The Toolbox argument against Intelligent Design

[abelcainsbrother]

I never understood how Behe accepts natural selection because there is no credibile mechanism for evolution,which means it is impossible to demonstrate how natural selection can effect any kind of life and cause it to evolve.

It is impossible because of the lack of a mechanism for evolution. This is why evolutionists use phrases like natural selection,random mutation,DNA copying errors,genetic drift,etc but these are just evolution myths that can never be demonstrated to effect any life and cause it to evolve but they are used to cover up and fill in the gaps of the lack of a mechanism for evolution.It is deception.

Instead of just demonstrating normal variation amongst the populations and claiming this is evolution they must prove normal variation amongst the populations leads to big evolutionary change given enough time changing one kind of a population of life into a new and totally different kind of life and they cannot and have never been able to do this.But if they did? They would then be able to demonstrate how natural selection can work on life and cause it to evolve,but since they have no mechanism for evolution they cannot demonstrate natural selection working on any life and besides it will just show that it just leads to normal vatiation amongst the populations,not evolution.

Because they still convince people life evolves by demonstrating NORMAL variation amongst the populations and using it for evidence life evolves so that even if natural selection was real it can only be demonstrated to cause NORMAL variation amongst the populations. Understand what I just wrote.It is totally dishonest.It is a waste of money in science what they are doing.

[DBowling]

I never understood how Behe accepts natural selection because there is no credibile mechanism for evolution,which means it is impossible to demonstrate how natural selection can effect any kind of life and cause it to evolve.

Natural selection does not 'cause' anything to evolve. Natural selection is nothing more than 'survival of the fittest'. And Natural selection is observed in micro-evolution (what I think you are referring to as 'normal variation') which is a scientific fact.

The 'cause' of evolution is where Behe takes issue with the claims of Darwinistic Evolution. Darwinistic evolution asserts that 'random mutation' is the functional cause of evolution. And Behe points out that decades of evolutionary research demonstrate that random mutation is not adequate to produce the changes that we see in the fossil record and structure that we find in the DNA of life today.

[abelcainsbrother]

I never understood how Behe accepts natural selection because there is no credibile mechanism for evolution,which means it is impossible to demonstrate how natural selection can effect any kind of life and cause it to evolve.

Natural selection does not 'cause' anything to evolve. Natural selection is nothing more than 'survival of the fittest'. And Natural selection is observed in micro-evolution (what I think you are referring to as 'normal variation') which is a scientific fact.

The 'cause' of evolution is where Behe takes issue with the claims of Darwinistic Evolution. Darwinistic evolution asserts that 'random mutation' is the functional cause of evolution. And Behe points out that decades of evolutionary research demonstrate that random mutation is not adequate to produce the changes that we see in the fossil record and structure that we find in the DNA of life today.

Well I have had evolutionists explain how environmental pressures with natural selection causes life to evolve before,it is kinda seen as a mechanism for evolution along with random mutation,genetic drift,random DNA copying errors,etc.The reason why I don't call normal variation amongst the populations micro-evolution is because micro-evolution implies life evolves when it has never been demonstrated.But also because before the term micro-evolution and macro-evolution were used it was called normal variation,as a matter of fact Darwin used variation of his finches to convince people that these small variations can add up given enough time changing one kind of life into a new and totally different kind of life. So that today they cannot use normal variation as evidence life evolves,which they do.They use normal variation to cover BOTH micro and macro-evolution,with the only difference is they throw in the speciation myth when it comes to macro-evolution to make it more believable.But speciation is a myth that can easily be debunked. Yet Behe accepts a certian amount of evolution and gives evolution too much benefit of the doubt compared to what the evidence really shows and demonstrates.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

this is why most people agree with theistic/deistic evolution

Well, misunderstanding or ignorance of evolution is rather common.
Nils

Not necessarily ignorance of how it works, just that it makes sense for someone to "help" get evolution going here and there.

[abelcainsbrother]

this is why most people agree with theistic/deistic evolution

Well, misunderstanding or ignorance of evolution is rather common.
Nils

Not necessarily ignorance of how it works, just that it makes sense for someone to "help" get evolution going here and there.

Yeah,I guess if you accept Theistic Evolution.If you do? Then yes it would be beneficial to make a case for how evolution cannot be a random process but must be guided.However I think before we do this and start trying to find ways to make a biblical caase for it we should first know life evolves. Because if we go down the route of accepting evolution and then making God's word fit into it,it is nice if everything is going smoothly,like imagine a cowboy riding two horses while standing up,everything is fine as long as both horses go in the same direction but if and when one horses goes in a different direction he is in trouble.

