Guided mutations

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Elliot_Mudd

I’m just interested in knowing if there is anyway to know if a “designer” had set things up in such a way that certain specific mutations would trigger other specific mutations so as to get a desired outcome.

I think that by this point you have your answer, as least in terms of informed opinion.

[John_Harshman]

@Elliot_Mudd

I didn’t say mutations explain ALL evolution.

Yes you did, or actually you said that Behe doesn’t think they do, which implies that somebody, somewhere thought otherwise. If you don’t mean to say things, try not saying them and saying what you actually mean to say instead.

@Elliot_Mudd

I’m talking about if some mutations could be caused by some intelligence as opposed to ALL being random.

There, now you finally managed to say what you mean. The answer is that mutations certainly don’t look that way, and the only way, given the data, that some mutations could be caused by some intelligence is if the intelligence wanted to make it impossible to detect it, by making its intervention rare and of the same sort expected from random mutation.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Elliot_Mudd

I didn’t say mutations explain ALL evolution.

Let’s focus. You were talking about Behe, not your own opinion. You very clearly wrote:

@Elliot_Mudd

Mike Behe accepts common ancestry, but rejects the idea that random mutations can explain all of evolutionary history.

@Elliot_Mudd

Only that he [Behe] doesn’t think that random alone can explain all evolution.

@Elliot_Mudd

I meant to say behe doesn’t think that random MUTATIONS alone can explain all evolution.

This is silly, including your claiming to know the thoughts of others.

Given your vocabulary, I suspect that you don’t have much of a handle on evolutionary mechanisms. That’s why I asked the question:

@Mercer

What do you think is the ratio of existing variation to new mutations in a mammalian population?

Do you think populations are somehow “waiting” for new mutations before evolution occurs, as Behe appears to think?

[Nesslig20]

@Rumraket

With neither camp spending much timed defining rules or methods for measuring “importance”, “dominance”, or “primacy”. Yes, seriously, it’s that stupid.

Well, I guess the best defining variable that I can think of is population size in population genetics that points towards the fact that the effect of drift dominates over selection in small population sizes. Or perhaps I am talking past the point you’re making here.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Elliot_Mudd

What would we look for to falsify the idea that some mutations are preplanned?

Eliot,

I think it is terribly unlikely that we wiuld ever find evidence for “the idea that some mutations are preplanned”.

As long as Christian Evolutionists include freewill in their views, there is no reason to assume that some changes are unplanned. In front-loading, EVERY change is intentional.

Finally, i think we can quickly dismiss the idea that frontloading implies that some fully-formed genes are like easter eggs buried in the genes of distant ancestors … just waiting to be activated in some future generation.

In a frontloaded scenario, all mutations would be planned.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@Elliot_Mudd

I never said anything about “embedded genes”. I was asking about the possibility that certain mutations may be preprogrammed to occur at certain times. I didn’t mean that a whole gene was just sat there inactive waiting to suddenly “activate”

Elliot,

For evolutionists who are also Christian, they have ALREADY started with the premise that ALL mutations have been programmed into the master timeline.

[John_Harshman]

@gbrooks9

In a frontloaded scenario, all mutations would be planned.

I’m assuming that in this scenario, the planning happens in the initial setup of the universe, so that the first cause sets up a bunch of dominos and just pushes over the first one. No mechanism other than the working out of natural law upon the initial materials is necessary or in existence. Is that it?

[Elliot_Mudd]

I know, but that’s nothing to do with my question. The original question was not about a supernatural deity. My question was clearly about the possibility of intelligent design, which doesn’t necessarily imply God exists. I don’t care if most ID proponents are Christian, I referred to Behe’s ideas as an example of what I was trying to say, it doesn’t follow that I also agree with everything he ever said on every topic.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Elliot_Mudd

I don’t care if most ID proponents are Christian, I referred to Behe’s ideas as an example of what I was trying to say, it doesn’t follow that I also agree with everything he ever said on every topic.

Behe’s ideas are incoherent, frequently self-contradicting, and frequently built upon gross misrepresentations of the data or hearsay.

I don’t see much point in trying to analyze them.

[John_Harshman]

@Elliot_Mudd

I know, but that’s nothing to do with my question.

What do you know? That was a reply to something, to someone, but what and who?

