Natural selection v Intelligent design

[ecco]

Opposable thumbs. All the cool species are wearing them these days.

This is why god gave us opposable thumbs.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But Don't you think that evolution has had some contradictory things come up which would normally change the theory or even prove it wrong.

Such as? I haven't seen any.

There have been many fossil finds that have contradicted the theory and predictions. If a fossil is found out of place it is made into a new species. Even if it looks exactly the same as one in a completely different layer it is still made into another species.

You'll have to give specific examples. The TOE can be falsified in a number of ways (e.g. finding a fossil much earlier than it's obvious ancestors). This hasn't happened yet. I think you're confusing the evaluation and changes in predicted and proposed relations and ancestry - that occurs when limited evidence covering a relatively narrow period, is expanded by new discoveries - with threats to the TOE itself. This would be the case, for example, in direct human ancestry, which covers many species in a relatively narrow time frame. We can make informed guesses about their relationships and ancestry, which are refined or changed as new fossils are found. That this is a reasonable expectation should be obvious even to you. However, if we started finding hominin fossils in the Triassic, we'd had reason to question everything. Let me know if something like this happens.

By doing this they can never by proven wrong. I remember reading something about what Dawkins said about what would prove evolution wrong. he said if we found a Cambrian rabbit type fossil. Well we have and still somehow he now claims it can be justified.

No, we haven't found such a fossil - Dr Wilfred Splenebyrst's 'Burgess Shale rabbit' was a photoshopped hoax (the clue is in the good doctor's name). Unless you know of another Cambrian rabbit fossil that has escaped media attention?

Natural selection weeds out the deformed and less optimal ones. But if they weed them out they should still be around in the fossil records.

True enough, but statistically, the number of fossils found that preserve clear evidence of disadvantageous mutations is likely to be very small indeed (and unless you have a sufficient number of comparable fossils of the species, it may not be easy to tell what is or isn't likely to be a disadvantage, or indeed, a mutation). As has already been mentioned several times, the majority of mutations are neutral (e.g. we each have about 60 mutations, the majority of which do us no harm at all), and of the few disadvantageous mutations, the majority will not be skeletal, so are unlikely to be apparent in fossils. Also, the number of individuals with disadvantageous mutations relative to the overall population will be tiny, because they will be proportionally less likely to reproduce (particularly if they have sufficiently severe mutations to be visible in fossils), so the chance of that mutation getting another chance to fossilize in the next generation are correspondingly reduced. The overwhelmingly vast majority of deaths in a species will not be due to 'bad' mutations, but to other natural causes (disease, predation, starvation, catastrophe, senescence, etc).

Nevertheless, there is plenty of fossil evidence of abnormalities, some of which are likely to be due to mutations - but without explicit genetic evidence, we can't tell the causes for sure. The number of fossils that are found with identifiable deformities, etc., is pretty much what would be expected.

So we havnt even got strong evidence for natural selection working to produce fit and functional creatures in the end anyway.

We have plenty of fossils of fit and functional creatures, and a planet full of fit and functional living creatures. What more do you want?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... If they live they are optimal.

That's not what optimal means.

What was once though to be transitional features between species is now seen as the normal variation of the same species. In this case being Homo erectus. Evolution does this a lot.

'Evolution' is a theory. Paleontologists and anthropologists do change their picture of relationships between species as new evidence comes to light. The theory itself isn't changed by these adjustments (although it has changed in some respects due to discoveries at a much larger scale).

... unless something like a wing or a fin could have formed in one go then it cant be fully formed. A wind for example would need many stages to get to a fully working wing that allows bird flight. Does a dino pop out a baby with complete wings or does it take many generations to get to that point with random mutations and natural selection.

This has been explained to you many times.

... what more difficult to believe is evolution building all the internal things needed in a step wise process. I mean how do you make a bird respiratory system bit by bit. You have to even restructure bones, lose the diaphragm, change the lung structure and mechanism. You cant do that a bit at a time.

Yes; yes you can; clever people have shown how it can happen for almost every interesting organ, from eyes to wings. Your personal incredulity, as you've been advised before, isn't an argument.

 

[ecco]

Well unless something like a wing or a fin could have formed in one go then it cant be fully formed.