Now I understand why Theistic Evolution is so believable compared to other creation interpretations out there. I mean if we look at the evidence of the earth? Evolution is more believable than young earth creationism is,and Day Age creationism can be appealing to alot of Christians if you accept the Big Bang Theory and although Day Agers don't seem to make much of a fuss about evolution like young earth creationists do,they still have problems with evolution.These are the three most popular creation theories out there - Young Earth Creationism,Day Age Creationism because of Hugh Ross and Theistic Evolution.And so people mostly just pick one of these.If I did not know about the Gap Theory I'd have to go with Day Age because I cannot accept evolution and I don't believe Young Earth Creationism is true. I think besides the Gap Theory Day Age Creationism is the most believable based on the Big Bang Theory.

[PaulSacramento]

this is why most people agree with theistic/deistic evolution

Well, misunderstanding or ignorance of evolution is rather common.
Nils

Not necessarily ignorance of how it works, just that it makes sense for someone to "help" get evolution going here and there.

Not even that, it can simply be a case that the "blueprint" of life allows for evolution.
Evolution has never been able to explain WHY we evolve.

[DBowling]

this is why most people agree with theistic/deistic evolution

Well, misunderstanding or ignorance of evolution is rather common.
Nils

Not necessarily ignorance of how it works, just that it makes sense for someone to "help" get evolution going here and there.

Not even that, it can simply be a case that the "blueprint" of life allows for evolution.
Evolution has never been able to explain WHY we evolve.

The issue here is not whether Darwinistic Evolution (random mutation working with natural selection) occurs.

Darwinistic Evolution has been observed in the lab and in nature. So we do have observable data regarding the rate and scope of random mutation/natural selection.

Malaria provides one of the best opportunities to observe what Darwinistic Evolution can and cannot do. Behe discusses the observed rate of Darwinistic evolution in malaria in his book Edge of Evolution. Random mutations in malaria that require a single change at the molecular level occur at a ratio of 1 in 10^12. Random mutations in malaria that require two changes at the molecular level occur at a rate of around 1 in 10^20. Now the changes required for what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today are orders of magnitude beyond one or two changes at the molecular level, and the improbability of random mutations causing required mutations required for evolution theory increases exponentially (beyond even 1 in 10^20) for each additional change required.

This is not speculation about what random mutation and natural selection may or may not be able to do.
This is observation of what random mutation and natural selection actually do at the molecular level.

Observed Darwinistic evolution in malaria shows us what the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection are capable of.
And the observed scope and frequency of the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection are totally incapable of producing the scope and frequency of change required to explain the fossil record and the structure in DNA of life today.

Or as Behe concludes
"The little-appreciated point I wanted to emphasize is that the likelihood of success decreases enormously if even a single mutational step of a pathway is disfavored. With more such steps, its improbability becomes prohibitive."

[abelcainsbrother]

this is why most people agree with theistic/deistic evolution

Well, misunderstanding or ignorance of evolution is rather common.
Nils

Not necessarily ignorance of how it works, just that it makes sense for someone to "help" get evolution going here and there.

Not even that, it can simply be a case that the "blueprint" of life allows for evolution.
Evolution has never been able to explain WHY we evolve.

The issue here is not whether Darwinistic Evolution (random mutation working with natural selection) occurs.

Darwinistic Evolution has been observed in the lab and in nature. So we do have observable data regarding the rate and scope of random mutation/natural selection.

Malaria provides one of the best opportunities to observe what Darwinistic Evolution can and cannot do. Behe discusses the observed rate of Darwinistic evolution in malaria in his book Edge of Evolution. Random mutations in malaria that require a single change at the molecular level occur at a ratio of 1 in 10^12. Random mutations in malaria that require two changes at the molecular level occur at a rate of around 1 in 10^20. Now the changes required for what we see in the fossil record and in the DNA of life today are orders of magnitude beyond one or two changes at the molecular level, and the improbability of random mutations causing required mutations required for evolution theory increases exponentially (beyond even 1 in 10^20) for each additional change required.

This is not speculation about what random mutation and natural selection may or may not be able to do.
This is observation of what random mutation and natural selection actually do at the molecular level.

Observed Darwinistic evolution in malaria shows us what the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection are capable of.
And the observed scope and frequency of the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection are totally incapable of producing the scope and frequency of change required to explain the fossil record and the structure in DNA of life today.

Or as Behe concludes
"The little-appreciated point I wanted to emphasize is that the likelihood of success decreases enormously if even a single mutational step of a pathway is disfavored. With more such steps, its improbability becomes prohibitive."

Can I ask you a question? What is the difference with Charles Darwin using the variation of his finches to convince the world that these small variations can add up given enough time generation after generation ad infinitum leading to one kind of life evolving into a new and totally different kind of life/creature? How is this any different than you and Behe using the normal variation in the population of Malaria to convince people life evolves?

