The beneficial mutations that helped yeast survive were losses:
An interesting paper that strongly reinforces the lessons of Darwin Devolves was recently published in Nature Ecology and Evolution.1 University of Michigan biologists Piaopiao Chen and Jianzhi Zhang looked at the effect of changing environments on the evolution of laboratory yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae…
The most interesting point of their fine work to me is that all of the beneficial mutations almost certainly are loss- or degradation-of-function. That is, the mutations in the various conditions benefit the yeast by destroying pre-existing genes or diminishing their activity. Chen and Zhang followed two different categories of mutations: 1) mutations that substitute single nucleotide residues; and 2) mutations that delete chunks of DNA or cause a stop codon to appear in a gene. The latter category is highly likely to outright destroy the activity of the protein that the mutated gene codes for. Nonetheless, this category is actually the more frequently found of the two. The former category — substitution mutations — does not necessarily destroy a protein’s activity, but that’s certainly the way to bet here. The reason is that most of the selected genes that have substitution mutations (where the normal amino acid residue in the protein the gene codes for is swapped out for a different one) actually have multiple positions that can be beneficially substituted. That’s the signature of a mutation that is helping by degrading or destroying a protein’s activity, simply because there are many more positions where substitution will degrade activity than ones that will improve activity.
Michael Behe, “Helpful Devolutionary Mutations Are Rapid and Unavoidable: Paper Reinforces Darwin Devolves” at Evolution News and Science Today
Paper: Chen, P. and Zhang, J. 2020. Antagonistic pleiotropy conceals molecular adaptations in changing environments. Nature Ecology & Evolution 4:461-469. (paywall)
The trouble with Darwin Devolves is that it is likely to be both quite right and a big problem for schoolbook Darwinism. Just as it is much easier to—without thinking much—throw something out than fix or adapt it, life forms will far more likely randomly mutate by dumping complex equipment than by reengineering it. It’s not that life forms can’t develop complex new equipment. But such changes probably aren’t an instance of natural selection acting on random mutation. And in these times, that’s the controversial part: design in nature.
See also: Michael Behe and the broken wolves. In Darwin Devolves, he explains how much evolution depends on breaking genes. He picks up the theme in this video series. In the case of wolves, we call the broken ones dogs.
16 years ago Paul Nelson said:
“Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design.”
Just bashing “Darwinism” over and over, year after year, accomplishes nothing. Evolution is every bit the current scientific paradigm as it was when Paul said that. There’s still no proper theory of ID. Indeed, most of the ID supporters have bailed. The year Paul said that, there were hundreds of different commenters here. Now there are what? A dozen? Two dozen?
There isn’t a scientific theory of evolution, Jim. That said, unlike evolutionism, ID makes testable claims.
https://arcapologetics.org/objections/evolution-in-crisis/
Thibodeau: Just bashing “Darwinism” over and over, year after year, accomplishes nothing.
Oh. Supposedly the founding of an ID think tank in Brazil is nothing. Same for one in the UK: https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2010/oct/01/centre-intelligent-design-science-religion
I suppose interest in Turkey and resulting conferences in Turkey are nothing: https://evolutionnews.org/2017/05/intelligent-design-goes-international-a-report-from-istanbul/
Supposedly the recent refutation of neo-Darwinism by a major computer science prof at Princeton is nothing – based on a reading of books doing plenty of “bashing”. Same for a major paleontologist in Germany. Same for the most famous modern philosopher in England (Anthony Flew), who was converted from atheism to deism after reading ID books a couple of years before his death. Same for introducing yours truly ca. 2004 to the hopeless conundrums and contradictions of Darwinism., Same with millions of other citizens of Western countries, many of whom contribute significant funds to the “bashing of Darwinism” which obviously has had a widespread effect in the culture.
re Jim Thibodeau @ 1
CHAUFFEUR: The car is broken down, sir.
THE BOSS: The car is what?
CHAUFFEUR: We’ll have to walk.
THE BOSS: You think I spent $275,163.21 on this vehicle so I could walk? I’m not going anywhere.
CHAUFFEUR: Forgive my candor, sir, but sitting in the drivers seat saying, “varoom-varoom-varoom,” probably won’t work.
Ouch Jim Thibodeau!
