New Article: Common Descent vs. Common Design: 4 Examples Explained Better by Descent

Respectfully, then, i’m not sure if you appreciate how fine tuned a bird"s wing is alongside the other fine adaptations to a bird’s anatomy that optimize the flight involved, and just how very complex it would be to incorporate that structure into a mammal, both at the genetic and anatomical levels.

To ask it in a very obvious way… consider this: I could just as easily ask why not compose a flying mammal using wings that were readily available-i.e., from insects?

And let’s even assume we’re talking about the world’s largest insect and the world’s smallest mammal, so it isn’t just the absurd size difference. could we simply put fly wings of our largest insects on the body of our smallest mammals?

If I use that illustration it is perhaps more obvious on its face how prohibitively difficult this would be … insect wings work just fine on bugs, as their construction, aerodynamics, weight, shape, control, and everything else is fine tuned along with everything else about the insect’s anatomy, but would require a major overhaul of multiple other systems in your mammal for it to fly with insect wings. How would,you go about re-engineering the neural systems and muscles in your mammal in order to flap its new insect wings? how many new muscle groups would have to be invented and then integrated de novo, and connected to others, in order to make the wings flap? are mammal muscles even designed to be able to beat the insect wings at the rapidity that the fly wings do? would we then have to introduce novel muscles into our mammal in order to use the insect wings? If we did design muscles that could make the necessary movements for our imported fly wings, would they have the oxygen transport necessary to function? and new neural systems would also have to be imported and integrated into our mammal that has no preexisting neural systems to beat insect wings, and no instinct for how to use them. And how does our mammal even grow these wings, as we also have to develop all the new pathways for a mammal to create and transport the unique proteins, and how would you even begin to have insect wings growing out of a preexisting mammal’s anatomy?

I imagine it is hypothetically possible for the genes to make insect wings could be grafted into a mammal, and some ingenious genetic engineer might figure out all the layers upon layers of new integrations and adaptations you’d have to make to the mammal in order to get these wings to actually function and allow flight from our new organism. But i highly suspect that our hypothetical human geneticist would have far, far better luck trying to make adaptations to a mammal’s forelimb to turn it into a wing, and the other related adaptations. Complex though that would admittedly be, it would still be a far more simple and straightforward pathway than grafting insect wings into a mammal and the multitudinous adaptations required to integrate it. So it may not be obvious, but simply putting bird wings into a mammal would face similar prohibitive difficulties.

1 Like

Would it matter whether or not it was found in a whale?

3 Likes

All of your illustrations are purely hypothetical ‘what ifs’ and have nothing to do with the reality that we find in nature.
 

2 Likes

Of course they’re hypothetical, that is what a thought experiment is… but such hypothetical thought experiments help us understand the underlying logic.

the point of this thought experiment, should one wish to follow it, should be to demonstrate beyond any discussion that God could, and in fact has, done things in the natural, world that leave obvious and undeniable empirical traces of intelligent agency. the ten commandments carved into stone, the writing on Belshazzar’s wall… God has indeed caused effects in the natural,world,that have left undeniable traces of his activity.

Now, examining these effects “scientifically” or empirically, all a scientist would be able to do is to examine said phenomenon and conclude it was the result of an intelligent agent, as opposed to being caused by strictly undirected natural causes. a scientist could, theoretically, have examined the tablet of the original ten commandments, and rightly determined the hebrew words revealed intelligent cause… but scientifically, this would be no proof of God. I hope you could agree that far.

The next step in my thought experiment is to recognize that God could have done something similar in DNA…::and hypothetically, had he done so, said scientist would similarly have been able to detect intelligent agency behind certain parts of a DNA strandn if again not being able to scientifically determine the nature of that intelligence.

Now, whether or not DNA does or does not bear the marks of intelligent agency, we can discuss further. But before we could have a profitable discussion about the reality that we find in nature, i think it important that we clarify the presupposition Inbelieve you are holding, that we could not find evidence of God’s intelligent agency and purposeful design in biology.

My thought experiment, examining the logic involved, should demonstrate beyond any doubt that his handiwork - depending on exactly how he did so, could indeed be recognized as intentional design by any competent scientist… If we can agree on that, then and only then could we have a fruitful conversation on whether or not He has done so in reality.

you began your response to me by going into detail about how you would have designed a flying mammal, but you are chiding me for replying to Dr. Stump regarding how I think a human biological engineer would have done so?? It is OK for thee, not for me?