See what I mean? You are using the same kind of evidence Charles Darwin did to convince the world life evolves,the only difference is Darwin used the normal variation in the population of finches and you are using normal variation amongst the population of Malaria.

No difference and this cannot be used for evidence life evolves after 160 years of evolution. Instead it must be demonstrated that these normal variations we see in the population of Malaria can add up given enough time - generation after generation ad-infinitum until the Malaria evolves into a new and totally different kind of life/creature.

You sound just like Charles Darwin 160 years ago and using the same evidence and arguments he did to convince us life evolves. This is because there is no credibile mechanism for evolution. And like I explained earlier that natural selection and the random mutations you focused on just produce NORMAL VARIATION AMONGST THE POPULATION OF MALARIA,NOT evolution.Finches are a population and so is Malaria.

Like I explained before it is impossible to demonstrate how things like natural selection,random mutations,genetic drift,adaptation,etc can work on any life like is explained,like you explained,and cause life to evolve because of the lack of a credibile mechanism for evolution. And like I said you are using normal variation amongst the populations for evidence life evolves.

Nobody has ever denied normal variation amongst the populations and we do not need scientists demonstrating it to us and claiming it is evidence life evolves.We can look at any population ourselves and see normal variation.This is exactly what they did with Malaria and we see that even if natural selection and random mutations are real,which I consider them evolution myths,but we see that they can only demonstrate normal variation amongst the population of Malaria. All they did was examine in real time how normal variation amongst the populations occurs for us and they use this for evidence life evolves.

[DBowling]

Can I ask you a question? What is the difference with Charles Darwin using the variation of his finches to convince the world that these small variations can add up given enough time generation after generation ad infinitum leading to one kind of life evolving into a new and totally different kind of life/creature? How is this any different than you and Behe using the normal variation in the population of Malaria to convince people life evolves?

Are you even reading my posts?

Random mutations for Darwinistic evolution occur at the molecular level.
Based on nature (malaria) and experimentation, the limits of Darwinistic evolution (random mutation/natural selection) are measurable. (1 in 10^12 for a change involving a single mutation at the molecular level and 1 in 10^20 for a change involving two mutations at the molecular level)

As a point of reference. there have been about 10^40 living cells in the history of life on earth.
Which means that a mutation twice as complex as the two mutations at the molecular level observed in malaria would exceed the number of living cells that have ever existed on our planet.

In a nutshell, there have not been enough living cells in the history of our planet to produce the number of mutations at the molecular level required to evolve from one kind of life to another by using only Darwinistic Evolution (ie random mutation and natural selection).

I am not defending the ability of Darwinistic processes to evolve life from one kind to another.
Behe is not defending the ability of Darwinistic processes to evolve life from one kind to another.

Just the opposite.
Behe is demonstrating that Darwinistic processes (random mutation/natural selection) are incapable of evolving from one kind of life to another.

Behe explains the math much better than I can in Chapter 3 (The Mathematical Limits of Darwinism) of his book The Edge of Evolution.

[abelcainsbrother]

Can I ask you a question? What is the difference with Charles Darwin using the variation of his finches to convince the world that these small variations can add up given enough time generation after generation ad infinitum leading to one kind of life evolving into a new and totally different kind of life/creature? How is this any different than you and Behe using the normal variation in the population of Malaria to convince people life evolves?

Are you even reading my posts?

Random mutations for Darwinistic evolution occur at the molecular level.
Based on nature (malaria) and experimentation, the limits of Darwinistic evolution (random mutation/natural selection) are measurable. (1 in 10^12 for a change involving a single mutation at the molecular level and 1 in 10^20 for a change involving two mutations at the molecular level)

As a point of reference. there have been about 10^40 living cells in the history of life on earth.
Which means that a mutation twice as complex as the two mutations at the molecular level observed in malaria would exceed the number of living cells that have ever existed on our planet.

In a nutshell, there have not been enough living cells in the history of our planet to produce the number of mutations at the molecular level required to evolve from one kind of life to another by using only Darwinistic Evolution (ie random mutation and natural selection).

I am not defending the ability of Darwinistic processes to evolve life from one kind to another.
Behe is not defending the ability of Darwinistic processes to evolve life from one kind to another.

Just the opposite.
Behe is demonstrating that Darwinistic processes (random mutation/natural selection) are incapable of evolving from one kind of life to another.

Behe explains the math much better than I can in Chapter 3 (The Mathematical Limits of Darwinism) of his book The Edge of Evolution.