[Dan_Eastwood]

@John_Harshman I think you are being a little hard on Elliot. He is trying to explore a point of view that nearly all here have rejected. Despite the really good reasons for that rejection, some people persist in the belief in Intelligent Design. If we want to dissuade such people - and I think most here do - then it may be useful to dissect the reason those belief persist.

@Elliot_Mudd I think you are running into the hard reason why ID fails - there is no question that ID can ask, much less answer, because it lacks any definition of what Design really means. ID proponents will persist in arguing there is a gap in scientific knowledge, but they have yet to offer anything to show such a gap exists, or any new knowledge to fill it.

I think the Theistic Evolutionist have it right; most of these folks hold that God acted in a way that is undetectable to science, and happily go about their days not trying to make it a scientific question. If belief in a creator is personally important, that’s the way to go.

[sfmatheson (Stephen Matheson)]

@Elliot_Mudd

My question was clearly about the possibility of intelligent design, which doesn’t necessarily imply God exists. I don’t care if most ID proponents are Christian, I referred to Behe’s ideas as an example of what I was trying to say, it doesn’t follow that I also agree with everything he ever said on every topic.

Hi Elliot, I agree that you were clear about this. I do think that @Mercer is right that Behe’s “ideas” are not generally worth analysis. And you do give the impression that his “ideas” were your starting point – you asked about a simplistic (to say the least) potential scenario involving point mutations, and you even thought it reasonable to explain this scenario to an audience (PS forum) that didn’t need an illustration of a point mutation. And so your questions give the impression that you have been unfortunately influenced by Behe’s high school-level comments about evolution and mutation. I think you’d be better prepared to think about evolution, and to ask questions about it, if you tried a soft reset of your thinking. It might be helpful to start by understanding that Behe – and ID in general – is intentionally misleading.

So with that said: are you satisfied with the answers you got here on the forum? I for one would be glad to answer followup questions. The topic of “guided mutation” is interesting, and sci-fi scenarios about superintelligent beings are, if nothing else, kinda fun.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Dan_Eastwood

I think the Theistic Evolutionist have it right; most of these folks hold that God acted in a way that is undetectable to science, and happily go about their days not trying to make it a scientific question. If belief in a creator is personally important, that’s the way to go.

I agree with this point, however the ID guys are not trying to figure out how God did it. They are looking at the evidence and applying mostly adductive reasoning that a mind maybe involved in what we are observing.

As you argue, it is correct that ID is limited in what it can explain, however it maybe useful in challenging the limits of scientific inquiry. Models need to be challenged to be improved.

[John_Harshman]

@Dan_Eastwood

I think you are being a little hard on Elliot.

How do? I’m just asking for clarification on a post that’s clearly meant to be a reply to something but provides no clues about what.

[Dan_Eastwood]

I’m glad you agree, and …

@colewd

As you argue, it is correct that ID is limited in what it can explain, …

here I must agree as well, since ID doesn’t explained anything at all, but …

however it maybe useful in challenging the limits of scientific inquiry. Models need to be challenged to be improved.

No. We already know how to challenge the limits of scientific sources inquiry, and ID has continued nothing except bad examples. Nor has ID done anything to improve scientific models. Not once. Even climate change denialist James Watt has done better on that score, because he found and helped to identify and correct an actual problem.
If ID were useful in improving scientific models, then the obvious application would be to provide a scientific model for ID itself.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@colewd

I agree with this point, however the ID guys are not trying to figure out how God did it. They are looking at the evidence and applying mostly adductive reasoning that a mind maybe involved in what we are observing.

And once they “invent” a mind that designs, ID propnents immediately place conditions on this belief, namely that this mind would NEVER use evolutionary laws of nature to execute these designs.

And from that point we have the so-called “race to crazy town” … because it supports the illusion that the human mind can tell when a mutation is created miraculously !

[Midhun]

Hello @Elliot_Mudd

@Elliot_Mudd

If so then evolution would be guided without the need for this alien, god, whoever, to intervene.

I share a perspective similar to this one. Organisms have various built-in mechanisms capable of producing heritable variations, especially when exposed to stressful or changing environments. The presence of these inherent mechanisms implies that organisms are designed to evolve. Please see my posts on this at your convenience. If possible, go through the comments too.
(post 1 and post 2)