A Simple Arguement Against INTELLIGENT Design

[articulett]

Kleinman, are you aware that we've mapped the entire human and chimpanzee genome...it's 98% identical. We also share the vast majority of genes with mice. We can see exactly where and what changes have happened and draw conclusions from that. Moreover, it isn't the differences that are the controlling factor in species divergence as when and where these genes are expressed as an organism develops. You should read some of Sean Carroll and his book, Making of the Fittest. You are woefully misinformed. Just because you can't or won't fathom how humans can evolve from apes or how species in general can evolve or how life can come from pre life substances (such as don't, or won't understand those things--nor does it mean that there was some sort of supernatural influence. Your inability to learn about these things may have more to do with your need to believe that it can't be explained (and therefore your "intelligent designer" must have done it.)

 

[articulett]

Again, what is the problem with 200,000,000 generations? At one per day, that's a measly 548,000 years. (Noting again that I don't know how you define macroevolution or punctuated equilibrium.

~~ Paul

And trillions of cells in larger organisms containing hundreds of thousands of genes copying and dividing multiple times--not to mention, translocations, non-disjunctions, chimeras, uniparental disomies, etc. etc. etc. on a global scale for millions of hundreds of millions of years!

 

[joobz]

I have a Phd in mechanical engineering, major field was thermodynamics, minor field dynamics, Phd thesis was on mathematical modeling of a biological system, I hold an active state license as an engineer. I have also taught undergraduate and graduate level courses in thermodynamics and worked in the aerospace industry. However, I was impulsive when I was younger, instead of staying in engineering, I got an urge to go to medical school, which I did and I am now a licensed practicing physician but I still employ my engineering skills to medicine.

For the sake of accuracy, I'm a Chemical engineer with my primary area of research being polymer chemisty and protein delivery.

It doesn’t surprise me that joobz doesn’t want to claim these credentials and abiogenesis in the same post.

You seem to enjoy these type of comments. I don't see how they help your case.

It was an only L-amino acid presumption but fair enough. It only makes abiogenesis seem stranger when most polypeptides use L-amino acids yet there are still a few R-amino acids around. There are other instances when R-amino acids can be found in living things (humans included). For example, the L-aspartate in the dentine of teeth spontaneously racemizes at about 0.1% per year. The amount of R-aspartate in a tooth can be used to estimate the age of the tooth.

The fact the stereoisomers will spontaneously racemize is another argument against abiogenesis. Even if you can somehow manage to nonezymatically generate a string of L-amino acids, that string will rapidly racemize denaturing the protein. Proteins will not sit around for billions of years waiting for just the right mixture to start life.
You have to get a huge number of short lived complex molecules in the same location at the same time to get your first life form. This is irrational thinking Professor joobz, not suitable for a Phd in this field.

Your major argument is based on stereochemsity, but that really doesn't make sense. Do you really believe because you can only make racemic mixtures in your organic 101 course that you can't get have processes that make single enatiomers? Look into metal based stereospecific catalysts. There are methods to do it non-enzymaticlly.

Again, You posed the question how, I gave a possible answer. I do not presume that this is the way, but I am willing to postulate examples. At least ALL evidence points to such processes.

With regard to your first paragraph, do you really believe this?

Yes, I admit it would need experimental verification. But it is completely consistent with known science. Can you present an experiment to test your theory? What is your theory?

With regard to your second paragraph, is it the excess energy present which form the larger mw products or is combustion in an oxygen lean environment that cause the formation of the larger mw products?

both typically. But the transients I mentioned by the westmoreland work was combustion with a stoichiometric mix.

Skeptigirl, Paul usually stamps his foot when he makes these types of arguments. Since you brought up irreducible complexity, perhaps you would tell us what helicase and gyrase were making before the DNA replicase system self assembled. Then you can tell us how helicase and gyrase were made without DNA. Professor joozb has already suggested prions maybe you have a better idea.

Did you show that prions weren't involved? I must have missed that.

I've taken all of my cues and hypotheses from the summation of scientific observations. I would love to hear your proposal as to what would surplant evolution and to see how you would test it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I did not go about this backward. I have always been skeptical of the theory of evolution but when Dr Schneider asked me to look at his computer model of random point mutations and natural selection, I did what my engineering training led me to do. I took Dr Schneider’s computer model and started doing a systematic parametric study. It quickly became apparent that Dr Schneider had used his single published case to draw a completely unrealistic conclusion. When realistic parameters are used in his model, it shows that both punctuated equilibrium and macroevolution are mathematically impossible. You simply do not have enough time to accumulate the correct mutations to accomplish the evolution.

