A simple case for intelligent design

[ImmortalFlame]

Assuming 100% of mutations are beneficial/toward eyes evolving, how many gene changes have to occur, in what time frame, to make it happen? We don't need survivability, heritable changes, evolutiondidit or anything, but a simple understanding--how many DNA changes happened to sequence eye formation in species?

For the sake of all that is good and holy...

This is like asking "how many pieces of string do you need to reach the moon?". Not all mutations produce the same amount of change, and the evolutionary pathways are myriad. There is no singular way or rate at which the eye, or any organ, evolved, and trying to catalogue the exact pathway of every single mutation that lead to its formation would require nothing less than a thorough autopsy and genetic analysis of every population of every organism that has ever lived that is an ancestor of eye-bearing animals. Do you not see how unreasonable this request is?

This is an example of a freighted question, and if you understood evolution you would realize how meaningless this question is. I'm sick of pointing this out to you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I understand, the paper lists conjectures regarding direct and indirect evolution, while tackling some common misconceptions regarding this complex process.

The problem is oversimplification--for example, tackling 30-odd processes that may have evolved complex eyes and sight--when there are perhaps thousands of intermediate steps. I'm asking (AGAIN, AGAIN, AGAIN) for some gene math...

Assuming 100% of mutations are beneficial/toward eyes evolving, how many gene changes have to occur, in what time frame, to make it happen? We don't need survivability, heritable changes, evolutiondidit or anything, but a simple understanding--how many DNA changes happened to sequence eye formation in species?

From the article:

"The major question under these linear scenarios is whether indeed each step along the path not only is functional but in fact increases some aspect of visual ability. In order to test this, and moreover to investigate how much time such a process might require, Nilsson and Pelger (1994) created a theoretical model that began with nothing more than “a flat patch of light-sensitive cells sandwiched between a transparent protective layer and a layer of dark pigment”. In the model, they used incremental changes of 1% in one parameter at a time (length, width, or protein density) that improved visual acuity as calculated based on established optical principles. Their model proceeded through a series of changes including an inward folding of the flat patch to form a pit and then a cup, and when resolution could no longer be improved along this trajectory, a very simple lens was added (as they note “even the weakest lens is better than no lens at all”) which then changed incrementally to become spherical and then to develop a gradient of refractive indices (Fig. 7), with the visual organ finally becoming similar in basic form to the eye of an aquatic animal like a fish or octopus (Fig. 8).

Overall, Nilsson and Pelger (1994) found that small, incremental changes that improve vision by a quantifiable degree could connect both ends of the continuum, from a simple patch of cells to a complex camera-type eye. Moreover, only 1,829 steps of 1% improvements were needed to complete this transition. Even assuming a change of only 0.005% per generation, the model suggests that the entire sequence could be completed in about 360,000 generations (Fig. 8). Given that many fishes and aquatic invertebrates have at least one generation per year, this would mean that the entire sequence in the model could be completed, to invoke an appropriate cliché, in an evolutionary blink of an eye and well within the tens of millions of years available during the Cambrian. ..."
The Evolution of Complex Organs


There is a lot more information within the article I posted, including a link to the Nilsson & Pelger study.

 

[ecco]

Which do you want to argue? The stupid assertion that Jews, Messianic or otherwise, "kick their spouses out of their homes" or the other rhetoric you've posted...?

I wasn't arguing. I did not assert that Jews, Messianic or otherwise, "kick their spouses out of their homes". Those were your words.

I did assert that it was specified in your holy scripture...

On the other hand, whether you like it or not, that practice was specified and condoned by your god.

I also questioned whether your response...

My Jewish brothers and sisters who aren't Messianic don't "kick their spouses out" during monthly menstruation.

...may have been poorly worded.

The point is that if you take some parts of holy scripture literally, why don't you take it all literally? How do you decide what to pick and choose? Is it just based on what you like as compared to what you want to reject?

My arguments against evolution are rooted in science:

We both know that is not the case. You don't know enough about biology to question the scientific findings of thousands of trained and educated scientists. More importantly, you show no inclination toward wanting to learn. All that is indicative of the fact that your beliefs/arguments are rooted in your deeply held religious convictions:

 

[Polymath257]

All of which shows me two things:

* The pre-assumed power of evolution--it will "enhance survivability" (based on extant fossils and shuffling phylogenic lines of descent) and overcome--though many mutations are neutral, become recessive, or are harmful, causing sterility and death, etc. again overcomes any possible issues, moving things against entropy to become ever-more complex and diverse...

Every population has genetic variances. Some are more adaptive, others less so. They are *all* mutations.

Entropy has nothing to do with it. Thermodynamic considerations have little bearing on evolution, in spite of creationist misunderstandings.

* There are no statistics shown above that "convinced you"... though you remain convinced... no numbers...