Pardon the intrusion.

http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/pages/index.php?page_id=g2

Irreducibly Complex?

Imagine you’re walking along a beach one day and you find a watch. Surely the presence of that device would prove to any rational person the existence of an architect of such a contraption? This was the argument put forward by the 18th Century theologist William Paley.
​

Are you still living in the 18th Century? The linked website explains the evolutionary steps of the flagellum and the eye. You, of course, will not take the time to read it and truly try to learn.

You will not, because your beliefs are based on the same thing that theologist William Paley's beliefs were based on: A literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[KCfromNC]

I find this a bit ambiguous.

There are ways to fix your ignorance on the subject - e.g. http://www.springer.com/us/book/9780387201917

I know evolution likes to make out everything is not a great as we think. This was said with stuff like junk DNA and vestigial organs ect. But to me something that can reproduce is very complex and optimal whether its a micro organism or more complex life.

That's not the definition of optimal. Lots of complex things are non-optimal.

No well I was responding to when you said all life isn't optimal. I though our DNA is optimal and that is in all creatures.

You though[t] wrong.

But a worm is a worm and that has everything it needs to function as a worm. A fly is a fly and it has all it needs to function perfectly as a fly.

Perfectly? Nope. If you can't imagine any possible improvements to these creatures you're not really trying.

So even though these things are not as optimal in their make up as a human in that we can do a lot more each is still optimal for what they have to do to live.

How optimal is human flying compared to a fly? I really have no idea what you're trying to say here. The definitions of the words you're typing simply don't match up with the ideas you're discussing.

But how do you tell if that variation isn't just the normal variation within the same species.

Species is an artificial label we put on things to categorize them. Given how nature works, it is at best an inexact fuzzy idea. That's not a failure of science, that's accurately describing reality as it really is. The fact you seem disturbed that things don't fit into "optimal" "perfect" little boxes is a problem with your preconceived views of how the world should work.

So we should see all these stages somewhere for every single animals that has ever lived.

You don't discuss how rare fossilization is in this analysis nor how likely fossils are to survive, so you're missing a huge part of the picture.

Modern bird features for birds are optimal.

Then why have some modern birds gone extinct? Guess "optimal" isn't really optimal.

Evolution pulls out a few similarities but that is no where near what is needed.

So you say. What's your professional background in the field? If we're supposed to take your assertions as authoritative, we need to know what sort of authority you actually are.

Well unless something like a wing or a fin could have formed in one go then it cant be fully formed.

Again, you'll have to define fully formed. As it is, I can't really figure out what you're trying to say. It is almost as if you believe that evolution has some sort of end goal of getting to modern species or something that it has been planning for billions of years, but if so you're not going to find much support from modern science.

 

[KCfromNC]

This is why god gave us opposable thumbs.

Since phones don't work underwater, maybe dolphins wouldn't be more perfect if they had thumbs. The extra digits would just go to waste if they couldn't text each other.

 

[stevevw]

Pardon the intrusion.

http://darwin200.christs.cam.ac.uk/pages/index.php?page_id=g2

Irreducibly Complex?

Imagine you’re walking along a beach one day and you find a watch. Surely the presence of that device would prove to any rational person the existence of an architect of such a contraption? This was the argument put forward by the 18th Century theologist William Paley.
​

Are you still living in the 18th Century? The linked website explains the evolutionary steps of the flagellum and the eye. You, of course, will not take the time to read it and truly try to learn.

You will not, because your beliefs are based on the same thing that theologist William Paley's beliefs were based on: A literal interpretation of Genesis.

I have already read similar articles and debated those topics several time. You missed the point, just because you think there are some examples that disprove irreducible complexity that all of sudden evolution can build complex designs from random mutations and natural selection. The problem is you skip important parts about how they formed and dont explain the mechanisms for how it happened. Just like with the fossil records the evidence is missing, gaps are left and assumptions are made.

The evidence shows that the dinos for example which are claimed to have evolved into birds didn't have the transitional features and never did in the fossil records let alone be able to evolve the features needed to turn into a bird. Irreducible complexity is still valid and a couple of examples dont prove anything. They still dont explain the starting points they use which are always complex in themselves. They still use complex in between stages and dont explain how they got there in the first place either. There is a lot of assumption involved. They assume because two things have similar parts or features then one must have mutated from the other.

