funny, I don’t recall making that argument. Could you perhaps quote my relevant words?
?
You’re suggesting instead, what, exactly? That practically any random mutations would allow a HCLCA to simultaneously evolve the sophisticated ability to communicate, read, write, think, do mathematics, engineering, philosophize, understand morality, create art, appreciate and perform music, build space shuttles and iPhones, etc.?
No he’s not.
By generating random genomes based on single nucleotide distributions, you obtained genomes that differed most at sites where a C was in a CG dinucleotide? How does that work, exactly?
You counted the edits, or you counted the edits per base of that type? That is, the relevant quantity is the n(A<->T)/( n(A) + n(T) ), not n(A<->T). This matters quite a lot since the denominator for transitions is the total number of bases.
So, having heard no objections to my hypothetical ten commandments scenario thus far, let me continue a step further…
Now, has his mere openness to the possibility of supernatural origin of these words somehow precluded his ability to recognize intelligent agency? Has he moved from science to theology _in his recognition of the words as being of “intelligent” origin”? this is a vital distinction. i would grant immediately that any speculations about supernatural origin of the words would he crossing into theological or metaphysical realm. But i’m still focusing strictly on his ability to recognize intelligent agency behind those words. Has that ability been in any way hindered or impeded by his personal theological speculations? I would say not. Hebrew words are what they are - the result of intelligent agency, whatever our archaeologist may personally speculate about the actual identity of said intelligence, no?
could you still agree with me so far? the mere fact that he is open to the possibility that the phenomenon he is examining was in fact done directly by divine hand still make absolutely no difference whatsoever in his ability to recognize intelligent agency in those Hebrew words. whatever he personally may think, or personally speculate about… when he publishes his work, recognizing intelligent agency behind those markings in the rock, can we agree he is still doing science, and his method has not moved into the realm of “theology”, in his recognition that those Hebrew words were caused by “intelligent agency”? especially so long as he keeps those speculations to himself?
Note, his science - his scientific method - is still not in any sense whatsoever “detecting supernatural agency”. he is simply still recognizing intelligent agency. His approach to the natural phenomenon in front of him is still strictly scientific, and his recognition that those Hebrew words are the result of intelligence is still squarely within the realm of science. His personal theological speculations have had 0 influence on his basic common sense ability to recognize the a Hebrew sentence as the result of intelligent agency.
Are you still tracking with me? Can we still agree thus far?
Inference to design does not equal use of the explanatory filter to detect design. That’s the ol’ bait and switch. More to the point, you have not shown any examples of using the explanatory filter to detect the types of intelligent design you claim happened in life’s history. As a control, you have also not applied the same filter to known changes in genomes that have occurred through evolutionary mechanisms. All of the science is missing.
Where’s the data? Why did your method produce a high rate of CpG mutations? Why was the C changed way more often than the G, and why was the C preferentially changed to a T in your system? For a substitution of an A, why did you see a preference for changes to a G over T and C?
Added in edit:
Here is another data set for you to compare to:
Note that this is a rate. You would need to count the CpGs in a sequence and measure the rate at which the C changes to an A, T, or G for the CpG mutation rates.
Here you go:
You stated I claimed there hasn’t been enough time to produce the genetic differences. To demonstrate this, you produced quotes where I claimed that getting the right mutations, unaided, would be prohibitously fortuitous.
Wish to try again?
The question is How does Natural Selection work? Natural Selection is not a random process, according to Darwin.
“The rule of biology is not to evolve unless the physical or biological environment changes, which is consistent with Darwin,” said Schopf, who also is director of UCLA’s Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. The environment in which these microorganisms live has remained essentially unchanged for 3 billion years, he said.
“These microorganisms are well-adapted to their simple, very stable physical and biological environment,” he said. “If they were in an environment that did not change but they nevertheless evolved, that would have shown that our understanding of Darwinian evolution was seriously flawed.”
Schopf said the findings therefore provide further scientific proof for Darwin’s work. “It fits perfectly with his ideas,” he said. Scientists discover organism that hasn’t evolved in more than 2 billion years | UCLA
According to this study recently posted on this webpage Natural Selection is directly related to changes in the environment, which is exactly what I have been saying. If the the ecology changes, than life forms must evolves or go extinct. Since in this situation the ecology did not change, the life forms did not evolve, even though it had billions of years for mutations to take place. One can only say that mutations did take place, but Natural Selection selected them out, so there was no change.