Jim Thibodeau claims,
Interesting claim seeing that there is no known ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for Darwinists to base their mathematics on, (as other theories of science, including Intelligent Design, have laws to base their mathematics on).
As Murray Eden of MIT once explained, in a paper entitled “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory”, “the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
And as Robert J. Marks also explained, “Hard sciences are built on foundations of mathematics or definitive simulations. Examples include electromagnetics, Newtonian mechanics, geophysics, relativity, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, optics, and many areas in biology. Those hoping to establish Darwinian evolution as a hard science with a model have either failed or inadvertently cheated.”
In fact, not only is there no ‘law of evolution’ within the known physical universe for Darwinists to build a realistic mathematical model upon, the second law of thermodynamics, entropy, a law with great mathematical explanatory power in science directly, or almost directly, contradicts the primary Darwinian claim that greater and greater levels of functional complexity can easily be had and/or ‘naturally selected’ for over long periods of time. Indeed, entropy’s main claim is that, over long periods of time, everything in the universe will eventually decay into simpler and simpler states until what is termed thermodynamic equilibrium is finally reached.
And whereas Darwinian evolution has no known law of nature to appeal to so as to establish itself as a proper, testable, science, Intelligent Design does not suffer from such an embarrassing disconnect from physical reality. In other words, Intelligent Design can appeal directly to ‘the laws of conservation of information’ (Dembski, Marks, etc..) in order to establish itself as a proper, testable, and rigorous science.
And since Intelligent Design is mathematically based on the ‘law of conservation of information’, that makes Intelligent Design very much testable and potentially falsifiable, and thus makes Intelligent Design, unlike Darwinism, a rigorous science instead of a unfalsifiable pseudoscience.
In fact there is currently up to a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person that can “Show an example of Information that doesn’t come from a mind. All you need is one.”
Thus, Jim Thibodeau may say that ‘evolution is science’ until he is blue in the face, but the simple fact of the matter is that evolution simply does not qualify as a “hard science” since it has no known laws of the universe to base its math on.
Shoot, by any reasonable measure one may seek to establish Darwinian evolution as a ‘hard science’, evolution fails to meet those ‘reasonable’ criteria as well:
By all rights, Darwinian evolution should be classified more as pseudoscientific religion for atheists rather than as a hard science:
I see Behe’s theory as a huge step forward for ID. If mutations and adaptions are truly the result of loss of function then the natural conclusion, of ID is true, is that the designer is constantly intervening to add new functionality. Otherwise life would have lost all functionality millions of years ago. This continual intervention must leave some evidence. It should not be difficult to identify it
Ed George @8
I hear you, and that would be psychedelic! I look forward to keeping my ear to the ground for the rumble of breakthroughs. But at the same time, I would add a cautionary note.
It makes sense to me that if how the information required for life to start and diversify was developed and encoded cannot be explained by chemical reactions and physics and whatnot, and if the intelligent agent posited by our “inference to the best explanation” isn’t hawking a detailed tell-all, despite the massive publishing advance that would be involved — maybe it was God, maybe it was an alien, either way, if they’re mum — it seems to me that how life started and diversified is going to be a much bigger hurdle than we figured back in 1859. A reverse-engineering nightmare, even.
If Newton’s apple falling from a tree was hard — he had to invent calculus just to explain his physics — and if Einstein is harder, it’s a real bummer that we’ve lost a theory that did the trick for life, which the veriest idiot could understand and wholeheartedly get behind — spending his or her leisure hours trolling anyone on the Internet who disagrees.
Speaking of lingo like “psychedelic” and “bummer,” I’ve got a bad habit when I respond to people on the Internet who act like, just because there is a problem, there has to be a solution. “Okay Boomer.” (Like a said, it’s a bad habit; especially seeing as how I am one too.) Maybe I should say, rather, “Yeah well, maybe. Who knows? Keep on a’lookin’, Pilgrim!” Better?
Ten Hours of “Boomer Sooner”
Earth to Eddie- Random, as in chance, mutations lead to loss of function. But that loss of function can be beneficial. That is the context of Dr. Behe’s premise. If what he says is true then what is being taught in schools is a lie. And what he says is true.
