Supernatural information supplier

quote:

---

Could the age old dilemma of mutation be solved via a supernatural agency?

---

Scientifically, no. Not unless the supernatural becomes testable through science.

quote:

---

It is quite possible, that mutations themselves - aren't enough to answer for distinct and diverse morphological change. However - are accumulations of mutations a sufficient explanation?

---

Of course it's possible that mutations may not be the ultimate answer, that is why evolution is a theory. However, mutations have been shown to be a sufficient explanation. Even during the last 50 years, beneficial mutations have been observed that affect physiology and morphology. These are very incremental changes, but it allows us to investigate the randomness of mutation and the capabilities of mutations to cause change. Extrapolating, mutations can cause major changes in morphology. Even better, changes in DNA sequence follow changes in morphology as in the case of the genes that control the development of the lower jaw and middle ear bones of different taxonomic groups. In the fossil record, the 2 lower jaw bones in reptiles become middle ear bones in mammals. The following article demonstrates that Bapx1 is responsible for the development of the middle ear and middle ear bones in mice while the same gene is responsible for constructing the lower jaw joint in fish. As you would expect, Bapx1 in fish and mammals differ significantly. The only process we have observed that changes nucleotide sequences is mutations. Therefore, it is very possible that cumulative mutations over millions of years changed the morphology of both the lower jaw and the middle ear.

quote:

---

Perhaps man was the objective, but not a perfect man.

---

Perhaps an intelligent being of any shape or size was the objective. Perhaps an intelligent being of some sort is an unavoidable outcome of unguided evolution. Perhaps God new this and so He didn't feel the need to interfere or guide evolution, knowing that an intelligent being would be produced from this unguided process.Borrowing an analogy from another user here at EvC (I apologize for not remembering the source), which is more impressive? A pool player that puts the balls on the edges of the pocket and knocks them in with one shot or the pool player who racks the balls and hits them in with one shot? Why would God have to fix the system as it develops when he could set up natural laws at the very beginning knowing the outcome of these natural laws? A god who sets up initial conditions (eg at the Big Bang) knowing that intelligent life would occur somewhere in the universe through natural laws is a much more powerful deity in my eyes.

quote:

---

Though you think this would make God more powerful, you still hold on to the fact that everything must be accounted for via natural means, so that you can disbelieve in God.

---

True, but by belief or disbelief in God is a matter of personal faith, not scientific explanations. By claiming "proof of God" in natural phenomena I would be relying on scientific findings to uphold my beliefs. Personally, I think belief in God without evidence is a stronger faith than a faith based on a need for proof. This is my own belief so don't take any of this personally.

quote:

---

Yes, I think you make the point better than I could.

---

Would you agree that natural mechanisms are all that is needed to explain the emergence of man and life, scientifically speaking?This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 11-17-2004 03:11 PM

quote:

---

I think you would have to then say that natural mechanisms are all that is needed to explain the existence of the universe, which is very problematic.

---

I am not talking about "First Causes". I am talking about the universe and the natural laws as they existed seconds after the Big Bang. This is equivalent to the "rack of balls" in my pool analogy.

quote:

---

Then coming forward to the early earth, the emergence of life doesn't appear to me to have adequate "natural cause" explanation and then leaping to complex life and man is full of holes on a strictly natural basis, not the least of which is this information question that you and I disagree on.

---

Going back to the pool ball analogy, you then think that God had to move the balls closer to the pockets and interfere with the natural laws he created?

quote:

---

It is an interesting analogy, and maybe not fully what you intend because the balls themselves, the table, the pockets, the side rails, etc. SCREAM design.

---

It is only an analogy, so don't carry it too far. The analogy is trying to illustrate my point that God is powerful enough to create natural laws that inevitably will result in life occuring through natural laws and the emmergence of an intelligent being through those same natural laws. God is powerful enough to do this without interfering mid way through, or "pushing the balls closer to the pockets" as it were.

quote:

---

Did God set up an initial set of laws and constants that provided for life's inevitability? Absolutely. Was He involved alot, alittle or not at all along the way? Don't know how we can know that just by studying bones and chemicals.