Sorry, I see what you are saying now.I should'nt have accused you and Behe of promoting evolution. He is trying to show the limitations of evolution.Still,I do think he gives evolution too much benefit of the doubt.It is totally dishonest science and deception.Now I don't know if Nils is still around but he needs to realize how fake evolution really is.One of the best anti-evolution books I read was a book written by an atheist called "Evolution: A case of stating the obvious" and you can see how I blend some of his info into it when I'm refuting evolution. It really is a case of stating the obvious just normal variation. Still he does not want to abandon evolution but promoted his idea for a mechanism for evolution,due to the lack of a mechanism for evolution,but he was ignored by the majority who accepts evolution as is,just like Rupert Sheldrake was ignored for trying to help evolution by promoting a mechanism for evolution. The majority of Biologists and scientists thinks there is no problem with evolution,when there is. Nils needs to abandon evolution and stop believing that people who reject evolution do not understand it and are ignorant of it. I would be a Theistic Evolutionist now if evolution was true,but it is'nt.

[DBowling]

I see what you are saying now.I should'nt have accused you and Behe of promoting evolution. He is trying to show the limitations of evolution.Still,I do think he gives evolution too much benefit of the doubt.It is totally dishonest science and deception.

Behe isn't being dishonest when he describes what the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection can and cannot do.

Here is a lecture that Behe gave on his book Edge of Evolution.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?199326-1/ ... -evolution

In this lecture Behe describes the observed role of Darwinistic evolution in human immunity to malaria and in the adaptation of malaria to different types of drugs. He also describes what is going on at the molecular level in these examples of Darwinistic evolution.

Behe is not being dishonest or deceptive.
Behe is describing the observed behavior and limits of Darwinian evolution.

[PaulSacramento]

The issue with evolution, for some, is that IF evolution means simply "change over time" ( which is does) then it explains changes and adaptations ( even if we can't fully explain the how, much less the why) but doesn't explain the development of new species, especially since there isn't even full consensus as to when a new species arises.
Evolution in terms of random changes ( random in the scientific way and not in everyday ways) is observable and undeniable.
In terms of the creation of a new species, well, that is tricky because while we can observe the "creation" of a new strain of malaria, for example, is that a new "species" or is it a different type of malaria? or are we simply "spliting hairs'?

[DBowling]

In terms of the creation of a new species, well, that is tricky because while we can observe the "creation" of a new strain of malaria, for example, is that a new "species" or is it a different type of malaria? or are we simply "spliting hairs'?

I think Behe's focus on what is occurring at the molecular level is very helpful in clarifying issues involving Evolution (for me at least).
Random mutation (the causal agent for Darwinian evolution) occurs at the molecular level (DNA, etc) not at the macro level (species, etc).

Now there is a practical relationship between what we choose to describe as species at the macro level and what is occurring in DNA at the molecular level.
So we can identify the differences in DNA at the molecular level between two different species. And then using the observed scope and rate of Darwinistic processes at the molecular level, we discover that there have not been enough living cells in the history of life on earth to enable the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection to bridge the DNA gap between what we identify as species at the macro level.

[PaulSacramento]

In terms of the creation of a new species, well, that is tricky because while we can observe the "creation" of a new strain of malaria, for example, is that a new "species" or is it a different type of malaria? or are we simply "spliting hairs'?

I think Behe's focus on what is occurring at the molecular level is very helpful in clarifying issues involving Evolution (for me at least).
Random mutation (the causal agent for Darwinian evolution) occurs at the molecular level (DNA, etc) not at the macro level (species, etc).

Now there is a practical relationship between what we choose to describe as species at the macro level and what is occurring in DNA at the molecular level.
So we can identify the differences in DNA at the molecular level between two different species. And then using the observed scope and rate of Darwinistic processes at the molecular level, we discover that there have not been enough living cells in the history of life on earth to enable the Darwinistic processes of random mutation and natural selection to bridge the DNA gap between what we identify as species at the macro level.

Unless we define species differently?

[abelcainsbrother]

The issue with evolution, for some, is that IF evolution means simply "change over time" ( which is does) then it explains changes and adaptations ( even if we can't fully explain the how, much less the why) but doesn't explain the development of new species, especially since there isn't even full consensus as to when a new species arises.
Evolution in terms of random changes ( random in the scientific way and not in everyday ways) is observable and undeniable.
In terms of the creation of a new species, well, that is tricky because while we can observe the "creation" of a new strain of malaria, for example, is that a new "species" or is it a different type of malaria? or are we simply "spliting hairs'?

The problem is that their own evidence with the Malaria proves to us it does not evolve.It really does not matter about "it gets tricky about what a species is" because their own evidence shows we start with Malaria and still have Malaria after all of their work is done.

This proves to us it cannot evolve but they confuse people by claiming when normal variation in a population occurs,that they are demonstrating with their analysis,it has evolved.But this is them seeing what they want to see and not what their evidence is showing us but they claim it evolved anyway and people ignore their evidence and believe their conclusion.People believe what they say and ignore what their evidence showed and demonstrated.If you really believe life evolves you are just believing what scientists claim and ignoring what their evidence demonstrated.