But even if you've found a real flaw in the model, all you can reliably say is that the model is flawed. One cannot discredit evolutionary theory by discrediting a single illustrative model. Conversely, one cannot "prove" evolutionary theory with a single successful illustrative model.

You put much more faith in science than I do.

If by that you mean I expect there is still very much for us to uncover using the methodology of science whereas you think that what is currently unknown will forever remain so (is that really what you mean?), then yes, I put much more "faith" in science than you do. I even expect that physicists will discover the mechanism of gravity one day. And the best part of that is that the answers we find will open the doors to innumerable new questions. We will never get all the answers. I find it curious that you seem to think we will never get any more answers.

There are elements of truth in the theory of evolution. Mendelian genetics is part of the truthful portion of entire theory. Biodiversity by natural selection such as the observations that Darwin made about finch beaks I don’t argue with. Where the theory of evolution enters the fantasy world is when you try to extrapolate this biodiversity to the evolution of reptiles to birds or even humans from a primate ancestor. You simply have no mechanism that can accomplish the number of genetic changes in the time available.

And how has the biological community reacted to your evidence of this?

Abiogenesis should never be taken seriously by anyone who has ever taken a organic chemistry lab class where you have to bind a side group to a particular site on a toluene molecule. Attaching an aglycone to the number 1 position of D-ribose or D-2-deoxyribose nonezymatically makes the previous lab exercise seem trivial.

I'll wait to see what Joobz has to say about that. But the notion that a 1st year biology student would think he/she has understood all there is to know about organic chemistry from a semesters worth of introductory lab sessions is quite a stretch.

 

[Rodney]

Do we build the same way today as the Ancient Egyptians did?

No. Because things evolve.

Absolutely. Just a few years ago, Mark Lehner and company actually managed to build an 18 foot high pyramid with the assistance of a front end loader -- see "This Old Pyramid" review on http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member...f=cm_pdp_about_see_review/104-1145648-7253548. Just think of what the Ancient Egyptians could have done if they had a more evolved technology!*

*Yes, this is off-topic and a cheap shot, but I couldn't resist.

 

[kleinman]

Paul, your own estimate of the evolution of 16 binding sites (96 loci) on a 100,000 base genome in 200,000,000 generations strongly argues against point mutations and natural selection as the mechanism for macroevolution and punctuated equilibrium. I prefer the use of the word impossible to describe this.

Again, what is the problem with 200,000,000 generations? At one per day, that's a measly 548,000 years. (Noting again that I don't know how you define macroevolution or punctuated equilibrium.

Start with your case is on a 100,000 base genome. If you consider that a 500,000 base genome (near the size of the smallest free living bacteria) would take a billion generations to evolve the 16 binding site (96 loci). If you want to try to extrapolate this result to a human size genome (3-4 billion bases), you can not evolve any genes or binding sites on a genome that size by point mutations and natural selection. If you estimate the number of generations that could have occurred between the primate precursor and human, you have at most 1 million generations to accomplish the evolutionary process. Ev is reducing the theory of evolution to all genes had to evolve on very short genomes on creatures that reproduce extremely rapidly. The closest know life forms that match these criteria are bacteria but the genome lengths are too long and their 20 minute reproductive cycle is maintained for only very short periods.

Kleinman, are you aware that we've mapped the entire human and chimpanzee genome...it's 98% identical. We also share the vast majority of genes with mice. We can see exactly where and what changes have happened and draw conclusions from that. Moreover, it isn't the differences that are the controlling factor in species divergence as when and where these genes are expressed as an organism develops. You should read some of Sean Carroll and his book, Making of the Fittest. You are woefully misinformed. Just because you can't or won't fathom how humans can evolve from apes or how species in general can evolve or how life can come from pre life substances (such as don't, or won't understand those things--nor does it mean that there was some sort of supernatural influence. Your inability to learn about these things may have more to do with your need to believe that it can't be explained (and therefore your "intelligent designer" must have done it.)