But speaking about flagellum and bacteria the most damning evidence is that tests have shown that random mutations can't add that sort of extra complexity and function anyway. There are limits to evolution and overall mutations take information away and have a fitness cost rather then add complex info and create better fitter creatures.
Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624

Evolutionary layering and the limits to cellular perfection
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/46/18851

Diminishing returns epistasis among beneficial mutations decelerates adaptation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21636771

Negative epistasis between beneficial mutations in an evolving bacterial population.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21636772

I will add something about the eye and irreducible complexity later.
Steve.

 

[ecco]

I have already read similar articles and debated those topics several time. You missed the point just because you think there are some examples that disprove irreducible complexity that all of sudden evolution can build complex designs from random mutations and natural selection. The problem is you are looking a couple of observational examples which are not skip important parts about how they formed and dont explain the mechanisms for how it happened.

These are not my examples at all. These are the two examples of irreducible complexity introduced and researched by ID proponent and expert, Michael Behe. They are Behe's claim to fame.

His claims have been shown to be wrong over and over. If you have a problem with these examples, take it up with Behe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Irreducible complexity (IC) is a pseudoscientific argument that postulates that certainbiological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler or "less complete" predecessors through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring chance mutations.[1] Central to the creationist concept of intelligent design, IC is rejected by the scientific community,[2] which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3]Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity.[4]

Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, first argued that irreducible complexity made evolution purely through natural selection of random mutations impossible.[5] However, evolutionary biologists have demonstrated how such systems could have evolved.[6][7] There are many examples documented through comparative genomics showing that complex molecular systems are formed by the addition of components as revealed by different temporal origins of their proteins.[8][9]

In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]​

Just like with the fossil records the evidence is missing, gaps are left and assumptions are made.

The evidence shows that the dinos for example which are claimed to have evolved into birds didn't have the transitional features and never did in the fossil records let alone be able to evolve the features needed to turn into a bird.

Shifting now to fossil gaps? OK. Realistically, we are lucky there are any fossils at all. IDers seem to believe that at least one of every species that ever lived left a nice fossil behind. That's utter nonsense as even Creationist sites will attest:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=4664

Fossilization is Rare
First, one must understand that fossils are rare, relatively speaking. Not every living plant, animal, or human fossilizes after death. In fact, it is extremely rare for things once living to fossilize. Dead animals lying in a field or on the side of the road do not fossilize. In order for something to become fossilized, it must be buried rapidly in just the right place. ​

Irreducible complexity is still valid and a couple of examples dont prove anything. They still dont explain the starting points they use which are always complex in themselves. They still use complex in between stages and dont explain how they got there in the first place either.

Science has addressed this over and over. If you want to believe Behe and disregard the vast majority of scientists who have shown how and why Behe is wrong, then that is what you are going to believe.

There is a lot of assumption involved. They assume because two things have similar parts or features then one must have mutated from the other.

Who makes these assumptions?

But speaking about flagellum and bacteria the most damning evidence is that tests have shown that random mutations can't add that sort of extra complexity and function anyway. There are limits to evolution and overall mutations take information away and have a fitness cost rather then add complex info and create better fitter creatures.

There is more to evolution than just "random mutations".

Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624

Evolutionary layering and the limits to cellular perfection
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/46/18851

Diminishing returns epistasis among beneficial mutations decelerates adaptation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21636771

Negative epistasis between beneficial mutations in an evolving bacterial population.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21636772

I will add something about the eye and irreducible complexity later.
Steve.

I will not look at a bunch of links that you blindly post. Make an argument, in your own words. Then, if you want to show support for that argument, post one link and quote from it.

 

[pshun2404]

There is more to evolution than just "random mutations".

Yes, so much more...Biological evolution and natural selection do NOT occur until life already exists….therefore life cannot be the product of Natural Selection or Evolution. Genome sequencing relies on the principle that the precise order of the bases is critical for function and sequencing would make no sense if the order of the DNA bases were meaningless.