---

Then you disagree with the entire ID crowd. Intelligent Design "theory" claims that God did interfere or was involved and that this interference is detectable through nebulous claims such as the Explanatory Filter, Complex Specified Information, and Irreducible Complexity. For now, it appears that natural phenomena are adequate for explaining life as we see it.

quote:

---

How would you set about to determine an object or system is designed?

---

A good start would be to demonstrate the existence of a designer capable of designing life through objective, scientific evidence. As of yet, there is zero evidence for a designer so it is foolhardy to even look for design.

quote:

---

So I think ID is a viable theory that should be examined. Dembski has put forth a contender which I am sure you are ready to debunk, but I would ask you again, how do you or I determine if an object or system is designed?

---

How would you show that lightening is designed, that clouds looking like Elvis are designed, that the Face on Mars is designed, etc. How do you show that something occuring in nature, untouched by the hand of man, is designed? By showing us the designer, something that Dembski and others do not do and refuse to do.The problem is that ID theory runs into a wall if it does not appeal to the supernatural. That wall is the "First Designer". If, as Dembski and others pretend, life was created by an unknown NATURAL being such as an alien, then who designed the alien. If that alien was designed by another alien, who designed that alien (ad nauseum). At some point we arrive at the First Designer (FD hereafter), the "First Cause" in philosophical terms. Now, if that FD came about through natural mechanism (ie abiogenesis and evolution) then why do we even consider Intelligent Design to be necessary for life? If we exclude the supernatual, we have to come to the conclusion that life had to come about at some point through abiogenesis and also through some sort of evolution (ie variation and selection). ID only works if we include the supernatural which is a huge problem if ID is going to be a science. ID comes down to faith, a belief in the existence of a FD without evidence. Science is not able to include faith as a requirement for accepting a theory, much less faith in something that will forever be untestable such as a supernatural First Designer.PS. There is one exception to this argument. Time travelling designers, entities moving between multiple universes, or any other scienice fiction/Star Trek scenario could also be an explanation for the FD. Holmes (a poster here at EvC) and I have had discussions over this possibility, and believe it or not I think it is a viable option for ID if such entities can be shown to theoretically exist. However, I don't think this is a viable option for the majority of people who hold ID theory as true.

quote:

---

But as Dembski and others have shown, you can look for design without envocating the supernatural or even attempting to identify the designer.

---

But how do you call something "intelligently designed" when there is a natural mechanism that can also cause the design in question? What if the identity of the designer is a blind, natural mechanism?

quote:

---

Forensic science, the search for exterrestrial intelligence, the medical field, all use tests to determine if objects or events are chance occurence or design.

---

And sometimes they are wrong. Take SETI for example (or at least their early predecessors). They found a repeating radio signal in deep space that they claimed was "too regular" to be of non-intelligent origin. In fact, they named the radio signal LMG(some number), where LMG stood for Little Green Men. Later, they found that the source was a pulsar. What they first labelled as intelligent design was later found to have natural origins. Dembski tackles this problem, but leaves the topic without an answer. He claims that before something can be deemed ID you must first rule out all possible natural mechanisms, something that is impossible for a past event. Firstly, Dembski has not even ruled out evolution to any degree, therefore, according to his own writings, we are not yet able to conclude that ID is in effect when looking at biological design.

quote:

---

According to Dembski, test for the probability of chance occurence and then test for function.

---

And he misapplies probabilities all over the place. The chances of a past event happening are 1 in 1, something that Dembski has yet to understand. According to Dembski Math, if the chances of winning a lottery are 1 in 50 million there should only be a winner once ever 50 million drawings. Dembski ignores all possible pathways when constructing his probabilities and instead focuses on the probability of one thing occuring. This is folly in the extreme.

quote:

---

But again i ask you, how do you go about finding design in your life? Have any kids? If you do you are looking for evidence of intelligent design daily.