If i have claimed to know how God would or would not have made a flying mammal, i request you provide the quote where i have done so, and I will gladly correct my glaringly erroneous misstatement.

if you cannot provide me a quote where i claimed to know how God would or would not have made a flying mammal, i humbly request you correct your statement above and acknowledge your error in baselessly imputing such a sentiment to me.

Firstly only a small portion, about 2 or 3 percent of the genome is protein coding genes. The rest was considered junk and justified as junk because they said well if mutations are needed to get new information then of course there is going to be a lot of junk. Then, hello, hello, they found regulatory elements that can turn genes on and off in the “junk”. The point is that we don’t know enough about the genome yet. If we knew everything then we could say some is junk. But because we don’t see a purpose we can’t call it junk.
Second even within the 20,000 odd protein coding genes, about 80% of it is what are known as introns. These are segments that are sliced out of the final sequence, which is the exons. The exons are the segments that contain information for making a protein. The exons are only 20% of the protein coding gene. So here too it appeared there was junk, the intron bits that were thrown out.
If you look here in a scientific American article dated 1999:
What is known about the function of introns, the nonencoding sequences in genes? - Scientific American

Quote: " “It is widely believed that introns are remnants of genetic sequences that once served as spacers between the stretches of DNA that coded for specific, comparatively simple proteins. During the evolution of complex proteins, regions of the genetic code (known as domains) may have been shuffled and brought together to generate new sequences that code for novel protein structures that took on new functions. This hypothesis is based on the observation that the relative positions of introns in genes remain largely the same in organisms as diverse as Drosophila melanogaster (the fruit fly), Caenorhabditis elegans (a widely studied nematode), mice and humans. Walter Gilbert of Harvard University has laid out many of the details of this hypothesis.”

“Now we know” that this is not all spliced out and discarded. Some of it we have found serves a very important purpose, which is that it enhances the expression of the genes, in which these introns are contained. And they can also sometimes code for parts of proteins. This means we are looking at far greater complexity than a gene as a string of beads where some may change to give a different end product, i.e., protein. We are talking here great sophistication as you will appreciate in the video I linked earlier.

The problem that I see here is the atheist agenda that influences science and which basically says we are nothing more than meat robots that evolved from dead matter. This colors the scientists’ thinking. As for example what you say here:
some of the non coding dna is vital to the cell but most isn’t
how can you say most isn’t"? We don’t know its function or why it is there. It is assumed junk when scientists consider it through the lens of evolution. It is copied and by design is the most reasonable explanation. If it was junk, wouldn’t it have been lost over the millions of years?
We need to look afresh and decide by what we see and not by preconceived notions is what I am trying to say. We see enormous sophistication in the workings of a cell. Sophistication that is far greater than anything the human kind has created.

No. I am not talking about origins of life. I am talking about the genome as it stands today and what we see in genetics.

I agree that I was not careful enough in my writing. When I said that, based on my systems engineering experience, I would use an already existing component (bird wings), I should have added – in a manner consistent with my beliefs – that of course I do not have any a priori insights into how divine intelligence works. I have only God’s self-revelation that I (somewhat imperfectly) understand, and that self-revelation does not include any details about wing design.

I do not find this convincing in the least. Many bird bodies are similar enough to rodent bodies to allow for the re-use of an existing bird wing design.

The advice of Job still applies. You heap ridicule on any alternative to a design choice other than the one you have advocated. In so doing you seem to have implicitly claimed to have sufficient knowledge of all the constraints and details that you can confidently reject those alternatives.

It’s not just you, Daniel–it’s all of the ID movement. It is not well-founded as a scientific enterprise, because recognizing God’s design requires knowing God’s thought process.

I’m not claiming we cannot know the most important motifs in history; God has in fact revealed himself and His purposes in His Word and His Son. So we can claim by faith to understand the narrative of judgment, redemption, and the eschaton.

However, we do not see anything in the Scripture about blood clotting or wing design details or the Cambrian radiation, so our recourse is to use, in collaboration with our fellows, God’s gift of reason via the scientific method. The scientists who have done this hard work have discovered strong support for the theory of evolution.