But that is not the end-all of what is involved. After recent noble prize winner Tomas Lindahl discovered and proved the incredible level of instability of the each strand of DNA in the 70’s (how outside of the living system it is in, it would degenerate) this led to a Nobel Prize for discovering (with two others) base excision repair, which constantly counteracts the collapse of our DNA. It is a system of functions (that had to have been present in the earliest cells of the earliest DNA dependent life forms) if not already extant would have made LIFE as we know it impossible.

This process must take place millions of times a day in just one human body just for the cells of that body to maintain their integrity and not fall into chemical chaos. Now imagine as he says "a molecular system that constantly counteracts DNA collapse", not being already in place at the moment when it came into being, now that we know of the molecule’s instability. Without these systems being simultaneously present with life’s first genomes there would have been no cells…the DNA NECESSARY to provide the functional proteins for all subsequent evolution would have degenerated quickly….the laws and principles governing the development of these inter-dependent systems (and there are many), to me infer forethought, a plan…forethought of a highly sophisticated nature more powerful than any 100 human beings combined or anything they can conjure or conjecture. So in effect, the reality we have is even more miraculous than any imaginary or theoretical scenario any of us compose to explain it.

 

[KCfromNC]

There is more to evolution than just "random mutations".

Yes, so much more...Biological evolution and natural selection do NOT occur until life already exists….therefore life cannot be the product of Natural Selection or Evolution. Genome sequencing relies on the principle that the precise order of the bases is critical for function and sequencing would make no sense if the order of the DNA bases were meaningless.

But that is not the end-all of what is involved. After recent noble prize winner Tomas Lindahl discovered and proved the incredible level of instability of the each strand of DNA in the 70’s (how outside of the living system it is in, it would degenerate) this led to a Nobel Prize for discovering (with two others) base excision repair, which constantly counteracts the collapse of our DNA. It is a system of functions (that had to have been present in the earliest cells of the earliest DNA dependent life forms) if not already extant would have made LIFE as we know it impossible.

This process must take place millions of times a day in just one human body just for the cells of that body to maintain their integrity and not fall into chemical chaos. Now imagine as he says "a molecular system that constantly counteracts DNA collapse", not being already in place at the moment when it came into being, now that we know of the molecule’s instability. Without these systems being simultaneously present with life’s first genomes there would have been no cells…the DNA NECESSARY to provide the functional proteins for all subsequent evolution would have degenerated quickly….the laws and principles governing the development of these inter-dependent systems (and there are many), to me infer forethought, a plan…forethought of a highly sophisticated nature more powerful than any 100 human beings combined or anything they can conjure or conjecture. So in effect, the reality we have is even more miraculous than any imaginary or theoretical scenario any of us compose to explain it.

And funny enough, scientists have answers to these questions. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world

These sorts of rants would be a lot more convincing if they acknowledged the actual science.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...After recent noble prize winner Tomas Lindahl discovered and proved the incredible level of instability of the each strand of DNA in the 70’s (how outside of the living system it is in, it would degenerate) ...

It must be more stable these days than in the 70's - as it's being seriously considered for high-density archive storage because of its information density and... stability - at least 60,000 years in naturally cold, dry, dark conditions, and for archive conditions, a predicted "error-free information recovery after up to 1 million years at -18 °C and 2000 years if stored at 10 °C".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.

 

[ecco]

There is more to evolution than just "random mutations".

Yes, so much more...Biological evolution and natural selection do NOT occur until life already exists….therefore life cannot be the product of Natural Selection or Evolution.

Who said something to the contrary?

Genome sequencing relies on the principle that the precise order of the bases is critical for function and sequencing would make no sense if the order of the DNA bases were meaningless.

But that is not the end-all of what is involved. After recent noble prize winner Tomas Lindahl discovered and proved the incredible level of instability of the each strand of DNA in the 70’s (how outside of the living system it is in, it would degenerate) this led to a Nobel Prize for discovering (with two others) base excision repair, which constantly counteracts the collapse of our DNA. It is a system of functions (that had to have been present in the earliest cells of the earliest DNA dependent life forms) if not already extant would have made LIFE as we know it impossible.