---

Design in my daily life is separate from design in nature.

quote:

---

And then: "PS. There is one exception to this argument. Time travelling designers, entities moving between multiple universes, or any other scienice fiction/Star Trek scenario could also be an explanation for the FD. Holmes (a poster here at EvC) and I have had discussions over this possibility, and believe it or not I think it is a viable option for ID if such entities can be shown to theoretically exist. However, I don't think this is a viable option for the majority of people who hold ID theory as true."

​

So, one kind of designer is acceptable to you, but not another? If I could show you that the First Cause I speak of is theoretically possible, does He get into the discussion.

---

Time travel is potentially testable and falsifiable. Detecting time travel in the future is potentially testable and falsifiable. Physical, natural time travellers are potentially testable and falsifiable. The supernatural is neither testable nor falsifiable.

quote:

---

Where is this natural mechanism that has been shown to be powerful enough to "create" the vast diversity and complexity of life on earth? Mutation and natural selection have not been shown to have that kind of power. Doesn't it make sense to investigate other possibilities?

---

Evolution has been shown to be capable of producing the changes we see in the fossil record. Unlike ID, evolution has been shown to affect organisms through observation. We have never observed a designer capable of producing life on earth molding biological. organisms.

quote:

---

The test is for complexity which would imply it is very unlikely to be the result of natural mechanisms. According to what you are saying, ID is ruled out a priori.

---

Let's just say that ID is extremely tentative and not supported by any positive evidence (ie observations involving a designer). ID must rule out all possible natural mechanisms. This means that even if evolution is wrong there may still be other natural mechanisms that could cause change in morphology over time.

quote:

---

Scenario: A man leaps from a ten-story building. Out of a seventh floor window a bullet flies and strikes the man between the eyes. The man falls to a window cleaners scaffolding and it is determined would have survived the fall. The man with the gun claims that he was only cleaning his gun, but it is also determined the dead guy is the shooters son. Would the shooter be charged with murder? Wouldn't odds of this event happening come into play at every turn to determine if this were murder or highly unlikely accident?

---

Living in a rural state, I can tell you that these types of accidents happen quite frequently. In fact, a good high school buddy of mine accidently shot and killed his father on a hunting trip. What came into question was the motive involved in the shooting, something that ID can not investigate. What was the motive of the supposed Intelligent Designer that created and molded life on Earth? Nothing objective can tell us this.

quote:

---

So why could we not test such things as the beginnings of life, or the odds of one horse species becoming another to determine the likelyhood of natural mechanisms being the cause?

---

As soon as the ID movement is able to OBJECTIVELY test for design you can ask that question. As of yet, ID is a subjective opinion based on religious or philosophical views.

quote:

---

I am sure you are going to say that given the conditions at the time, the odds of life emerging or the odds of simple life becoming complex life are 1 in 1. But isn't that just an a priori conclusion on your part, ignoring the possibility that it could be the product of design.

---

No, what I am saying is that even if the odds are extremely high, once that event happens the the odds are 1 in 1. Dembski and Behe both like to argue about the chances of a certain mutation happening. What they fail to realize is that once the mutation happens those odds decrease to 1 in 1.

quote:

---

I am sorry, you will have to help me with the lottery example, I see the chances as being one in every 50 million tickets. And what is this ignoring of all possible pathways? If there are pathways Dembski is ignoring, doesn't that stack the odds further against natural mechanisms?

