A Typical Conversation

“As for the claim that you cannot create order through only random events—true enough. Except evolution is not random.”

I think you mean natural selection is not random. Are you saying that mutations are not random too?
I’ve discussed this issue many times. Natural selection is not random in the sense that all offspring do not have an equal chance of survival. Those better suited to their environment will have a better chance. Those less suited will have a lesser chance.
But natural selection can only act on what is already present. It has no power to create, assemble or design the variation it acts on. According to neo-darwinists, this variation is the result of random mutations. So, it’s disingenuous to say evolution is not random.
In addition, the jury is still not in on the randomness of mutations. As you see from Sean (Carroll)’s article, he pretty much puts paid to the Modern Synthesis. Mayr was wrong when he expected the genomes of vastly different species to differ vastly. As Carroll states “Natural selection has not repeatedly forged eyes from scratch. Rather, eye formation has common genetic ingredients, and a wide range of eye types incorporate parts, such as photoreceptor cells and light-sensing proteins, that have long been under the command of the Pax-6 gene.”
So, variation does not flow from random mutation, it flows from a pre-existing set of toolkit genes that pre-date the appearance of the adaptations they control.
And we’re left with the question: “where did these ‘toolkit’ genes come from?” They could not have arisen by mutation and selection because these mechanisms can only act at the organism level. For a “toolkit” gene to evolve, it would have to be present and functional in some organism. But we know now that these genes pre-date the organisms and the adaptations they control. They preceed all that comes after them.
They are “Genesis” genes.

PZ Myers Says:

Nonsense.

Evolution is not random, although it contains random components. Our chemistry is driven by stochastic processes, but no one claims that metabolism is random. Well, at least no one with any sense.

Regulatory genes have homologs in single-celled organisms. We are talking about genes that modulate the expression of other genes, and of course these are present in organisms that don’t have eyes. That is no big deal at all.

Also, these genes are found in families. They arise from duplication and divergence of precursors. Your objection is no objection at all, but simply yet another testimonial to your cluelessness.
Paul,
You wrote that “Evolution is not random, although it contains random components.” but you really mean to say that evolution is not random because it contains non-random components.
The fact that there is a non-random component to natural selection, the differential survival ability based on fitness, does not make the entire process non-random, just like the presence of random components does not make the whole process random.
You wrote: “Our chemistry is driven by stochastic processes, but no one claims that metabolism is random. ”
Agreed. The presence of stochastic processes
does not mean that the whole process is stochastic. Any more than the presence of non-random components makes the whole process non-random.
But the point is, that natural selection can only act on what already exists. The fact that natural selection has one non-random component does not overcome the fact that the variation is allegedly (by neo-darwinians) generated by purely random processes. In addition, as I have said many times, there is no nexus established between the components of mutation and natural selection and the emergence of highly organized structures, processes and systems. You simply cannot get from point A to point B.
You wrote: “Your objection is no objection at all, but simply yet another testimonial to your cluelessness.”
I might have let this go, and let you have the last word but you’ve always got to throw in the zinger. You have absolutely no scientific explanation for the existence of these “toolkit” genes. The development of form depends upon turning on and turning off genes at different times and different places. This is controlled in part by regulatory genes, which, as you say, have homologs in single celled organisms.
But the question still remains. Where did the regulatory genes come from and who (or what) programmed them to orchestrate the the symphony of development, to activate the genes at just the right time and in just the right places to create the final product: an integrated, functional system made up of multiple structures and processes?
"It is clear from Mr. Wagner’s last post that he probably has a firm belief in his statements and I agree that logic and reason will not sway him. However, I do enjoy these types of posts as they get you to think critically about such statements, and they give you an insight into some of the muddled thinking of ID proponents.

"But the question still remains. Where did the regulatory genes come from and who (or what) programmed them to orchestrate the the symphony of development, to activate the genes at just the right time and in just the right places to create the final product: an integrated, functional system made up of multiple structures and processes?"

This statement of Mr. Wagner’s really highlights the origin of his confusion and that of many creationists. The assumption is that a Genesis event must have occured. Without it, you can not explain your existence. Science does not deal with assumptions, it deals with data, therefore it can not include an assumption about God. Does this mean God does not exist? No it only means there is no testable data to point to a Creator’s involvement in the existence of life. Any IDers or creationists reading this, please remember that word ‘testable’.

Evolution does not disprove God, it instead simply shows that life is alot more complicated than originally envisioned 2000 years ago by the authors of the Bible.

I hope that in replying to these posts, we can help show non-scientists the flaws in ID or creationist reasoning with clear and concise rebuttals."
I went back and looked and sure enough, I capitalized “Genesis”. That makes it look like I’m referring to a supernatural event, which I’m not. I used the word “genesis” in the sense that they are the origin, rather than the result of a process of evolution. In my world, the world of science, god plays no role.
You say “Science does not deal with assumptions, it deals with data,”. This is true. But evolutionary theory (neo-darwinism) is based wholly on an assumption: that a nexus exists between the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection and the emergence of highly organized structures, processes and systems. There is absolutely no empirical data to support this audacious conclusion, yet it is the foundation of modern evolutionary thinking.
The main flaw in your thinking is that you equate the scientific consideration of intelligent input with religious creationism and a supernatural being. While it is true that a majority of ID proponents are religious creationists and their “intelligence” is god, that should not preclude science from investigating a phenomenon that most likely resides in the natural world and will eventually by explained by the scientific method.

And so it goes....