OK

This process must take place millions of times a day in just one human body just for the cells of that body to maintain their integrity and not fall into chemical chaos. Now imagine as he says "a molecular system that constantly counteracts DNA collapse", not being already in place at the moment when it came into being, now that we know of the molecule’s instability. Without these systems being simultaneously present with life’s first genomes there would have been no cells…the DNA NECESSARY to provide the functional proteins for all subsequent evolution would have degenerated quickly….the laws and principles governing the development of these inter-dependent systems (and there are many), to me infer forethought, a plan…forethought of a highly sophisticated nature more powerful than any 100 human beings combined or anything they can conjure or conjecture. So in effect, the reality we have is even more miraculous than any imaginary or theoretical scenario any of us compose to explain it.

By stating ...

• a plan
• forethought of a highly sophisticated nature
• something miraculous

... you seem to be inferring GodDidIt. That's OK. But why are you referring to Tomas Lindahl? Were you implying that he supported your GodDitIt view?

 

[Loudmouth]

There is more to evolution than just "random mutations".

Yes, so much more...Biological evolution and natural selection do NOT occur until life already exists….therefore life cannot be the product of Natural Selection or Evolution.

Are you saying that babies can not be the product of sexual reproduction because abiogenesis has to happen first?

Genome sequencing relies on the principle that the precise order of the bases is critical for function and sequencing would make no sense if the order of the DNA bases were meaningless.

No, it doesn't. You could construct completely random DNA molecules and we could still sequence them and compare them.

But that is not the end-all of what is involved. After recent noble prize winner Tomas Lindahl discovered and proved the incredible level of instability of the each strand of DNA in the 70’s (how outside of the living system it is in, it would degenerate) this led to a Nobel Prize for discovering (with two others) base excision repair, which constantly counteracts the collapse of our DNA. It is a system of functions (that had to have been present in the earliest cells of the earliest DNA dependent life forms) if not already extant would have made LIFE as we know it impossible.

It is only required for complex life forms. You haven't shown that it is required for simpler life forms.

This process must take place millions of times a day in just one human body just for the cells of that body to maintain their integrity and not fall into chemical chaos.

Really? I can store DNA in a test tube in a refrigerator for months, and it works just fine. It keeps its sequence just fine.

 

[pshun2404]

And funny enough, scientists have answers to these questions. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world

These sorts of rants would be a lot more convincing if they acknowledged the actual science.

Oh but I did....for more details look up Dr. Lindahl's work...explore their recent Nobel Prize winning experiments...yes they are scientists (!?!)

 

[pshun2404]

It must be more stable these days than in the 70's - as it's being seriously considered for high-density archive storage because of its information density and... stability - at least 60,000 years in naturally cold, dry, dark conditions, and for archive conditions, a predicted "error-free information recovery after up to 1 million years at -18 °C and 2000 years if stored at 10 °C".

Yes I suppose if frozen it remains...your argument with my post is with the three Scientists who won this years Nobel Prize in chemistry not with me...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes I suppose if frozen it remains...your argument with my post is with the three Scientists who won this years Nobel Prize in chemistry not with me...

I'm not arguing with anyone - just correcting a potentially misleading point made in your post. Here's an article explaining why DNA is so structurally stable.

By all means post a link to the article describing the supposed fragility of DNA, so readers of the thread can judge for themselves.

 

[ecco]

...After recent noble prize winner Tomas Lindahl discovered and proved the incredible level of instability of the each strand of DNA in the 70’s...

Did you miss my response in post #1613?

By stating ...

• a plan
• forethought of a highly sophisticated nature
• something miraculous

... you seem to be inferring GodDidIt. That's OK. But why are you referring to Tomas Lindahl? Were you implying that he supported your GodDidIt view?​

 

[KCfromNC]

Oh but I did....for more details look up Dr. Lindahl's work...explore their recent Nobel Prize winning experiments...yes they are scientists (!?!)

What does their work on DNA repair have to do with a theory that early life used RNA to reproduce? Please include references to the literature.

 

[stevevw]

These are not my examples at all. These are the two examples of irreducible complexity introduced and researched by ID proponent and expert, Michael Behe. They are Behe's claim to fame.

His claims have been shown to be wrong over and over. If you have a problem with these examples, take it up with Behe.