---

Sure, I will expand on the idea. Let me know if it is still a little fuzzy. Let's say that the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 50 million. If 50 million people play, it is very probable that someone will win. Now, let's say that three people win on consecutive drawings: John Doe, Jane Doe, and Mark Smith. The chances of each of those people winning are 1 in 50 million. The chances of those three people winning in that order are 50 million to the third power, or 1.25 x 10^23. It is extremely improbable that those three people could have won in that order, so can I then conclude that the lottery was designed so that those people won? Of course not, because SOMEBODY had to win given the number of people playing. Also, the chances of those people winning AFTER the lotter in that order are 1 in 1.Dembski and Behe use this same type of tomfoolery with their numbers. They both state that the order of mutations occuring to change life are improbable. What they ignore is the number of mutations that have occured, equivalent to the millions of losers in the lottery example. Next, they ignore a very simple characteristic of genetic systems, that other mutations could have also resulted in beneficial adaptation. This is equivalent to changing the winning numbers of the lottery where you will still end up with a winner. When I say that Dembski is ignoring other possible pathways I am comparing these pathways to other lottery tickets, or other possible winners. Just as in the lottery, the results could be quite different but you still end up with winners. Dembski, using his math, would have to conclude that the lottery has been designed to make certain people win.

quote:

---

Whoa there partner, according to you there is nothing separate from nature. If everything is caused by natural mechanisms, why does your daily life get a pass? So I think my question is a valid one, how do you test for design in your everyday life? And wouldn't those tests be applicable to the rest of the "natural" world?

---

What I do in my daily life is pre-planned and forward looking, two characteristics that are not seen in biological evolution. This is why Darwin separated "artificial selection" (breeding) from natural selection. In fact, Darwin proposed the very first test for ID. He stated that if you find an organism that evolved for the sole purpose of benefitting another organism then you have proven ID and falsified evoltuion through natural selection.

quote:

---

But that is like saying if a monkey were typing away and accidently types the words "to be" then suddenly the odds of him typing Shakespearean prose is better. The sequences are there today, if they were somehow simpler in the past, then the added complexity still must be factored in, even if it didn't happen all at once.

---

Carrying the analogy farther, this is a great way to look at mutation and natural selection in how they produce information. Let's pretend that a monkey does type "To be". If this were equivalent to natural selection, these words are kept. Now, everytime the monkey starts typing on a new page, the page will start with "To be". After a bit, the monkey then types "or not". This is also correct, so it is kept. Now each page starts with "To be or not". Continue this process of keeping letters that work and throwing out those that don't and you are assured of getting the works of Shakespeare (given enough monkeys, that is). This is how information in the genome is created, through mutation and natural selection. The usefulness or detriment of a certain sequence of DNA is determined by the environment, and hence information is supplied to the genome through the environment selecting one DNA sequence over another.

quote:

---

Here is exactly where the evolutionary story begins to unravel for me. If "To be or not to be, that is the question?" is a DNA sequence that defines a process or mechanism, and the proverbial monkey types "To be", why would this be selected, and more importantly, why would it take over the population?

---

Let's say, for analogies sake, that "To be or not to be, that is the question?" is a fully functioning, complex eye. However, there are intermediate steps that are also functional, and beneficial.First, an spot on the skin that is sensitive to light is developed. This is the "To be". This is beneficial, so it spreads to more and more offspring.Next, the eyespot becomes concave. This allows crude directional sight. This is better than a flat eyespot. This is "or not to be".Keep repeating this process and you end up with the whole phrase, or in the case of the eye you end up with an eyeball with a lens.The same could happen at the DNA level. Mutations that improve protein function or specificty will be kept while detrimental mutations are eliminated. This allows beneficial mutations, or phrases of Hamlet, to accrete in the population. It is a very simple process that has profound effects in a reproducing population.

quote:

---

This mutation, in all likelyhood would be detrimental to the animal, but even if it were a neutral mutation, why would it get selected?

---

Why couldn't it be beneficial? If it is a neutral mutation it spreads through each generation in a random fashion. Some neutral mutations will disappear and some will become fixed in the population.

quote:

---

The animal with this mutation would have no better chance of surviving than his fellow critters, and probably less. So the odds of getting the whole phrase at once still applies.

---

No it doesn't. Small steps could be beneficial. If the mutation did not confer a better reproductive rate, then it would disappear. If it confers a higher reproductive rate it becomes dominant in the population through many generations. It is a very simple process.

quote:

---

There appears to be a whole lot of speculation in this statement. I would still like to see an example of a known mutation that adds information in the form of a function to an animal.