Well, the simulation tht I did was an optimization program. It compared 'random' search to 'reproduction, mutation, selection' amd produced some dramatic results.

The 'pure random' method would have taken about 90^70 attempts, which would have taken longer than the age of the universe on the fastest computer.

But the reproduction, mutation, and selection process found an optimum in about 2500 generations with 50 children per generation. That is a *huge* difference and shows the difference between mutation and selection and a purely random search. This difference is usually ignored by creationists.

...so let me please ask you, since the differences between primates and humans are small/we are genetically close relations:

"How many gene mutations changed some primates to humans, and how long did this process take, in terms of years?"

I don't have specific numbers. There was the merger of two chromosomes, which would be technically one mutation. More relevant are those related to size of the jaw and size of the brain. A few minor mutations involving timing for hips and legs for upright posture. And some for slightly different positions in the throat.

Since most of these would have been mutations in the regulatory genes, my offhand guess is fewer than 200 mutations taking around 2 million years.

I'm not asking you to calculate odds of positive mutations or new information added, against the "bad ones". I'm asking if you know how many changes, all of them positive/moving the chains forward, changed the species(s) so greatly... Perhaps I will be convinced also.

The actual number of mutations is almost certainly pretty small. Humans are great apes biologically. We have increased brain size and some differences in development of legs and skull. The 200 mutations is rather conservative and I wouldn't even be surprised if it is fewer than 30.

But remember that all of these happen in populations with a lot of variance. All that is required is a variant that helps for survival in a changing environment (like it was in the African Savannah).

 

[BilliardsBall]

For the sake of all that is good and holy...

This is like asking "how many pieces of string do you need to reach the moon?". Not all mutations produce the same amount of change, and the evolutionary pathways are myriad. There is no singular way or rate at which the eye, or any organ, evolved, and trying to catalogue the exact pathway of every single mutation that lead to its formation would require nothing less than a thorough autopsy and genetic analysis of every population of every organism that has ever lived that is an ancestor of eye-bearing animals. Do you not see how unreasonable this request is?

This is an example of a freighted question, and if you understood evolution you would realize how meaningless this question is. I'm sick of pointing this out to you.

You are wrong IMHO. We can look at two modern extant species, both around but considered in a line of descent, and make any comparison, for example, how many mutations to account for genetic differences between primates and humans in X million years.

 

[BilliardsBall]

From the article:

"The major question under these linear scenarios is whether indeed each step along the path not only is functional but in fact increases some aspect of visual ability. In order to test this, and moreover to investigate how much time such a process might require, Nilsson and Pelger (1994) created a theoretical model that began with nothing more than “a flat patch of light-sensitive cells sandwiched between a transparent protective layer and a layer of dark pigment”. In the model, they used incremental changes of 1% in one parameter at a time (length, width, or protein density) that improved visual acuity as calculated based on established optical principles. Their model proceeded through a series of changes including an inward folding of the flat patch to form a pit and then a cup, and when resolution could no longer be improved along this trajectory, a very simple lens was added (as they note “even the weakest lens is better than no lens at all”) which then changed incrementally to become spherical and then to develop a gradient of refractive indices (Fig. 7), with the visual organ finally becoming similar in basic form to the eye of an aquatic animal like a fish or octopus (Fig. 8).

Overall, Nilsson and Pelger (1994) found that small, incremental changes that improve vision by a quantifiable degree could connect both ends of the continuum, from a simple patch of cells to a complex camera-type eye. Moreover, only 1,829 steps of 1% improvements were needed to complete this transition. Even assuming a change of only 0.005% per generation, the model suggests that the entire sequence could be completed in about 360,000 generations (Fig. 8). Given that many fishes and aquatic invertebrates have at least one generation per year, this would mean that the entire sequence in the model could be completed, to invoke an appropriate cliché, in an evolutionary blink of an eye and well within the tens of millions of years available during the Cambrian. ..."
The Evolution of Complex Organs


There is a lot more information within the article I posted, including a link to the Nilsson & Pelger study.

Thank you, but, again as always with true-believing mechanists:

* How many counter-improvements are accounted for? "Only 1,829 steps of 1% improvements," does not include unseeing animals being killed off; mutations which are not positive but harmful/deadly, does not account for sighted/partially sighted animals being killed off, those animals with positive changes failing to mate, etc.

* And of course, how many pieces of DNA need to be properly sequenced to change "only 1%" of what is needed?

You have/the paper has restated "small changes over time increment to large changes" without actually addressing the counter factors, while believing that evolution has magical power to ONLY do positive mutations, etc.