Dr. Schopf also says that this is compatible with the theories of Darwin. I would not argue, but definitely note that it is much closer to symbiosis than survival of the fittest. If we can agree on this we are golden, but thus far we have not even though this is what the evidence supports.
The ‘right’ mutations - by chance - are naturally selected - by necessity.
Will that do?
The same applies in abiogenesis obviously.
Those mean exactly the same thing.
Neutral drift in no way destroys Natural Selection. Neutral means neutral, or in other words no significant change. And how can we say there was no change based on the ecology, because it was selected in and not out. Neutral selection is positive selection.
It appears that you are failing to critique evolutionary dogma in the area where it is most vulnerable, the area of Natural Selection, instead you and the rest of ID continue to try to attack it where is is strongest. It is like David choosing to fight Goliath using Saul’s armor.
Natural selection through beneficial mutations is not by definition a process which is unguided and unintelligent. Selection is guiding. Selection is intelligent/rational.
Evolution is Not random, because it includes Natur5al Selection which is rational and determinative.
The problem with evolution is 1) Many evolutionists confuse evolution with Variation which is random. It seems that ID folk share that error, which compounds the problem. 2) Many evolutionists like Dawkins think of Natural Selection as Survival of the Fittest, which is wrong and supports the New Atheism. When you and ID generally give Survival of the Fittest/Dog eat dog Natural Selection you allow Dawkins & Co. to go uncriticized where they need to be criticized.
Neutral selection is the absence of positive or negative selection. About 95% of the sequence differences between the chimp and human genomes are due to neutral drift, or a lack of natural selection.
As to the pattern of substitution mutations between the genomes, this evidence supports the conclusion that the differences between genomes of the species is due to the same processes we see creating mutations right now. Natural selection can’t create changes in sequence. You need mutations for that.
Parts of evolution are non-random. However, other parts are random, such as neutral drift.
Might one ask what, if anything, apart from the necessity in natural selection acting on chance mutation, is non-random in evolution?
OK, let us go over the ABC’s of evolution. Evolution is a two step process. Step 1 is Variation, where by in the repre4duction process the genes are shuffled and mutations may be produced. That means a new allele takes form ands is born. Step 2 is Natural Selection when ecological conditions determine whether this new allele will survive and reproduce. You need both, the right mutation and nature to select that mutation in for a change and ecology determines if a mutation is selected in.
Natural Selecti9on is not random and makes evolution a non-random, determinative process. As I understand it neutral drift is an extension of Natural Selection so there is no problem with the 95% figure you give.
Natural selection is not permanent. The dinosaurs were selected in, but then selected out by the change in the climate. Where is there any evidence that any of the mutations that separate humans from the chimps are not ecologically or evolutionary beneficial.
Evolution is not a simple process because it was designed by God Who can walk and chew gun at the same time. God is both One and Three, so can so many things at the same time.
Neutral drift is a precursor to natural selection, not an extension of it. It is part of that on which natural selection operates.
That’s only true for about 5% of the human genome. Natural selection has no impact on the other 95% of the human genome where neutral drift determines whether a mutation goes away or becomes more common over time.
That’s not how I understand it. Neutral drift is randomness. If Natural Selection is non-random, then neutral drift can not be natural selection.
A neutral mutation is one that does not affect an organism’s ability to survive and reproduce. The neutral theory assumes that most mutations that are not deleterious are neutral rather than beneficial.
A neutral mutation comes from a species that has already been selected in by natural selection. This new mutation must not be negative, so must be positive in effect. It is not random and the species is still under the power of Natural Selection, even though maybe it does not work in exactly the same way as with positive mutations. .
False dichotomy. A mutation can be neither beneficial nor detrimental. Mutations can be neutral, and if they are neutral then the reach fixation through randomness, not selection.
95% of the human genome is not under the power of natural selection as shown by a lack of sequence conservation and a rate of divergence consistent with random fixation.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