Jstanley, what I am trying to say is that evolution postulates that the source of all new function, ultimately, is mutation and other sources of “genetic shuffling”. But if, as Behe proposes, these processes can only result in loss of function, even if they can provide some adaptive advantage, that over millions of years, all function must be lost. But we don’t see this. The alternatives are either 1) Behe is wrong, or 2) the designer is continuously intervenes to add function back in and leaves absolutely no evidence of these actions. I would lean towards Behe being wrong. Especially considering the extensive research showing examples of mutations resulting in new function.
I would argue that there is no such thing as devolution – except in the political sense. There are living things that change over time, that’s all.
One of the processes that enable that change is genetic mutation. The majority of those mutations have little or no observable effect. A smaller number are definitely harmful. A much smaller number still are beneficial.
The neutral mutations are effectively invisible to natural selection. The detrimental mutations are the ones that will tend to be filtered out over time by natural selection, leaving the beneficial ones to flourish.
That’s in principle. In practice, life is a messy business. There are no guarantees. The ‘signal’ of a beneficial mutation might easily be swamped by the ‘noise’ of harmful mutations such that the unfortunate species goes extinct in spite of it. Successful animals such as the dinosaurs can be overwhelmed by natural disasters long before any beneficial mutations could kick in.
It’s estimated that 99% of all species that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct. And we seem to be doing our level best to push that number even higher.
Like I said, life is a messy and wasteful business and it’s what you might expect from a natural process like evolution. A gain of function increases the chances of survival? So be it. A loss of some function improves the chances of survival? Make it so. Who cares? It’s whatever works in that time and at that place.
The problem is that, while evolutionary biology has no problem living with all that waste and inefficiency, ID theorists do. They have to explain away evidence that suggests a Designer that is incredibly wasteful and incompetent and a far cry from the Creator they feel drawn to worship.
“Ed George”:
Mainstream evolution postulates that the source of all new function arose by chance. ID postulates that organisms were designed to evolve and evolved by design.
That isn’t what Dr. Behe proposes.
Such as? Seeing that you don’t know what Behe is saying and also given your penchant for equivocating, my bet is that either you won’t reference anything or what you reference will be BS.
seversky:
And I can show you instances in which it is known to occur- loss of sight comes to mind.
Loss of function can be beneficial. That’s the whole point. It is all contingent serendipity, as far as blind watchmaker evolution is concerned.
EXACTLY! And THAT is why you have to be daft to think such a process can create the diversity of life. You have to be so aft and desperate that you are forced into strawman manufacture.
Pathetic, really.
.
Jim Thibodeau in #1,
ID is opposed to doctrine of materialism, not the evolvable nature of the living cell. A legitimate and unambiguous inference to design is on the table because the physical system that enables biological evolution is a known system; it was predicted to exist, its material features are uniquely describable, and it is a universal correlate of intelligence.
This is an empirical and historical reality. In the practice of science, it must be treated as such. It cannot be kicked out of the conversation based on the socio-political identities of the people who acknowledge the facts; it is likewise unresolved by the declarations of judges, or by how many people choose to visit a website.
@12 Seversky
Beneficial for what?
There is no goal in evolution. You yourself said it: ‘There are living things that change over time’.
Again, neutral with respect to what? It seems like you have a ‘purpose’ in mind.
Bad naturalist, stuff happens is what happens.
‘Hey fellas, I have found a beneficial mutation. Benefitial for nothing really, because purpose does not exist in ‘nature’.
‘It is pretty ridiculous, but I am a naturalist, so speaking non-sense is allowed’.
‘If you worship lab coats, you get used to disregard logic’.
*Have discovered*, *beneficial*.
Neurons informing them-selves.
Truthfreedom, 16: Beneficial for what?
For the individual and its descendants, i.e the descendants/offspring will be better able to exploit the environmental conditions so that their population percentages increase with respect to the base population. So, they may be able to escape predators better, they may be able to reach more food, they may be better able to survive local climatic conditions, they may have larger ‘litters’, they may have smaller litters (thereby having more time to protect and guide their offspring, etc. There are lots of different survival techniques/ways of producing more descendants.
Again, neutral with respect to what? It seems like you have a ‘purpose’ in mind.
Neutral with respect to survival advantage or disadvantage, i.e. some mutations have no effect on the organism’s ability to survive.
Beneficial could be just about anything- from better to best eyesight to no sight at all. Taller, shorter, bigger, smaller, faster, slower, stripes, spots, plain.