So let’s do a little arithmetic. Assuming the length of the human genome is 3 billion bases. 2% of 3 billion is 60,000,000 base differences. If the humans and chimps diverged 4,000,000 years ago and you assume an average generation time of 10 years give 400,000 generations to accomplish this 60,000,000 base differences. That works out to an average of 150 nonfatal mutations per generation.

Again, what is the problem with 200,000,000 generations? At one per day, that's a measly 548,000 years. (Noting again that I don't know how you define macroevolution or punctuated equilibrium.

And trillions of cells in larger organisms containing hundreds of thousands of genes copying and dividing multiple times--not to mention, translocations, non-disjunctions, chimeras, uniparental disomies, etc. etc. etc. on a global scale for millions of hundreds of millions of years!

Archicullet, it is only the mutations in gamete that get passed on to the next generation. If you think that these other mechanisms you mentioned explain evolution contact Dr Schneider at the National Cancer Institute, I’m sure he would love your advice.

It doesn’t surprise me that joobz doesn’t want to claim these credentials and abiogenesis in the same post.

You seem to enjoy these type of comments. I don't see how they help your case.

It has got to be genetic, every evolutionist is a thin skinned cry baby.

It was an only L-amino acid presumption but fair enough. It only makes abiogenesis seem stranger when most polypeptides use L-amino acids yet there are still a few R-amino acids around. There are other instances when R-amino acids can be found in living things (humans included). For example, the L-aspartate in the dentine of teeth spontaneously racemizes at about 0.1% per year. The amount of R-aspartate in a tooth can be used to estimate the age of the tooth.

The fact the stereoisomers will spontaneously racemize is another argument against abiogenesis. Even if you can somehow manage to nonezymatically generate a string of L-amino acids, that string will rapidly racemize denaturing the protein. Proteins will not sit around for billions of years waiting for just the right mixture to start life.
You have to get a huge number of short lived complex molecules in the same location at the same time to get your first life form. This is irrational thinking Professor joobz, not suitable for a Phd in this field.

Your major argument is based on stereochemsity, but that really doesn't make sense. Do you really believe because you can only make racemic mixtures in your organic 101 course that you can't get have processes that make single enatiomers? Look into metal based stereospecific catalysts. There are methods to do it non-enzymaticlly.

Again, You posed the question how, I gave a possible answer. I do not presume that this is the way, but I am willing to postulate examples. At least ALL evidence points to such processes.

It is not just the stereochemistry issue, even if you can form a molecule nonezymatically out of single enantomers, that molecule will not be stable for years. It will spontaneously racemize. If you are a subscriber to the RNA world view of abiogenesis, how do you get D-ribose. Even if you somehow obtain D-ribose, it is an unstable molecule, it will decompose in a few years. For abiogenesis to occur, you must get a large number of complex unstable molecules in the same location at the same time to somehow combine to form the first living thing. Even if you managed to form a few of these molecules, what makes you think they would be in close enough proximity to spontaneously assemble. This is not a rational scientific concept. You should understand this.

With regard to your first paragraph, do you really believe this?

Yes, I admit it would need experimental verification. But it is completely consistent with known science. Can you present an experiment to test your theory? What is your theory?

Good luck proving abiogenesis. I can’t scientifically prove to you the existence of God but I can scientifically prove that theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

With regard to your second paragraph, is it the excess energy present which form the larger mw products or is combustion in an oxygen lean environment that cause the formation of the larger mw products?

both typically. But the transients I mentioned by the westmoreland work was combustion with a stoichiometric mix.

So is this your proof of abiogenesis?

Skeptigirl, Paul usually stamps his foot when he makes these types of arguments. Since you brought up irreducible complexity, perhaps you would tell us what helicase and gyrase were making before the DNA replicase system self assembled. Then you can tell us how helicase and gyrase were made without DNA. Professor joozb has already suggested prions maybe you have a better idea.

Did you show that prions weren't involved? I must have missed that.

I've taken all of my cues and hypotheses from the summation of scientific observations. I would love to hear your proposal as to what would surplant evolution and to see how you would test it.

That’s it, self replicating helicase and gyrase prions along with the dozen or so other self replicating proteins in the DNA replicaase system self assembled. But where are the strands of DNA for the replicase to duplicate?
Joobz, Paul has already identified me as the “annoying creationist”. The only thing I plan to do here is show you evolutionists the mathematical impossibility of your theory. You had better prepare yourself to go back and reconsider your interpretation of your scientific observations.