What we'd need is to see via forensic evidence that 0.005% changed regarding an eye--its attendant nerves and organ systems--the brain. Otherwise, I can say:

"Even with only 0.00001% of evolution per generation, given the epochs of time, a Christ could have evolved to rise from the dead... and then you would reply, "I NEED FORENSIC EVIDENCE, NOT JUST SO STORIES."

 

[BilliardsBall]

I wasn't arguing. I did not assert that Jews, Messianic or otherwise, "kick their spouses out of their homes". Those were your words.

I did assert that it was specified in your holy scripture...

​

I also questioned whether your response...

...may have been poorly worded.

The point is that if you take some parts of holy scripture literally, why don't you take it all literally? How do you decide what to pick and choose? Is it just based on what you like as compared to what you want to reject?



We both know that is not the case. You don't know enough about biology to question the scientific findings of thousands of trained and educated scientists. More importantly, you show no inclination toward wanting to learn. All that is indicative of the fact that your beliefs/arguments are rooted in your deeply held religious convictions:

Thank you for promoting God belief on your post!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Every population has genetic variances. Some are more adaptive, others less so. They are *all* mutations.

Entropy has nothing to do with it. Thermodynamic considerations have little bearing on evolution, in spite of creationist misunderstandings.



Well, the simulation tht I did was an optimization program. It compared 'random' search to 'reproduction, mutation, selection' amd produced some dramatic results.

The 'pure random' method would have taken about 90^70 attempts, which would have taken longer than the age of the universe on the fastest computer.

But the reproduction, mutation, and selection process found an optimum in about 2500 generations with 50 children per generation. That is a *huge* difference and shows the difference between mutation and selection and a purely random search. This difference is usually ignored by creationists.



I don't have specific numbers. There was the merger of two chromosomes, which would be technically one mutation. More relevant are those related to size of the jaw and size of the brain. A few minor mutations involving timing for hips and legs for upright posture. And some for slightly different positions in the throat.

Since most of these would have been mutations in the regulatory genes, my offhand guess is fewer than 200 mutations taking around 2 million years.



The actual number of mutations is almost certainly pretty small. Humans are great apes biologically. We have increased brain size and some differences in development of legs and skull. The 200 mutations is rather conservative and I wouldn't even be surprised if it is fewer than 30.

But remember that all of these happen in populations with a lot of variance. All that is required is a variant that helps for survival in a changing environment (like it was in the African Savannah).

WOW! NUMBERS! Finally, thank you, sincerely.

Now only a few questions arise in my mind: what is the "selection process" you speak of above? Are you referring to breeding among creatures with appreciated heritable characteristics? Because "evolution finds a way, and works via selection and beneficial processes, positively," still sounds unproven, a just-so story, and a post facto appreciative look at Creation.

And you are suggesting 200 mutations to change primates to humans... yet the human genome has about 3,000 million ‘letters’. If the 1% figure of difference between primates and humans is correct, this would amount to 30 million letters difference, 50 times as much DNA as the simplest bacterium contains. So where (not accusing you, just ASKING you) do you get:

200 mutations (even if ALL 200 further the cause, which seems unlikely) = 30 million DNA letter sequence changes

 

[ecco]

Thank you for promoting God belief on your post!

I wasn't. Nonetheless...

The point is that if you take some parts of holy scripture literally, why don't you take it all literally? How do you decide what to pick and choose? Is it just based on what you like as compared to what you want to reject?

 

[ecco]

My arguments against evolution are rooted in science:

We both know that is not the case. You don't know enough about biology to question the scientific findings of thousands of trained and educated scientists. More importantly, you show no inclination toward wanting to learn. All that is indicative of the fact that your beliefs/arguments are rooted in your deeply held religious convictions:

 

[Polymath257]

WOW! NUMBERS! Finally, thank you, sincerely.

Now only a few questions arise in my mind: what is the "selection process" you speak of above? Are you referring to breeding among creatures with appreciated heritable characteristics? Because "evolution finds a way, and works via selection and beneficial processes, positively," still sounds unproven, a just-so story, and a post facto appreciative look at Creation.

And you are suggesting 200 mutations to change primates to humans... yet the human genome has about 3,000 million ‘letters’. If the 1% figure of difference between primates and humans is correct, this would amount to 30 million letters difference, 50 times as much DNA as the simplest bacterium contains. So where (not accusing you, just ASKING you) do you get:

200 mutations (even if ALL 200 further the cause, which seems unlikely) = 30 million DNA letter sequence changes

Most of that 1% isn't directly relevant to the differences in development. Only a very few genes are relevant to that. The rest are mostly silent. So that 30 million base pairs is a red herring.

The question is how many of those changes are actually required to produce a human from a chimp. And that is much less than the 30 million you quote.

Again, most of the changes are in developmental gebnes where very small changes have large effects.