It is all contingent serendipity.
.
How many of these advantageous or disadvantageous mutations require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place?
ET, 20: Beneficial could be just about anything- from better to best eyesight to no sight at all. Taller, shorter, bigger, smaller, faster, slower, stripes, spots, plain.
It all depends on the local environmental conditions, the other life forms present and the capabilities of the organism in question and the particular mutations that occur.
UBP, 21: How many of these advantageous or disadvantageous mutations require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place?
The mutations have to have an effect on the ability of the organism to generate surving descendants in order to be considered ‘advantageous’ or disadvantageous’. Since we’re still not sure what the first basic self-replicator was like it’s hard to say when the kind of system you’re referring to was in place.
I’m thinking of viruses . . . they don’t have ‘bodies’ or structures but some do better than others because their combination of factors matches the environment they are in better than some others. But, to be honest my knowledge of origin of life research is not great.
.
Okay … so how many of these advantageous or disadvantageous mutations require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place?
UBP, 23: Okay … so how many of these advantageous or disadvantageous mutations require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place?
Again, I would think it would depend on what stage of the development of life you’re referring to. Are we talking very near the origin of life or later in the process?
I don’t know how to answer your question as stated.
.
The “stage of development” I was referring to?
I was asking you about your statement. So, once again, how many of these advantageous or disadvantageous mutations require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place?
UBP, 25: I was asking you about your statement. So, once again, how many of these advantageous or disadvantageous mutations require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place?
You posed the initial question which you haven’t varied so, as I said, I do not know how to answer your question as stated. If you’d like to be a bit more specific then I MIGHT have some better idea.
Are you talking about mutations in organisms near the beginning of the origin of life or later? Which life forms are you asking about?
JVL:
Contingent serendipity. It is definitely impotent with respect to universal common descent.
Upright Biped:
Every. Single. One.
It’s not that difficult, JVL.
.
Did you notice these two sentences in my previous comment (its the part of my comment that you did not include in your response):
I am going to go out on a limb and stand by my assumption that you had some idea of Life in mind when you wrote the words “for the individual and its descendants” in your comments above. If that assumption is unfounded, then just let me know. If not, then my question stands. How many of these advantageous or disadvantageous mutations require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place?
ET, 28: Every. Single. One.
Strictly speaking mutations require nothing, they just happen randomly. But I was assuming that Ubp was getting at something more involved. And then I don’t think it’s clear.
UBP, 29: Did you notice these two sentences in my previous comment (its the part of my comment that you did not include in your response):
Yes, I did notice. I am responding to your original question again.
I am going to go out on a limb and stand by my assumption that you had some idea of Life in mind when you wrote the words “for the individual and its descendants” in your comments above.
Yes but I think the answer to your question might depend on whether you’re asking about a basic self-replicator or something more complicated.
Viruses are arguably alive (it’s contentious, granted) but they do not ‘code’ for proteins or more complicated structures. They just get copied.
JVL:
So they can occur outside of a cell? Without proteins? Do tell.
That’s debatable, but I understand that is what mainstream evolution posits.
JVL:
Viruses require a functioning, living organism for a host. Viruses have a nucleic acid sequences based on the same coding as the hosts use.
From the Wikipedia article on viruses:
ET, 32: That’s debatable, but I understand that is what mainstream evolution posits.
Thanks for that! I realise how significant that is for you.
33: Viruses require a functioning, living organism for a host. Viruses have a nucleic acid sequences based on the same coding as the hosts use.
But if they don’t code for proteins then the sequence ain’t a code for them is it? It’s just a chemical bonding sequence. That’s the question.
JVL:
Facts and reality should be significant for you, too. But I understand that you have issues with them.
The book “Not By Chance” was published in 1997. You seem to be decades behind.
Why did you avoid the most important part? So they (mutations) can occur outside of a cell? Without proteins? Do tell.
That requires a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place. Or nothing happens.
.
Good grief JVL, you seem to really be struggling to answer an entirely unambiguous question about your own equally unambiguous statement. Is it indeed an unfounded assumption to think that you had some concept in your mind about the organisms you were speaking of? Is that really unfounded; it seems rather incoherent to think anything else. When you wrote “for the individual and its descendants”</i< did you not have something in mind? When you suggested ”they may be able to escape predators better“ did you make that suggestion without any conception whatsoever of any life form that it might apply to? Of course not. So what’s the problem? It is those organisms (the ones you were speaking about) that I asked my question. So, once again: How many of these advantageous or disadvantageous mutations require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place?