I did not go about this backward. I have always been skeptical of the theory of evolution but when Dr Schneider asked me to look at his computer model of random point mutations and natural selection, I did what my engineering training led me to do. I took Dr Schneider’s computer model and started doing a systematic parametric study. It quickly became apparent that Dr Schneider had used his single published case to draw a completely unrealistic conclusion. When realistic parameters are used in his model, it shows that both punctuated equilibrium and macroevolution are mathematically impossible. You simply do not have enough time to accumulate the correct mutations to accomplish the evolution.

But even if you've found a real flaw in the model, all you can reliably say is that the model is flawed. One cannot discredit evolutionary theory by discrediting a single illustrative model. Conversely, one cannot "prove" evolutionary theory with a single successful illustrative model.

The flaw is not in the model, the flaw is in the theory of evolution. This model was written by Dr Tom Schneider, an evolutionist who is head of computational molecular biology at the National Cancer Institute, it has been peer reviewed and published in Nucleic Acids Research, an Oxford University Press Journal, it has been scrutinized by numerous critics and defended for it’s validity by Dr Schneider for years. I examined the model and my only criticism of the model is that Dr Schneider used unrealistic parameters in the model. When you use realistic parameters in the model, it shows that macroevolution and punctuated equilibrium are mathematically impossible. You simply do not have enough time. Ev is not a trivial mathematical model but if you stick with this discussion, you will see why this mathematical model causes a real problem for the theory of evolution.

You put much more faith in science than I do.

If by that you mean I expect there is still very much for us to uncover using the methodology of science whereas you think that what is currently unknown will forever remain so (is that really what you mean?), then yes, I put much more "faith" in science than you do. I even expect that physicists will discover the mechanism of gravity one day. And the best part of that is that the answers we find will open the doors to innumerable new questions. We will never get all the answers. I find it curious that you seem to think we will never get any more answers.

What I mean is that modern science equates data with understanding. We live in an era with a lot more data but a lot less wisdom.

There are elements of truth in the theory of evolution. Mendelian genetics is part of the truthful portion of entire theory. Biodiversity by natural selection such as the observations that Darwin made about finch beaks I don’t argue with. Where the theory of evolution enters the fantasy world is when you try to extrapolate this biodiversity to the evolution of reptiles to birds or even humans from a primate ancestor. You simply have no mechanism that can accomplish the number of genetic changes in the time available.

And how has the biological community reacted to your evidence of this?

Dr Schneider who invited me to look at his program and normally openly discusses issues with his model on his web site will not discuss this issue publicly. Paul Anagnostopoulos wrote the online java version of the program and has the courage to discuss this publicly. The only movement I’ve gotten out of Paul is that he no longer says the program models reality, he now qualifies what ev models. Virtually every evolutionist who has taken the time to understand the model has taken this position. Before I went public with this issue, I told Dr Schneider that once evolutionists understood what ev does with realistic parameters, they would discredit the model, this is what has happened. IDers have criticized this model for years, now evolutionists are devaluing the model, the irony of it may be that Dr Schneider and I may be the only ones who think that ev models reality. Dr Schneider has been working with the model for over 20 years. Will he abandon all this work?

Abiogenesis should never be taken seriously by anyone who has ever taken a organic chemistry lab class where you have to bind a side group to a particular site on a toluene molecule. Attaching an aglycone to the number 1 position of D-ribose or D-2-deoxyribose nonezymatically makes the previous lab exercise seem trivial.

I'll wait to see what Joobz has to say about that. But the notion that a 1st year biology student would think he/she has understood all there is to know about organic chemistry from a semesters worth of introductory lab sessions is quite a stretch.

I’m a little beyond a 1st year biology student, along with my PhD in engineering and an MD degree, I also have a BS degree in advanced biological sciences. I also have a few other degrees as well that I didn’t mention. I will admit that 1st year biology was a tough course for me because I found the theory of evolution so outrageously stupid, but I still managed to get A’s for the entire year. Joobz posted above and I didn’t find that to be a very impressive defense of abiogenesis. There is so much speculation associated with abiogenesis that I prefer to stick with the mathematical side of things with ev, however I will say something on this issue if I can annoy an evolutionist.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Start with your case is on a 100,000 base genome. If you consider that a 500,000 base genome (near the size of the smallest free living bacteria) would take a billion generations to evolve the 16 binding site (96 loci). If you want to try to extrapolate this result to a human size genome (3-4 billion bases), you can not evolve any genes or binding sites on a genome that size by point mutations and natural selection.