How many actual differences are there in the development of humans and chimps? A few differences in timing, so some things grow more (brains and skulls for example) or less (jaw, hands). Some differences to reduce body hair.

 

[Bear Wild]

You are wrong IMHO. We can look at two modern extant species, both around but considered in a line of descent, and make any comparison, for example, how many mutations to account for genetic differences between primates and humans in X million years.

We already know this information and it is available. Examples of the genetic changes are available. In the FOXP2 gene there were two mutation within 100,000 years that affected language. If you need examples of all of the ways that genetic material can change more examples can be provided.

 

[BilliardsBall]

We both know that is not the case. You don't know enough about biology to question the scientific findings of thousands of trained and educated scientists. More importantly, you show no inclination toward wanting to learn. All that is indicative of the fact that your beliefs/arguments are rooted in your deeply held religious convictions:

Your double standard is showing!

"BB cannot refute PhD scientists about biology, but I can refute BB, who has a Religion degree and has studied the Bible for decades, about the Bible, despite my lack of religious belief, Greek training, and THAT I DON'T KNOW THE AUTHOR OF THE BIBLE."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Most of that 1% isn't directly relevant to the differences in development. Only a very few genes are relevant to that. The rest are mostly silent. So that 30 million base pairs is a red herring.

The question is how many of those changes are actually required to produce a human from a chimp. And that is much less than the 30 million you quote.

Again, most of the changes are in developmental gebnes where very small changes have large effects.

How many actual differences are there in the development of humans and chimps? A few differences in timing, so some things grow more (brains and skulls for example) or less (jaw, hands). Some differences to reduce body hair.

I'm listening! So tell me what fraction of 1% it is, since I've also heard it's more like 13%, but I went with 1% to give you the benefit of the doubt. Of course, you also likely believe in junk DNA--which is junk!

 

[gnostic]

You are wrong IMHO. We can look at two modern extant species, both around but considered in a line of descent, and make any comparison, for example, how many mutations to account for genetic differences between primates and humans in X million years.

Sorry, but all humans are primates (order), just as all humans are mammals (class).

Humans are not different from primates.

 

[BilliardsBall]

We already know this information and it is available. Examples of the genetic changes are available. In the FOXP2 gene there were two mutation within 100,000 years that affected language. If you need examples of all of the ways that genetic material can change more examples can be provided.

I'm not seeking your information as much as numbers. See my remarks elsewhere on telomeres and the many differences between humans and other primates.

 

[ecco]

Your double standard is showing!

"BB cannot refute PhD scientists about biology, but I can refute BB, who has a Religion degree and has studied the Bible for decades, about the Bible, despite my lack of religious belief, Greek training, and THAT I DON'T KNOW THE AUTHOR OF THE BIBLE."

Why is the above in quotes? Are you stating that I said those words? We both know I didn't.

Also, in one instance, you used the word "I" to imply it was something I said and in another instance, you used the word "I" implying it was something that applies to you.

Surely I have the right to criticize when you make obviously erroneous comments like...

My arguments against evolution are rooted in science:

As regards the Bible, I certainly can ask questions like...

The point is that if you take some parts of holy scripture literally, why don't you take it all literally? How do you decide what to pick and choose? Is it just based on what you like as compared to what you want to reject?

I don't need training in greek to know there is nothing that states who actually wrote Genesis.

I have enough knowledge to know that many parts of Genesis (and other books) are based on earlier religious beliefs.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, but all humans are primates (order), just as all humans are mammals (class).

Humans are not different from primates.

Humans ARE primates, but there are extraordinary differences at the genetic level between humans and apes, not accounted for easily with under 60 million years of evolution.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why is the above in quotes? Are you stating that I said those words? We both know I didn't.

Also, in one instance, you used the word "I" to imply it was something I said and in another instance, you used the word "I" implying it was something that applies to you.

Surely I have the right to criticize when you make obviously erroneous comments like...

​

As regards the Bible, I certainly can ask questions like...




I don't need training in greek to know there is nothing that states who actually wrote Genesis.

I have enough knowledge to know that many parts of Genesis (and other books) are based on earlier religious beliefs.

Again, you feel free to say I cannot refute biology, but you take incorrect potshots at Genesis, for example, this brilliant bit of commentary you gave:

"I don't need training in greek to know there is nothing that states who actually wrote Genesis."

GENESIS WAS WRITTEN IN HEBREW.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, you feel free to say I cannot refute biology, but you take incorrect potshots at Genesis, for example, this brilliant bit of commentary you gave:

"I don't need training in greek to know there is nothing that states who actually wrote Genesis."

GENESIS WAS WRITTEN IN HEBREW.

Yes, Genesis was written in Hebrew. So what? That only tells us about the culture of The authors and rather little about who wrote it. Scholars are very sure that it was not written by a fictional character. So how does that help you?