Now let’s suppose that you say, “No, Chris, you have misunderstood; I do not think it possible for any human to understand what design decisions God might make.” Okay then. If that’s the case, how can you claim to discern God’s design choice in the observations reported by scientists? You just told me that no one can discern claim to know what choices God would make! How can a particular outcome be evidence of God’s work if you cannot hypothesize a priori the work God would do?

How so? With respect to mammalian wings, you have explicitly rejected the notion that you should be held accountable for advocating the necessity of a specific design.

If many solutions are available to solve a problem, then simple trial-and-error is a parsimonious scientific explanation. There is no scientific necessity for an outside designer.

Daniel, you’re not a practicing scientist, right? If I have understood your background correctly, it’s not surprising that you haven’t wrestled with philosophy of science issues. (And being an engineer does not lead to a deep understanding of the scientific process, IMO. Engineers are great at using outcomes of the scientific process to build and operate marvelous technologies. Engineers rely on scientific outcomes, but they typically do not produce them.)

Some scientists fall short in grasping the philosophy of science, as well, like the ones who think that science disproves the existence of God. Such atheistic thinking is an epistemological choice, not a conclusion that follows from science.

Best,
Chris

2 Likes

None of those traces have survived to today in a form that could be examined. With the reason being if undeniable evidence for God is found then faith would no longer be required. I think faith will always be required until Christ returns and removes any possibility of denying God.

3 Likes

There is good reason for the conclusion. If random sequence changes in a segment of DNA have no effect on the reproductive success of a population, then it is quite reasonable to conclude that the sequence is not significant. I.e., it is junk, like all the spare nails, washers, and screws that have gathered in my garage.

Scientists have observed that random sequence changes have had no harmful effect in most DNA sequences in vertebrates, hence the conclusion that those stretches of DNA are “junk.”

1 Like

Sir,

respectfully request you quote the relevant text of what I wrote that justifies the accusation that I am “heaping ridicule” on any alternative design choice besides the one I have advocated?

respectfully request you quote the relevant text of what I wrote wherein I explicitly (emphasis yours) reject the notion that I should be held accountable for advocating the necessity of a specific design?

You are relying on the theory of evolution, which is really a hypothesis. We see evidence that can be interpreted this way, but there is also evidence that points in a different direction. So your reasoning of “If random sequence changes in a segment of DNA have no effect on the reproductive success of a population,” IF!

Much of the mutations we see in cancer are in non-coding regions. Are they just junk or do they have some significant effect that we have yet to fathom? It is not long ago, just about a decade or two when they still thought it was all junk and based on similar reasoning to you. Then they discovered regulatory elements in the “junk” that could turn genes on and off. We may find a lot more in there. It is possible that none of it is junk.

That is very interesting to me… i can search of course, but do you have any particular references or reading on that topic you might easily point me to?

even some decades ago when i was first studying these topics in my undergrad, i had trouble believing that everything except the protein-coding parts of DNA could be useless junk.

If literally the only thing that DNA did was give instructions on making particular proteins, and all else was junk, then sure, you could assemble all the individual proteins pieces that make up a human… But even having a mechanism that would start constructing all the various individual proteins that make up humans is a long, long, long way from being able to construct a human.

In other words, I never understood how just having the codes (and mechanism) for constructing the various proteins would help you get from a fertilized egg to a human with all the varieties of cells… If a human zygote had the DNA and ribosomes in order to construct every protein essential to making a human, and no further information than that, i found it hard to conceive how anyone could possibly think that was enough to construct a functioning human?

there clearly must be much, much more information somewhere that directs where each one of those proteins goes in order to construct a heart, lungs, kidneys, blood cells, neurons, etc., etc., etc.

otherwise, all you have a zygote cranking out hemoglobin, actin, myosin, insulin, rhodopsin, and all the other proteins that are encoded therein, but if there are no instructions or information or guidance regarding what and how to put them all together in order to make a human… then you have nothing but a random disordered pile of hemoglobin, actin, myosin… And no way to take those proteins and construct even a single red blood cell, not to mention all the other cells and organs so perfectly arranged to make a human.

2 Likes

I agree with you I am thinking along similar lines.

There are some here and I have some more on my other computer I’ll post tomorrow.