I am not necessarily making an argument for irreducible complexity. Though I believe the claims that no systems are irreducible have been refuted including those against Michael Behe.
Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behe_hasnt_been_refute044801.html
If you read the details about how flagellum are made there is a lot more to it than just a few components that evolution uses to make their case. The thing is they use a few examples showing how other organisms may have the same parts as flagellum but minus a couple to prove their case. But if they were to prove that evolution can evolve the complete organism then they would need to show examples for every stage which could be 100s or 1000s of stages in some cases.

It’s the same for the eye. They cite several stages starting with the eye spot. But they don’t explain how the eye spot got there or what happened in between each stage they cite. There are many smaller stages in between the example’s they use and there is no explanation for how this all happened. There are many organisms that need to have many parts there at the same time throughout life that evolution has not explained as to how it could still function without that supporting part. It seems that because they have found an example of something that still functions with some parts missing that all life works this way.

That is the big assumption evolution uses just like they do with the basic tenet that because two creatures have some similarities that one must have morphed from the other. But this is all speculation and assumption. The evidence shows that there are many gaps in the theory that are not explained or supported by the evidence. Design can account for the same evidence that evolution uses. Design can have several variations of the same organism with parts added or missing. The basic structure is designed and the ability to vary that is within the genetics that were designed in the first place. IE

Flagellum contains around 40 different kinds of proteins. Only 23 of these proteins are common to all other bacterial flagella. Of the 23 proteins it turns out that just two are unique to flagella. The others all closely resemble proteins that carry out other functions in the cell. This means that the vast majority of the components needed to make a flagellum might already have been present in bacteria before this structure appeared.

So it seems that flagellum is made up from pre existing proteins anyway. The ability for proteins to swap genetic material is shown to be very high. So it could be that any new functions or features come from pre existing genetics in bacteria. If not then evolution has to prove and explain how all these 100s of different functions and features were mutated and naturally selected. Considering that there is evidence that shows evolution can’t explain how proteins can evolve new function from random mutations it would be an almost impossible task. Tests have shown that rather than add fitness, information and complexity to proteins mutations take away information and fitness.

Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15340163
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.abstract
The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4
Diminishing returns epistasis among beneficial mutations decelerates adaptation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21636771

Shifting now to fossil gaps? OK. Realistically, we are lucky there are any fossils at all. IDers seem to believe that at least one of every species that ever lived left a nice fossil behind. That's utter nonsense as even Creationist sites will attest:

Science has addressed this over and over. If you want to believe Behe and disregard the vast majority of scientists who have shown how and why Behe is wrong, then that is what you are going to believe.

Behe is only one scientists who speaks about how the complexity of life cannot be explained by adaptive processes of evolution through mutations and natural selection. The evidence points to other driving forces for change that are non adaptive. these non adaptive process mainly use the pre existing genetic material of life through living things co existing and sharing genetic material. This makes more sense in light of things like complexity of life being around very early in the history of life and the sudden appearance of complex designed such as in the Cambrian explosion. Many complex body plans having suddenly appeared without any trace of where they came from.

Who makes these assumptions?

Evolutionists make assumptions. Because they havnt got testable evidence to verify what they propose there has to be assumptions involved. Sometimes a claim is made from a bone fragment or as mentioned some similarities with two different creatures. It may be that a fossil found out of place is determined as a new species because well it cant be out of place. Sometimes the fossils date the layers and the layers date the fossils. Many times variations with the same species is made into new species without any evidence. There are many assumptions made be evolution because much of it cannot be empirically verified because they are making observations based on interpretations of looking back into the past.

There is more to evolution than just "random mutations".

What might that be. Behe is only one scientists who speaks about how the complexity of life cannot be explained by adaptive processes of evolution through mutations and natural selection. The evidence points to other driving forces for change that are non adaptive. these non adaptive process mainly use the pre existing genetic material of life through living things co existing and sharing genetic material. This makes more sense in light of things like complexity of life being around very early in the history of life and the sudden appearance of complex designed such as in the Cambrian explosion. Many complex body plans having suddenly appeared without any trace of where they came from.

I will not look at a bunch of links that you blindly post. Make an argument, in your own words. Then, if you want to show support for that argument, post one link and quote from it.

I do make arguments in my own words. I just post links from the evidence and experts that will back that up so that it can validate what my words are saying. A persons words alone mean nothing with qualification.