Intelligent Design and Common Descent

[T_aquaticus]

@Agauger

So yes, they showed what evolution could do. It can do anything within 2 or 3 mutational steps to the payoff. That’s quite a bit but it’s not everything.

These types of experiments touch on a question that keeps popping up in these threads. I fleshed out some of these ideas in the thread below:

Is Intelligent Design Ongoing?

In my conversations with Intelligent Design (ID) supporters and in reading ID literature it has been suggested that one ways of disproving ID is to observe the evolution of irreducibly complex systems or complex specified information in the lab. The implication of this test for ID is that the designer is no longer designing. It is implied by some ID supporters that the mutations we observe in the lab are unguided. Dr. Behe, for example, uses the observed mutation rates and patterns to define what evolution can and can’t do, and he then uses these limits as a means of detecting ID. This often takes the form of adaptations that require several neutral mutations before becoming beneficial. If all the mutations we observe in the modern age are unguided then has the designer stopped designing? If the designer is still active and ID is ongoing, then shouldn’t we see things like irreducibly complex systems and complex specified information emerging in mutating populations in the lab and…

Basically, if ID is about guided mutations vs. unguided mutations, why would you think the mutations that pop up in these classic experiments are unguided mutations? In other words, is the intelligent designer no longer designing? It is interesting that even ID supporters like yourself seem to assume that any mutations happening in real time in these experiments are unguided mutations. There is always the possibility that I am completely misunderstanding your position, but that is the impression I am left with.

Anyway, thanks again for your gracious posts and interaction with this community. It is much appreciated.