Okay. I’m sorry. I’d genuinely love to understand what you are saying.
Well you may be among less than 10 people in the world calling this evidence of ID, and I cannot understand the logic of your position. When you write about it, it seems like you do not know what neutral theory is.
So you can chalk this up to disagreement, but the reason it might be met with suspicion is the history of the ID movement on such matters, and the impenetrability of your point. Though I do want to understand. Go for. Try and explain.
I didn’t say that it is Darwinism, I said that it is an echo of it. The reason for this is that, when pressed, neutral theorists usually do resort to Darwinian mechanisms when the plausibility of developing the systems of neutral theory are shown to be inadequate for making themselves. I.e., when you point out that the reason neutral theory works is because of the predisposition of the cell to not mutate sensitive areas, the response is usually Darwinian (selection, man!).
That’s what differentiates Theory A and Theory B. Theory A is about observables, and leaves the causes of those observations to be explained by something else. For most biologists, they choose Darwinism as their something else. Theory B tries to say that all of evolution is like this, and that even the directionalization of mutation is created by random wanderings in mutation space.
I think Theory A is a better theory, but that ID is a better “background theory” for why Theory A works than Darwinism.
Could we be splitting hairs here? The fact that I exist is evidence of Intelligent Design. What @swamidass means is that it is not “special” evidence of Intelligent Design. It’s just your ordinary “isn’t the Universe grand? It must be the product of God!” type of statement.
If any time someone discussions Natural Selection, you insist it is Darwinian, you are not going to get very far.
BioLogos and @swamidass speak of Natural Selection all the time … but the group and the man are clearly not discussing Natural Selection in a purely Darwinian context.
I think you will find you have fewer arguments with Theistic Evolutionists if you drop the use of the term Darwinian. We find it fairly simplistic and intentionally insulting.
You know, we would use the term I.D. too - - if I.D. didn’t include the political component. Otherwise, there is not much difference … just in whether Science can find evidence of God or not.
I got my BS in Chemistry in the mid-1980s (strong emphasis on Phys Chem and Biochem), Ph.D. in Biochemistry and Mol Bio in the '90s and continue in biochemistry/enzymology today. I’ve followed the primary literature on mutational mechanisms since sophomore year in college. Understand that no part of the genome is immune from mutation. All biochemical replication, recombination and repair systems have inherent physical limits to fidelity. That’s simply a consequence of basic physics and chemistry and was recognized by chemists and enzymologists in both theoretical and experimental work in the '60s or '70s. Surveys and experiments covering mutation rates have been going on for decades. The basal rates of point mutations for many organisms (not viruses) typically run in the ballpark of 10E-9 to 10E-10 per base per replication. That mutation rates may increase above basal depending on the region of the genome and other activity was known before I started grad school. That some classes of mutations (e.g. transitions vs. tranversions & etc.) occur at different rates was also well established decades ago.
As @swamidass also wondered, I’m not sure what that has to do with neutral theory. Changes in mutation rates means that more variation will tend to arise in areas with increased rates of mutation. That includes positive, neutral and negative mutations. And, mutations will still hit all parts of the genome… Again, there is no part of the genome where all neutral mutations are specifically directed by the biochemical mechanisms of the cell.
I know you’re interested in the broad set of ideas related to the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. But just be aware that much of the hypotheses are sketchy at best. Most scientists familiar with the subjects consider the hype very overinflated. IMO, it will likely regress to a meaningless buzzword in the future, connoting something very different than as it was originally conceived (see also: the term ‘epigenetics’). I’d suggest that if one outside of the scientific areas took the criticisms of current evolutionary research from the articles of a number of the more vocal EES proponents or popular press, one would come away with a very skewed and flawed misunderstanding of work in the field. I’m not going to rehash the subject here as others have done it before and better than I’d have time for. Arlin Stoltzfus (not of the EES groups), is probably a more reliable source for criticism of areas misunderstood related to mutations and evolutionary biology. Dan Graur is another professor who has written blogs & articles on the web that relate to mutation and evolution. Larry Moran’s ‘Sandwalk’ blog has a series of articles about “EES”. If you’d like links, I can post them, but Google should work faster.
Also, recognizing that I’m straying a bit from the original topic (e.g. Neutral theory A & B), with my latest posts, let’s table that line and get back on topic.