---

Done. The hemC gene is a mutated form of human hemoglobin. Carriers of the gene survive malarial infections at a much higher rate than non-carriers. Therefore, in areas with endemic malaria this gene will be selected for. It also is more beneficial than the hemS gene, the sickle cell gene, because it does not cause side effects in homozygous carriers. Right now, the gene can only be found in a small area in Burkina Faso. It is expected to become a widespread gene within 50 generations and replace the sickel cell gene.

quote:

---

ID proposes to assign design to objects or systems mathematically; the designer at that point would not necessarily be God.

---

ID proposes a mathematical system, but has yet to create a workable system or even apply a mathematical system to biology. All we have heard thus far from Dembski et al is a lot of hot wind and absolutely no application of their supposed theories. The main problem is that before any mathematical model can be applied we must fully understand all of the natural mechanisms that could have affected the outcome. At this point, we can't, with any confidence, list all of the possible and specific natural mechanisms that were involved in the designing of biological organisms. For instance, what are all of the possible mutations that could have led to a blood clotting cascade? No one knows. However, before we can say that the blood clotting cascade was designed through a mathematical model we must know every single mutation that could have led to a blood clotting system. By "all mutations" I mean all possible systems that could have evolved but didn't.

quote:

---

I would propose to you the counter theory called the "Science of Increasing Complexities" theory, which says that just when science thinks it may be on the brink of explaining it all, further complexities are uncovered.

---

But science is able to explain phenomena without knowing every single detail. Take Germ Theory, for example. Simple experiments over a hundred years ago demonstrated that bacteria and viruses were responsible for disease. We don't need to know every single aspect of quantum mechanics to understand that bacteria cause disease. In the same vein, we don't need to understand the Big Bang to explain why lightning is produced in storm clouds. What you seem to miss is that we have more questions to answer because we have already answered some of the questions. Using an analogy, we keep getting to the next mile-marker on the road of discovery only to discover that there are more mile-markers in the distance. However, this doesn't mean that we haven't travelled down the road just because there is more road left.

quote:

---

It seems to me that ID is not necessarily a competitor of evolutionary theory. I could easliy see an object or system that has evolved testing positive for design. This could just simply mean the object or system evolved under the direction of a designer or the initial object or system was the direct product of a designer who incorporated the evolutionary process into it.

---

How would we detect intelligent design if it mimics natural processes? Why is ID even necessary if natural mechanisms are adequate for explaining natural phenomena? You might as well claim that UFO's built the Rockies so that they mimic uplift caused by tectonic movement.

quote:

---

If the Christian God is the Creator, this would not happen because He wants belief to be an act of free will.

---

Then the Christian God wouldn't leave his "fingerprint of design" on biological orgnaisms either.

quote:

---

Actually, the light sensitive spot would be more like getting "I think, therefore I am."

---

It's just an analogy so don't take it too far.

quote:

---

Where is the evidence for these intermediate, functional, beneficial steps?

---

In living species. Every step from the light sensitive spot to a fully functioning mammalian eye can be found in species that are alive today. Nilsson and Pelger were able to construct a scenario that started with a photosensitive spot and developed into a fully functional fish eye using 1% improvements at every step. Check it out: How Long Would The Fish Eye Take To Evolve?

quote:

---

It seems to me the DNA has to be accompanied by the biological machinery that gives it meaning at the same moment the monkey "accidently" types his message.

---

You are correct, but this isn't a problem. For the photosensitive spot, all you need is nerve cells that relay touch. If a mutation led to some of the nerve cells responding to light instead of touch the organism would respond to light as if it were being touched. If that organism eats food that is normally found in darker areas, then this would be a good adaptation because it would keep the organism in closer proximity to it's food. All this takes is one mutation and the organism and environment lend the "context" as it were.

quote:

---

What good is the phrase if neither you nor I speak English or have any idea what "To be" means?