ET, 35: Why did you avoid the most important part? So they (mutations) can occur outside of a cell? Without proteins? Do tell.
Do viruses generate proteins or just exploit them? Is their sequence a ‘code’ or just a chemical game that depends on basic chemical rules?
Holy whacko. Viruses require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place. Or nothing happens.
A virus doesn’t have the machinery to generate proteins. But viruses require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place. Or nothing happens.
In order for a virus to mutate during replication it requires a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place. Or nothing happens.
UBP, 36: When you wrote “for the individual and its descendants”</i< did you not have something in mind? When you suggested ”they may be able to escape predators better“ did you make that suggestion without any conception whatsoever of any life form that it might apply to? Of course not. So what’s the problem?
I didn’t think it was clear (and I didn’t want to assume) that when you asked your question that you were restricting it. I was trying to make sure you had the chance to be clear.
So, since we now know you are referring to multicellular life forms . . . mutations require nothing, they just happen when cells reproduce. They’re just mistakes.
What you’re really asking is: How many of these mutations require a “working multi-referent symbol system to be in place” in order to have an effect on the physiology of the organism and its offspring. I think. Please correct if necessary.
I suppose it’s first necessary to acknowledge that the answer must be: all or none. But, I suppose, a case can be made that neutral mutations do not require “a working multi-referent symbol system” to be in place since they have no effect on physiology.
There is research which suggests that the genetic “code” isn’t a real “code” in that it might not be completely arbitrary. IF it is based on chemical bonds then there would be no requirement for “a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place” since that wouldn’t be the basis of the system.
IF the genetic code really is a purely arbitrary, abstract code then YES the question of where it came from and how it got implemented and enforced is a huge question. I think that’s what you wanted me to get to. But I seriously think there are reasons for questioning whether or not the “code” is actually arbitrary.
So, I’m going to wait and see what the research suggests. I don’t think it’s correct to second guess work that hasn’t been done yet. I’m happy to accept that everyone who claimed that there was a genetic “code” might have been wrong. Are you?
ET, 38: A virus doesn’t have the machinery to generate proteins. But viruses require a working multi-referent symbol system to be in place. Or nothing happens.
But doesn’t it suggest to you that it’s possible that there could be a basic, simple replicator that could just reproduce exploiting existing environmental chemicals? I don’t think we know the answer to that question yet. I’m happy to keep an open mind and decide after the work has been done. We both have our opinions and guesses but, honestly, don’t we still have to wait until more work has been done?
JVL:
Reference please. Hopefully you link to Yarus, et al.
It uses chemical bonds to be carried out, yes. But how can it be based on chemical bonds? What determined which codon represented what amino acid? What chemical bonds?
JVL:
No. Molecules just don’t replicate. You need a catalyst and a template. Then you need to go from that basic replicator to a coded information processing system. Why? Nature is fine with stones and minerals.
ET, 41: Reference please. Hopefully you link to Yarus, et al.
Some of the papers referenced in the Wikipedia article are behind a paywall which I can do nothing about but you can go to the link and see the references. Anyway, from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code#Origin
It uses chemical bonds to be carried out, yes. But how can it be based on chemical bonds? What determined which codon represented what amino acid? What chemical bonds?
I guess you’ll have to start tracking down some references.
No. Molecules just don’t replicate. You need a catalyst and a template.
But what if the first basic replicator was not a “molecule”? Not in the sense we use that term now anyway.
And, again, why not wait until more work is done before making a fast and final call? What’s the rush?
Speigelman’s Monster reign’s supreme with respect to molecular replicators. Not a molecule?
Sort of like gibberish?
And if there are RNA triplet to amino acid associations that just gets in the way of producing the system currently in use.
It’s pretty cool how I called that one, eh, JVL? Two of the papers referenced in your Wikipedia quote are from Yarus, et al. 😎 Don’t feel like beating that dead horse again. But I am sure that upright biped will step in and help you out.
.
Sorry for the delay, a rack of baby-back ribs took priority.
