evolution and/or intelligent design

[Okiefreak]

Being an Okie from the "buckle of the Bible Belt", I'm coming from a place where Darwin is still viewed as the Devil's stepchild and human evolution is a snare and delusion for the unwary Christian. I'm intrigued by the fact that some really well-respected anti-ID evolutionists, Kenneth Miller (a biology professor at Brown University and a Catholic) and Frank Collins (director of the Human Genome Institute and an Evangelical) are devout Christians, and that the two most prominent Intelligent Design spokesmen, Demski and Behe accept a lot of evolution but disagree that it could have happened without intelligent help. So can we have Jesus and Darwin, too?

[Jedi]

To my mind, it is not possible for it to be random. Let me give you an example from my own biochemistry studies.

Any given life form's processes as far as we know is dependent on the function of proteins. Lets say for our discussion's sake that the 20 amino acids in proteins have formed certain primary structures due to thermodynamically favorable conditions.

With that said, it still does not account for how they can evolve to fold into certain functional three dimensional structures when other similar non-functional structures are also equally available.

If it was all random, then the protein has to go through each structure until it hits the right one. A scientist named Cyrus Levinthal made a simple calculation.
If we assume a really simple protein to be 100 residues long, then lets say it is 3 conformations for each residue, then 3^100 structures are possible.

(3^100) = 5X10^47 , if it takes (1/10^13) second (over a very very small time frame) to change from one conformation to the other it would still take about 1.59*10^27 years. Our universe itself is 10^15 years old. Therefore, they assume that this process of evolution for proteins cannot be completely random.

So there is some control... what is it? simply thermodynamic? thermodynamic control has nothing to do with the kinetics of how a protein folds... so it does not explain it to my mind atleast.

There is a theory that says that there is a progressive stabilization of intermediates before complete structures are formed, but for that to happen, the process is not completely random, it is intelligently controlled and to my mind, that is the creator of this universe. Christians call this entity -God.

[Okiefreak]

As I understand it, Darwin's theory doesn't rely on strictly random processes. Random mutations that have survival value are selected because of their survival value in a pre-existing environment. It is no accident which ones make it and which ones don't.

By the way, good post. Thanks.

[Jedi]

As I understand it, Darwin's theory doesn't rely on strictly random processes. Random mutations that have survival value are selected because of their survival value in a pre-existing environment. It is no accident which ones make it and which ones don't.

By the way, good post. Thanks.Maybe evolution of individual molecules like proteins is not completely random process, but overall evolution of the universe has to be a random phenomena. Because if it is not random then it is controlled. If it is controlled or directed then who is doing it? or what is doing it? Another property that we do not know about? Certainly this property is controlling the whole process, it is very intelligent to control matter and energy to create this reality and so is its design.

[Okiefreak]

First of all, I think it's useful, as you suggest, to distinguish different contexts in which the design-chance distinction might apply. There are at least three of these contexts: the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of species. The Darwinists are concerned only with the latter context, and here they argue that species develop by a process of natural selection. That requires random mutations, but the ones that survive and pass on their genetic endowments are the ones that develop random characteristics that give the organism an edge in the struggle for survival. Not any random mutation is going to do that, in fact most don't, and therefore they are no longer a product of the evolutionary process. Dawkins, evolutionist and atheist, explains:
"(N)atural selection is a cumulative process which breaks the problem of probability up into small pieces...When large numbers of these slightly improbable events are stacked up in series, the end product of the accumulation is very very improbable indeed, improbable enough to be far beyond the reach of chance." The God Delusion, p. 121.

Not that I agree it all happened that way, and of course there's the origin of the universe and life to consider. It's an ingenius argument,and if Darwin hadn't thought of it, atheists like Dawkins would probably not be selling many books.

[Jedi]

First of all, I think it's useful, as you suggest, to distinguish different contexts in which the design-chance distinction might apply. There are at least three of these contexts: the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of species. The Darwinists are concerned only with the latter context, and here they argue that species develop by a process of natural selection. That requires random mutations, but the ones that survive and pass on their genetic endowments are the ones that develop random characteristics that give the organism an edge in the struggle for survival.
I refered to the evolution of the universe because evolution of proteins and species is not seperate from the evolution of the universe.
You have to agree, the universe has conditions which make life itself feasible in this planet. So you see, even before we even begin to question darwinian theory , you have to question how the universe can evolve in such a way that it makes life possible on this planet. If evolution of universe is a random occurence, then evolution of life is due to that random phenomena (so overall its due to randomness). If it is not a random occurence , then the evolution of species is also not random.

I am not questioning why some of these mutations work and others dont. The reason for it is that some mutations ruin protein's structure within the active site so that it becomes non functional.

While other mutations may change some other residue somewhere on the protein that does not affect the function at the active site but does affect it some other way.
So some mutations work , some do not.

What I am asking is why there are any natural laws in this universe (laws of gravity, thermodynamics etc) . The answer points to God in my mind.

[Okiefreak]

Along the same lines, I've been interested in the "fine tuned universe" arguments put forward by Walter Bradley and Robin Collins: the idea that any small change in one of approximately 26 physical constants would make the universe radically different. The proponents see this as evidence of God. Atheists say that begs the question of who designed God, or that it's an example of "god of gaps" reasoning (invoking God to explain anything that isn't currently explained by science), or even--and this intrigues me as a Startrek fan--invoking the concept of parallel universes, thereby expanding the number of chances for anything. or they just say "so? if we didn't have a universe like this, we'd have one like something else. It never had to be. These arguments make my head hurt. Logically, when the experts disagree and the issues are way over our heads, ordinary folks should suspend judgment. This is probably like a dog trying to figure out human psychology. But I'm young and foolish, and suspending judgment seems so boring.

Here's where I rely on faith, defined as right-brain intuition, in full recognition that I could be wrong. I think these scholars are in their heads (where they should be; its their job) and are likely never to resolve the issue by means of science, evidence, and logic. I'm reminded of the arguments in Intro to Philosophy--how do we know we're awake and not dreaming? Logically we don't; intuitively, we do. When you hear hoofbeats, you think of horses, not zebras, and when I see order resulting from highly improbable events I suspect intelligent design rather than lucky coincidences or parallel universes--maybe because I'm just a dumb Okie. Another eminent evolutionist, Stephen Gould, estimates that if we could rewind evolutionary history to go back to the Cambrian and start over, there's no certainty things would evolve in the same way because of the random element involved, which means there was nothing guaranteeing that intelligent life would evolve on this planet. To him, that's no big deal. We'd just evolve something else.

So the way I see it, anyway you look at it, it's a miracle that we're having this conversation. It would be a miracle if intelligent design were responsible and an even greater miracle if it was just a remarkably fortunate accident that humans ever evolved. I have the feeling that human consciousness is special and meant to be, although some scientists can't see this at all. If the dice were rolled another way, no life form capable of appreciating existence might ever have made its appearance, and HipForums with all these interesting topics might ever have developed. I find that hard to believe. But I could certainly be wrong.