The Problem with the ID Argument

Yeah…my analogy not the best. Ironcally, in my humble estimation “convergent evolution” is an apologetic that negates the logic of evolutionism!

I dont get too sweaty palmed about “problems” w the yec model either. If i trusted a model that relied on chance and mutations and energy to concoct eyes, and livers, and reproductive organs and then there were problems with the logic (which i believe is true) then there is no where to turn as a better explanation. But i trust in God, not nature. The universe had a beginning and God is the powerful Designer and Maker of it. With God, all things are possible and the mysteries and transcendence within His being as Creator may be too lofty for the science of man to figure out. I actually feel for the scientist who thinks he has the wherewithall to box in God as well as the nature of His workmanship because they miss out on the opportunity to experience higher levels of enjoyment related to aknowledging the mysteries and awesomeness within His glory. Sometimes it is a good thing to admit that we just dont know and trust in revelation given by God for understanding.

I can agree and say the work ahead is to get a better handle on “mostly”.

I think what is confusing him is that ID books are often written to resemble the idea of some uninformed people of what a scholarly book looks like


Really? You think evoutionary biologists believe someone is choosing the mutations that work best?

BTW, the process you described is actually used in computer programming, and works very well.

The environment is selecting the one that reproduces best. Beneficial mutations are rare but happen.

Right, so that is a mechanism that is regularly observed, and which even you accept.

You do not even have a hypothetical example of even a single one of the mechanisms by which a protein could have been designed.

Genetic recombination is a mechanism as part of the reproduction process. I know it produces variation but how much I don’t know. Art Hunt has an example in plants where a novel gene arose by modifying and existing gene.

If the process is deterministic could it be capable of design? If it is from where did this capability originate?

That does not involve design. Did I really have to tell you that?

How do you know?

We are talking about observed mechanisms. Show me where this designer was directly observed taking part in the process of recombination. Thanks.

Now you have gone from design to designer.

It wasn’t an existing protein-coding gene. The protein in question was completely new, not found in any other organism, parental or otherwise.

Just trying to keep things straight here,


Why did you start the exchange? The design argument is limited yet it identifies a mechanism that can be an actual cause of what we are observing.

There also may be mechanisms in the cell that can design. The design argument is not about how the grand designer of the universe designs. It is observing some of the artifacts of that design and the inferring cause.

But you are alone in criticizing it for failure to comply with your vaguely expressed intuitions. The published criticisms at least deal with the model as it actually is. Note that Theobald did respond to those criticisms.

1 Like

No problem. Just ask. But when you say you don’t understand, I think you actually mean that you think the conclusions are bogus or unsupported, not that you don’t understand them.

1 Like

From the paper> The “best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis” has one species giving rise to bacteria and one giving rise to Archaea and eukaryotes, said Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts.

But, based on the new analysis, the odds of that are “just astronomically enormous,” he said. “The number’s so big, it’s kind of silly to say it” — 1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680 zeros.

How would you calculate these odds if design was involved?

They could either be bogus or I might not understand. When you cannot come up with a concise explanation I have to consider the possibility it is because you don’t have a clear hypothesis supporting your claim.

I have no idea. Do you? Might as well calculate the odds without assuming design, unless you can come up with a design model. Note that you are again conflating design with separate creation.

Who says I can’t? In fact I’ve explained it quite clearly (in my opinion) countless times. You have ignored the explanation every time and appear to have forgotten it instantly every time.


With a designer you don’t have a probability problem related to getting a functional sequence and that was the original point I was making.

The probability problem is created by the selected mechanism having a randomly changing front end. The reality is that common descent and separate origin are both very improbable events if the proposed mechanism for the origin of the eukaryotic cell is RMNS.

I have not ignored it. I have read your papers and enjoyed them and was impressed with your diligence.

The issue is I don’t believe we have a natural explanation for diversity and you do. This paradigm difference makes us look at things differently. If I did not consider design a possibility I would agree 100% in the common descent of crocs and flightless birds. The data is overwhelming with that perspective.

When I looked at the Theobald paper and saw him touting large improbabilities for separate origins I new he was not considering design but only material explanations.

In many ways like Dawkins weasel this paper supported the separate design of eukaryotic cells.