I agree that it is unlikely that a complex biological mechanism could evolve by point mutation alone starting with a random gigabase genome.

I can’t scientifically prove to you the existence of God but I can scientifically prove that theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

What do we need to do to get you to present this proof? Do you have to say it a certain number of times first? Do we have to beg on bended knee? Do we have to wait for the second coming? Whatever it is, please let me know.

The only movement I’ve gotten out of Paul is that he no longer says the program models reality, he now qualifies what ev models.

I never said it did. In order to say that it does, as you do, one has to completely ignore the entire evolutionary landscape except for genetic binding mechanisms.

Before I went public with this issue, I told Dr Schneider that once evolutionists understood what ev does with realistic parameters, they would discredit the model, this is what has happened.

Could you give us the list of evolutionists who have discredited his model?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Is it me, or do we have a severe case of repeat theatre here?

~~ Paul

 

[joobz]

Start with your case is on a 100,000 base genome. If you consider that a 500,000 base genome (near the size of the smallest free living bacteria) would take a billion generations to evolve the 16 binding site (96 loci). If you want to try to extrapolate this result to a human size genome (3-4 billion bases), you can not evolve any genes or binding sites on a genome that size by point mutations and natural selection.

and this matters? I deny the notion that a full human genome would poof and then mutate to form binding sites.

It is not just the stereochemistry issue, even if you can form a molecule nonezymatically out of single enantomers, that molecule will not be stable for years. It will spontaneously racemize. If you are a subscriber to the RNA world view of abiogenesis, how do you get D-ribose. Even if you somehow obtain D-ribose, it is an unstable molecule, it will decompose in a few years. For abiogenesis to occur, you must get a large number of complex unstable molecules in the same location at the same time to somehow combine to form the first living thing. Even if you managed to form a few of these molecules, what makes you think they would be in close enough proximity to spontaneously assemble. This is not a rational scientific concept. You should understand this.

Again, you cry impossible. Sure, improbable. But I discount the impossible. I'm sure if we continue, we can continiue to hypothesize a setting where it could happen.

Good luck proving abiogenesis. I can’t scientifically prove to you the existence of God but I can scientifically prove that theory of evolution is mathematically impossible.

I'm still waiting to see you do this.

So is this your proof of abiogenesis?

You asked a question, i answered it. Why do you feel that as an afront to your abilities? I have already stated, that was an example of chemical complexity beyond what you wish to acknowledge. I will not pander to your desire to bait me.

Joobz, Paul has already identified me as the “annoying creationist”. The only thing I plan to do here is show you evolutionists the mathematical impossibility of your theory. You had better prepare yourself to go back and reconsider your interpretation of your scientific observations.

I've taken interest in answering the questions. I've never labeled you as annoying, you've done so yourself.

What I mean is that modern science equates data with understanding. We live in an era with a lot more data but a lot less wisdom.

This statement is intellectually vapid.

Joobz posted above and I didn’t find that to be a very impressive defense of abiogenesis. There is so much speculation associated with abiogenesis that I prefer to stick with the mathematical side of things with ev, however I will say something on this issue if I can annoy an evolutionist.

Similarly, I feel your critique of the ev model to mean that evolution is wrong to be disingenuous. you make assumptions that no one would agree to as being accurate for evolution and then show why those assumptions fail to make the model work. You have been given multiple reasons why those assumptions are in accurate, yet you still hold to them.
I can not abide by that.

 

[Loss Leader]

So let’s do a little arithmetic. Assuming the length of the human genome is 3 billion bases. 2% of 3 billion is 60,000,000 base differences. If the humans and chimps diverged 4,000,000 years ago and you assume an average generation time of 10 years give 400,000 generations to accomplish this 60,000,000 base differences. That works out to an average of 150 nonfatal mutations per generation.

So, I didn't have a lot of molecular biology classes in law school, but I can spot an unwarranted premise when I see one. Or two.