So which is it? If you answer “all of them” then your answer is congruent with the fact that the symbol system was famously used predicted to exist prior to being found, then it was found, then it was carefully and unambiguously documented in the physics literature to be just as it was first predicted to be. If you answer “none of them” then your answer is a sweeping denial of the well-documented history of science, as well as its experimental results. If, on the other hand, your desire is simply to ignore the documented history and empirical facts surrounding the system — in the hopes that your personal assumptions about it will someday be shown to be true — then your position is plainly illogical, non-falsifiable, and anti-science. In other words, the symbol system is a symbol system based on the recorded science, regardless of whether or not you find it ideologically uncomfortable. As a materialist you can either acknowledge that your preferred metaphysical assumptions must produce a multi-referent symbol system (using discontinuous association, spatial orientation, language structure, and semantic-closure in order to exist and persist over time), or, you can be demonstrably anti-science and frankly anti-intellectual.
If you’d like, we can start walking through the physical findings of the symbol system, one by one, and see how well you can ignore them.
Jim Thibodeu:
I would slightly disagree with you here. I think Darwinian evolution is beginning to slip.
However, there is a bigger point you haven’t addressed: Behe’s Darwin Devolves makes the case that what we know as Darwinian evolution borders on the trivial. The case Behe makes is that the “First Rule of Adaptation” is that organisms begin breaking and altering what already exists–that is, they don’t bring anything of any consequence into existence; and, further, that the ease with which organisms can ‘break’ things puts typical Darwinian evolution/mechanisms at a severe disadvantage.
So, while Darwinian evolution might be the “current paradigm,” it looks feeble and inconsequential. Another way of putting this is that by using Darwinian thought, scientists end up “barking up the wrong tree.”
As to the number of commentators here, I wrote a blog post about four years ago entitled, “The War is Over: We Won!”. I’m not interested in posting article and getting into discussions with Darwinists because they’re simply wrong and take positions that are indefensible. IOW, I don’t want to waste my time.
The “Darwin Wars” are over–there is nothing left to say. With time, Darwinism will be seen to be more and more wrong. In the meantime, the Darwinists will enforce their orthodoxy and the “current paradigm” will remain Darwinism.
Take an article, whenever you see the word “evolve” being used, either substitute “changed” or “adapted,” and you’ll find that nothing of value will have been lost. Darwinism is no more than a narrative gloss.
@19 JVL
Truthfreedom asked (16):
JVL replied:
So survival + consequent reproduction are the ‘goals of evolution’?
@47 PaV
Excellent blog post. Thank you for the link.
Truthfreedom, 48: So survival + consequent reproduction are the ‘goals of evolution’?
There are no goals! There is no “directive”, no target. You might not like the use of “beneficial” or “selection” but it’s clear what they mean in this context.
@JVL 50
So I was right. Under naturalism, there is no purpose to anything.
-Of course I do not like arbitrary and non-sensical terminologies.
Neither should you.
Naturalism makes no sense. It contradicts it-self (pun intended).
JVL:
Just another reason why unguided evolution is impotent with respect to universal common descent and producing protein machines.
From the OP: “ it. It’s not that life forms can’t develop complex new equipment. But such changes probably aren’t an instance of natural selection acting on random mutation.”
Can you give me an example?
And as far as how organisms change, how they adapt to their surroundings, Darwinian theory says that an external mechanism is the cause (natural selection which acts on random mutations), so ID is the opposite; adaptive change happens by endogenous mechanisms that are not random. On its fave it’s as simple as that, as the individual himself is his own creative force. “Evolution” over time is just a process of conscious individuals who are intelligently responding to environmental challenges with an array of endogenous mevchanusms.
ID says that organisms were intelligently designed with the ability to adapt and evolve. That would mean they were given the information to do so.
I would suggest organisms were given the intellectual capacity to perceive environmental information, and then use that to alter their own biological information….aka their genes/physiology. The living organism is a mindful, creative entity. The environment is informative; the organism responds to it and changes itself adaptively.
“Built-in responses to environmental cues”- Dr. Lee Spetner in “Not By Chance”.
Apparently my offer (to discuss the material and organizational hurdles described in the literature) was unwanted by our neutral friend with the open mind. I bet there is a self-serving reason for that.