Cancer and non-coding genes
Identification of coding and non-coding mutational hotspots in cancer genomes (nih.gov)
Analyses of non-coding somatic drivers in 2,658 cancer whole genomes | Nature

And of course they are looking at these from the point of view of therapies. So this paper:
Mutations in non-coding regions could drive tumour growth
Mutations in non-coding regions could drive tumour growth (drugtargetreview.com)

And the non-coding regions are the grounds of transposons or jumping genes.
Jumping genes and where to find them | Research into non-coding DNA (jax.org)

Wow, fascinating studies. thanks.

If God wanted to design our world once and for all God certainly could have done so, but God did not. Instead we find very good evidence that our world is the result of change over billions of years. We call this change “evolution,” but it is clear to me that science really do not understand how it works. In a way science has replaced “God did it” with “evolution did it,” which is not much better.

However, we have seen how evolution works, when we use the eyes God gives us. For example we know that most of the dinosaurs died out because climate change destroyed the environment that they were dependent upon. At the same time some dinosaurs, the avian dinosaurs, did not die out, but evolved into birds, again as the result of the same climate change. Then too mammals used their bigger brains and greater flexibility to survive the change of climate and thrive in the cooler climate of the new age. Please note that many avian and mammal species died out also, but enough survived

If some species go extinct because of climate change. If other species survive because they adapt to climate change. If still other species are better adapted to live in more diverse climates than others… then it seems that climate and the ability of species to adapt to their environments plays the crucial in evolutionary change.

Climate and the environment come from God. God creates the wind and rain, the sun and the seasons. It is only when humans began to pollute the air, the soil, and the water that we really began to have serious trouble with climate change.

On the other God made it so species usually change, but usually change slowly, Only in a crisis do they need to change quickly. That is why God gave us the ability to make and use a vaccine in a pandemic.

With each generation of a species billions of new alleles are generated. Only a few are significant in terms of change, but all help to sustain the species. In both cases God is at work adapting God’s creatures, which God designed to God’s world, which God designed…

Welcome, @eyeillustration. Thank you for the question.

Guidance is different from intervention. God uses natural selection to guide variation or evolution , which is the way God structured this process. When God needs to intervene God can communicate with us humans to show us what we need to do.

@Daniel_Fisher, @Chris_Falter, @jstump, @Dale
The natural history of what God did create is clear. How God did this maybe less clear, when we focus on how God used both changes in the environment and genes it brings things into perspective, rather than focus on ideologies and speculation, as I have said is often destructive.

That’s a good question, Ani. The answer is that not all non-coding regions are junk. A significant portion of the non-coding regions function as regulators of the coding regions.

I am of course completely unsurprised that mutations in these regulatory regions of the genome might result in cancers.

Best,
Chris

2 Likes

I do concede that “heap ridicule” was worded too strongly. Please accept my apologies for the inapt word choice.

“Firmly reject,” though, would be a good description of your attitude in this thread toward alternate design hypotheses.

It’s worth pointing out that you have not yet recognized that the position you seem to be advocating contains a dilemma that cannot be resolved.

Either:

We humans have no ability to “predict” God’s design choices, and therefore no human is able to determine solely on the basis of design inquiries whether a biological system reflects God’s design.

As I stated in my last post to you:
Now let’s suppose that you say, “No, Chris, you have misunderstood; I do not think it possible for any human to understand what design decisions God might make.” Okay then. If that’s the case, how can you claim to discern God’s design choice in the observations reported by scientists? You just told me that no one can discern claim to know what choices God would make! How can a particular outcome be evidence of God’s work if you cannot hypothesize a priori the work God would do?

OR:

You are advocating the necessity of a specific design.

Your choice, my friend @Daniel_Fisher. Which path do you want to commit to? The roads lead in opposite directions, and neither you nor I are quantum particles with the capacity for superposition.

Best,
Chris Falter

2 Likes

So, in the course of this conversation, you have now falsely stated that I have claimed to know God’s mind regarding the design of mammals when I only observed how a human designer might proceed; falsely claimed I was “heaping ridicule” on all alternate views when I was only registering strong disagreement with a single one, and now falsely claimed I “explicitly” rejected some notion when it was actually nothing more than your own interpretation of my position based on nothing more than your own words?

I fear that any further communication appears quite impossible.

I think you misunderstood his last post.

1 Like