Kleinman, your statements regard the divergence between humans and chimps 4,000,000 years ago, but for the differences in our DNA, you rely on humans and chimps as they currently are. The fact is, you have no idea how far removed we are genetically from our common ancestor. And that is the important number - the genetic difference between us and 4,000,000 year-old chimp-like animal, not the difference between modern human and modern chimp. That data not being available, your calculations appear to be irrelevant.

You also appear to be assuming that every single one of the differences between modern humans and modern chimps arose in our DNA since we diverged. However, I am given to understand that the human genome is littered with archaic and junk DNA that does nothing. The ability to have a working apendix, for example, is probably burried in our DNA; it just isn't turned on. This leads me to think that some of the differences between humans and chimps could have been written into our DNA before we diverged. After our divergence, some of the non-working DNA already available in our common ancestor could have been switched on by some method unknown to me (or, I would suspect, you). The differences noted between modern chimps and modern humans may be a mixture of evolution and (for lack of a better term) devolution. It is important to note that the chimps or the humans might have been the ones to "devolve" or that each may have done so a bit in different directions.

The amount of junk DNA in our bodies leads me to one last point. Your calculations may be assuming that every single one of the mutations since our divergence 4,000,000 years ago is necessary to make us modern humans. However, it is possible that the important and working bits of DNA that differentiate us from modern chimps is really only a small portion of the total differences in base pairs between the two species. In that case, your figure of 150 non-fatal mutations per generation might even be correct. Humans may be able to withstand gross mutations in junk DNA without effect. So long as nothing tells our bodies to pay attention to the excess code, it shouldn't really matter what it says.

As I said, I'm not a biologist. But anyway, those were my thoughts.

 

[T'ai Chi]

, but it is simply a demonstration that the fundamental "forces" in evolution can produce information.

It shows an intelligent designer and an intelligently designed program can produce information.

In the case we are discussing, it is not clear whether there is an origin.

Everything in the universe operates according to cause and effect, except for the universe?

And I'm perfectly happy to believe there are ongoing processes that are not caused. Quantum background noise, for example?

Where did the quantum background noise come from? You're willing to believe in spontaneous generation, something from nothing?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Kleinman, are you aware that we've mapped the entire human and chimpanzee genome...it's 98% identical. We also share the vast majority of genes with mice. We can see exactly where and what changes have happened and draw conclusions from that.

Are you arguing for a common designer?

 

[Foster Zygote]

It has got to be genetic, every evolutionist is a thin skinned cry baby.

Joobz isn't thin skinned and he certainly isn't a cry baby. But he's correct in pointing out that some of your behavior is unbecoming an academic.

 

[Mercutio]

Everything in the universe operates according to cause and effect, except for the universe?

Ok, maybe I am slow today, but could you perhaps diagram how you came up with this reply to what Paul said?

 

[dakotajudo]

How does recombination increase information in the gene pool?

By itself, one simple mechanism - asymmetric recombination resulting in gene duplication.

This, then allows for more interesting point mutations - one copy continues to produce a product that fulfills the original gene function, the other can accumulate point mutations.

I didn't say point mutations are not involved in creating diversity, just that I don't think it's as important as other mechanisms.

Or genes can be aquired from another genome via heterologous recombination. Now you have a gene product in a different environment. That may not add information, but change the interpretation of the same information (i.e. pleiotropy).

Don't get so wrapped up in genome and forget that selection operates on the proteome; there's a lot of information that's not directly readable from the DNA sequence.

Recombination does allow for diversity in a population but recombination (without errors) and natural selection can only cause loss of information in the gene pool you can never create a new gene by this mechanism.

Why the qualification? In the real world, does recombination occur without errors?

Of course you can create a new gene by recombination. The eukaryotic genome is inherently modular (you know, introns and exons); recombination can move pieces into and out of genes, creating new genes. I should try to find a few specific examples, but it's been a good 10 years since I was taking molecular biology coursework, so I don't have any in mind at the moment. Sorry, but I'm getting ready to be traveling tomorrow.


Then there are the transposable elements. See shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro_1999_Genetica.pdf for a review (that name brings me back - I think I exchanged few emails with Dr. Shapiro a few years back; I seem to remember he was misquoted by some anti-evolutionists).