---

It was an analogy. "To be" = beneficial mutation. The language is fitness.

quote:

---

Just mix and add water, right? This is so typical of the evolutionary material I have read. It could happen, it might have been, imagine this or suppose that.

---

Going back to Dembski and Behe, if it could happen then they have no reason to suspect that Intelligent Design was necessary. Notice that I said "could happen" not "did happen". Behe harps that evolution is not capable of producing complex structures such as the eye or clotting cascade. If an evolutionary scenario can be constructed his argument falls on it's face, even if that scenario is not recorded, step by step, in the fossil record.

quote:

---

Where is the evidence?

---

Most of it is in DNA. For example, a gene involved in the construction of the lower jaw in fish is involved in the construction of middle ear bones in mammals. In the fossil record we see that the mammalian middle ear bones evolved from reptilian lower jaw bones. This is evidence that the irreducibly complex middle ear evolved from the reptilian lower jaw. Next, we look at the clotting cascade. Doolittle did a great job of researching the evolution of the system. His hypothesis was that the genes involved in the clotting cascade could be found in other organisms that did not have a clotting cascade. He found those genes in sea cucumbers, exactly where evolutionary theory predicts that we would find it (the sea cucumber's moved away from the vertebrates before the clotting cascade was evolved). There is plenty of evidence that these systems evolved, but we lack a mutation by mutation evolution for these systems.

quote:

---

The example you provided is an excellent example of what we used to call adaption. There does seem to be a built in ability of creatures to change over time to better cope with the environment. This does not extrapolate into species becoming something entirely different.

---

What would happen to a fish adapting to a land based environment? Would it not evolve legs and lungs? Would a dinosaur not grow wings to adapt to an arboreal environment? Would a mammal not develop fur to cope with colder temperatures? Why couldn't adaptation result in large changes?

quote:

---

Then why has Gould proposed his puncuated equilibrium theory if not to augment the traditional roles of mutation and natural selection and explain the leaps and stasis in the fossil record?

---

Punk eek is off topic, but it seems that you do not understood the theory. Punctuated equilibrium is evolution in jumps and starts, followed by periods of stasis. It relies on mutation and natural selection in the very same way that gradualistic evolution depends on mutation and natural selection. If you are curious about punk eek, we can start a new topic. It is one of the most misunderstood theories among creationists, so it might help if you familiarize yourself with what the theory actually says instead of relying on creationist strawmen.

quote:

---

I am still looking for evidence that truly new information can be created in this way, in other words information that would provide an animal with a structure unknown in the biosphere until that particular mutation occured. Something on the order of the analogy that has taken hold in my exchange with a couple of the other participants, "To be or not to be, that is the question" popping up in the genome of an animal where it had never been found before.

---

Before I dig up all of the references, please tell me if you would consider the following mutations as adding information.1. The production of a novel (ie never seen in nature before) nylon digesting enzyme.2. A new form of hemoglobin that prevents death from malaria.3. A mutation in a muscle gene that allows enlargment of the cranium.4. Insertion of a viral gene important in placental development.Any of those descriptions work for you? I am feeling a little lazy, but I will supply references for the topics you are interested in.

quote:

---

What? You can't be serious. Any old scenario will do? Not supported in any way?

---

Just as NosyNed says above, ID claims that it is IMPOSSIBLE that evolution could have resulted in the characteristics we see today. Any scenario that could have happened proves them wrong.

quote:

---

But it can't even be shown that mammals are descendents of fish.

---

But yes it can, the jaw gene is just one of many arguments. We have tranlationals from fish to land animal, acanthosteag for example: This creature has all of the bones in it's limbs that we do, including a humerus, femur, tibia, etc. It was also very fish like.Then we have the transition from reptile to mammal. This is best seen in the transfer of the jaw bones up into the middle ear, which can be seen in these drawings: From genetics alone we could have predicted that these fossils would exhibit this very same pattern.