional systems and features. This is the level of complexity that a naturalistic and chance process cannot create out of nothing or simpler forms. There had to be some input form an intelligent source. All evolution is doing is giving the created things like nature the creative power that we see in life.

Another problem for a random process creating life is chirality. Proteins have a unique 3D shape, and it is because of this 3D shape that the biochemical processes within our bodies work as they do. It is chirality that provides the special shape for proteins, and without chirality, the biochemical processes in our bodies would not do their job. In our body, every single amino acid of every protein is found with the same left handed chirality. But our DNA molecules exist with a right handed optical isomer. So a random naturalistic process will evolve a mixture of 50/50 Left and right handed isomers for each. But not specifically all right for DNA molecules or Left for all proteins.

The twist that forms the double helix structure of DNA has chirality as well. It is this handedness that gives DNA the spiral shaped helical structure. If one molecule in the DNA structure had the wrong chirality, DNA would not exist in the double helix form, and DNA would not function properly.So thousands of proteins and the complex structure of DNA rely on exact coming together of mirror images that form opposite left and right handedness. Naturalistic process couldn't have that level of ability to know and evolve this preciseness. It would be random and have a mixture and even a small mixture would destroy the protein and DNA. This is similar to the fine tuned universe for life in that things needed to be exactly right for it to happen. So exact that it goes beyond accidental chance.

Species are also changing which shows that they are subject to natural forces.

Who said that natural forces are responsible for the ability for creatures to change. There is debate about how an animal gets the genetic info for that change. Some say that it comes from existing genetics or is gained from other creatures or microorganisms that the creature lives with. Or from other methods such as epigentics. This is part of the debate about whether the info is newly created through a naturalistic cause or is part of the blue print for life that has always been there.

It goes back to the ability of naturalistic processes to create complex info from something more simple that hasn't got that complexity in the first place. It goes back to being able to create something out of nothing. Like I said maybe some are giving evolution more creative power than it has. Maybe they are making the created like nature and time the gods rather than giving the credit to the true creator behind everything that started it all in the first place.