So let’s do a little arithmetic. Assuming the length of the human genome is 3 billion bases. 2% of 3 billion is 60,000,000 base differences. If the humans and chimps diverged 4,000,000 years ago and you assume an average generation time of 10 years give 400,000 generations to accomplish this 60,000,000 base differences. That works out to an average of 150 nonfatal mutations per generation.

You're assuming point mutations only.

Consider that a good 10% of the human genome is composed of repeated Alu elements - roughly 300bp of retrotransposable DNA that serves no known function, but can jump and replicate relatively freely. Consider w w w.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10381326&dopt=Citation

A single Alu, differing from the original by a single point mutation, amplifying itself 1000 fold over a single generation would not shock me in the least (note that the above reference quotes an Alu copy number of >500000, and one new insertion for every 200 new births).

Also consider the role of retroposons. See biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030357

A little arithmetic shouldn't replace a lot of biology.

 

[Yahzi]

Then who designed the aliens? Who designed the designer of the aliens? The answer that aliens designed us answers nothing.

You can't fool me, young man!

It's turtles all the way down!.



Edit: Curse you, Mojo! And your villainous henchman Cuddles! You will rue this day, and rue it hard!

 

[Yahzi]

I’m a little beyond a 1st year biology student, along with my PhD in engineering and an MD degree, I also have a BS degree in advanced biological sciences. I also have a few other degrees as well that I didn’t mention.

I work for the CIA.

 

[Bill Thompson]

A good, simple argument to use against ITers is this:
If an intelligence designed humanity, why are our immune systems so darn bad?
Sharks, in comparison, have an AMAZING immune system - last I heard (through the discovery channel) we were looking into it to try and figure out why sharks don't get cancer hardly ever.
As far as I know, and I could very well be wrong on this one, compared to many animals humans have a very weak immune system.

For them to justify a bad immune system, they have to call in a moral authority punishing us for our innate sins, which just isn't scientific!

Anyone tried this one? It ever work? Is it even valid? Your thoughts are appriciated.

Well, just playing the devils advocate, what if the Univese IS God and these things are always working themselves out. In other words, we are a work-in-progress.

 

[articulett]

Are you arguing for a common designer?

nope--common descent.

It's not so different than building mountains and canyons, grain by grain via time and natural events--no overlord needed. Cities evolve without an overall plan...as did the internet...as did languages...as did our currency system (which often times only exists as electronic data backed by nothing at all). Our planet evolved as did life and the life forms on it. Things don't need to be planned or designed to be complex. In fact most complexity evolves from something simple refined and modified through time. Sure it looks super duper but there doesn't need to be a more complex designer behind any of it...

 

[articulett]

Must there be a "why"?

Thank you for illustrating my previous point. In this case, one version of "why" would ask what the mechanism might be which led to sentience. This question is reasonable... Another version of "why" would ask what the purpose of sentience is in the universe--the ultimate reason for reason, if you will. This question only makes sense if there is a reason; if there is no plan, no design, there is no reason, no "why" of this sort to ask about. The very question presupposes a designer. As Paul suggested, to ask this question is to have already decided upon your answer; the better question is to ask whether there is reason to ask the question.

I think that people wanting to know why is an evolution of our desire to know cause and effect to try to manipulate it or control it. Humans make up stuff all the time when they don't understand why-- that is, they confabulate. The human brain likes to know why even when it's the wrong question and then will supply it's own answer (tall tale, religion, illusion, delusion, pseudoexplanation, confirmation bias, suggestions from an authority figure, etc.) to fill the void just as the blind spot fills in missing data without our awareness. It's a good evolutionary strategy, because it works a lot of the time. But it makes us prone to associating correlation with causation and engaging in all sorts of superstitious behavior. Science corrects for that--

But one probably has to understand that they are asking the wrong question before they can get the answers. Why seems to be the wrong question the same way that "how far to the end of the earth" is a wrong question because it presumes a conclusion that isn't warranted.

To me, the arguments for "intelligent design" seem to never have evidence--it just boils down to, "gee this all looks so complex and fits together so well and I can't understand how UNLESS it was "designed"--it goes along with the notion "I am so important that there must be a reason I exist and a purpose for my life"...which grows out a toddler's view that the world started when he or she first became aware of it... Funny. But backwards.