Intelligent Design and Common Descent


Yeah, that was the paper I was thinking of. There are technical problems there. But I don’t have time now to address this.

I’ll try to return to it tomorrow. Thanks for citing it though.

Your reference lists naturally occurring indel mutations as a mechanism for producing orphan genes (i.e. nondeleterious frame shifts). They have the data to back it up.

The Lenski experiment is a perfect example. In that experiment there was a recombination event that moved a promoter in front of another stretch of DNA. It demonstrates how recombination events can result in previously non-coding DNA being transcribed.

I want to make sure I am reading this correctly - Ann, are you claiming that God in essence created T-urf13 apart from known, well-established mechanisms, that the functions possessed by T-urf13 are God-inspired or -directed and not borne of the accessibility of these functions in sequence space? Are you really going down that rabbit hole?

I want to make absolutely sure, since there are some themes intertwined here and you are making this apparent claim in response to an example that Josh pointed out.

1 Like

I don’t know anything about T-urf13.

1 Like

Linky linky …

1 Like

And here is @art’s response to Behe’s response.

From my view, this is a very direct demonstration of something that should be impossible if Axe and Behe are right. Right here, confronted with the evidence, Behe appeals to God’s design (by front-loading), instead of acknowledging what the evidence is showing.

The “design” language here is confused along several dimensions:

  1. In one sense, I agree that God designed T-urf13, by way of evolutionary processes. He created evolution, so the products of evolution (even by 100% natural processes) are his design. This, however, is nearly the opposite of the ID claim.

  2. In another sense, I agree that God could have directly (or indirectly) intervened in to have produced T-urf13, but if that is the loop hole being used here, it will be used to object to any and all demonstrations. For that reason, asking for evidence is degenerating quickly into absurdity. This has nothing to do with evidence, but with an evidence-immune presupposition.

  3. In the most important sense, Behe is conceding that complex de novo proteins are arising by apparently natural processes, which is all that science is claiming. So the ID argument, in this case, is moot. It reduces merely to fine-tuning, and is not engaged with evidence.

Which gets to my point:

There is no conceivable experiment or demonstration I can imagine where this objection would not be an objection. The closest counter-example I’ve come up with is the evolution of cancer. Even there, someone might easily (and perversely) argue that God (or a demon?) is designing cancer.

The appeal to God’s action is available in every and all experiments and demonstrations, even if they are done in the lab. The fact that is in the lab, also will cause ID to appeal to the experimenter as having designed the protein too (sad but true: Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2018 Harnessing the power of evolution). This hard to accept as coherent, let alone as valid science.

This is one reason, also, why I think MN is necessary. Appealing to God’s action (or Divine Design) just creates too many problems when doing scientific work. It is more coherent to leave God as an explanatory force out, and to let science tell us rigorously what is “apparently” true. Then, we engage in science-engaged theology to fill in the rest, and even dispute the scientific findings where it might make sense.


@swamidass (cc @jongarvey )

Nice conclusion!

Let’s combine it with new other points:

2] Behe’s Pool Shot Model is completely consistent with God designing life forms by Evolution.


3] the “Geneal.Adam” scenario accepts the face value of archaeological and anthropological findings, which is most consisten with Adsm and Eve appearing at the beginning of the rise of Agriculture… rsther thsn in the middle or the beginning of the Hunter/Gatherer phase of hominid existance!

Say what now?


Let’s start off on the right foot! Make your posting into a question (instead of an exclamatory that merely ends in a question mark), and i will be delighted to answer the question!


Appearing? Not born? You’re not proposing two MORE virgin births?


De novo Adam and Eve cant be virgin births.

Appearing is fine for the purposes of that posting.

If they just “appeared” they were not born by way of mainstream human sexual reproduction.

The manner of their appearance is not specified. I think we can leave it there.

1 Like

But before Eve “appeared” as a cloning of Adam’s rib, there had to be all the animal of the world around so that Adam could name them - Elephants, Penquins, and Kangaroos

“appear” is a generic word without reference to de novo. I appeared on Earth after I was naturally born.

Sure but that isn’t the way @gbrooks9 is using the term. He literally mean “appeared” . If I said “A fully grown man appeared in my garden yesterday” I wouldn’t take that to mean that the man wasn’t born, didn’t have parents. But @gbrooks9 does. So shouldn’t we expect some sort of realism from @gbrooks9 proposals?

1 Like

I think we cannot both demand realism from religious propositions and hold a civil discussion about them. If George wants to define this in a way that makes material claims, then we can raise expectations, but I don’t think that was his intent.



What drives you to be such a severe fellow. Only the biggest sacks of irredeemable meat could possibly object to the word “appear”.

It is my plan to use the word incessantly.

Perhaps a better way of phrasing it is to ask if Adam and Eve had bellybuttons when they appeared. :wink:


What I mean to say is "What do you mean by this claim and what’s the evidence supporting it?: