Intelligent Design VS. Evolution (Be Convinced of the Truth)

[جوري]

Hehe... no. Not exactly.

ok ...

I've said before that I'm puzzled as to why people are so reluctant to dismiss the theory of evolution (accept in the case of man; I know there is a Qur'anic reason for that)

I am afraid you have lost me there [dismiss it, but accept it in man?]

when I see no reason that, if there is a God, the evolutionary mechanism itself could not be His creation. The argument repeated ad infinitum is that such and such could not have happened by 'chance', but if God 'designed' evolution no 'chance' is involved.

If evolution is a reality, but the process was designed by God, then there is no reason why that mechanism alone should not be sufficient to create whatever species God wanted created... indeed assuming the usual properties assigned to God it is illogical that anything else (such as subsequent intervention) would be necessary. I think it just comes down to the automatic (but incorrect) association of evolution with atheism made by some posters - indeed one or two even seem to think 'evolutionist' and 'atheist' are synonyms!

I find Melkikh's article of particular interest as it puts a little 'meat on the bones' of the idea that the evolutionary mechanism could have been designed and what such a design might actually require in practical terms - although he does not suggest divine design himself, of course. I was just curious to see if something more concrete might have made people more receptive to the idea.

What you propose is a tentative insight into the natural world; based on an a priori judgment ... you can not beyond a reasonable doubt verify certain aspects of it as true-- and if indeed true it wouldn't explain certain other facts or phenomena in the natural world. Such as those propositioned in the afore enclosed articles -- The physics and probability of these chance evolutionary encounters coming together, assembling a primitive cell from which all else ricocheted perfectly hence forth into the right direction so to speak! ...
Essentially what we are all doing is hypothesizing!.. I don't know or assume to know what G-D's plan is (from an evolutionary or a creation perspective) outside the confines studied and established by Islamic jurisprudence to further agree or disagree with what you have just proposed.... And certainly my religion or beliefs wouldn't be brought down to partial ruins if any of the hypothesis you propose or that are taught conventionally were to one day be proven as facts.
Atheist or not, everyone on some level has to agree that something very chimerical has happened at one point to give us this positive cascade.. a shower of perfect life favoring events.. irrespective of whom wants to label it what--- matter, energy interactions, or G-D!....
Something very fantastic and out of the ordinary has happened and continues to happen within ourselves and the universe, though most people go about without heed to cause or consequence...

peace!

 

[Malaikah]

Question for any creationists and ID fans who have read Melkikh's article (confession... the math rather passed me by; I'll take his word it!);

Do you consider it possible that God could have designed the "mechanism of deterministic evolution" Melkikh suggests, i.e by establishing the properties of proteins and nucleotides that predetermine the species possible? If so, would you accept that, logically, having done so there would be no need for subsequent intervention by God in the evolutionary process?

Hey, I didn't read the article, hope that doesn't effect my answer though. :X

Evolution happens through mutations, right? Mutations occur randomly (though directed by God, in my belief) and they escape the cells repair mechanisms, so they might to some extent be reflective of the cells bias in being able to correct mutations but not others, but overall I think that "subsequent intervention by God" would still be needed to direct the type of mutations that happen.

 

[MustafaMc]

I've said before that I'm puzzled as to why people are so reluctant to dismiss the theory of evolution (accept in the case of man; I know there is a Qur'anic reason for that) when I see no reason that, if there is a God, the evolutionary mechanism itself could not be His creation. The argument repeated ad infinitum is that such and such could not have happened by 'chance', but if God 'designed' evolution no 'chance' is involved. If evolution is a reality, but the process was designed by God, then there is no reason why that mechanism alone should not be sufficient to create whatever species God wanted created... indeed assuming the usual properties assigned to God it is illogical that anything else (such as subsequent intervention) would be necessary. I think it just comes down to the automatic (but incorrect) association of evolution with atheism made by some posters - indeed one or two even seem to think 'evolutionist' and 'atheist' are synonyms!

I understand that your point is if God created the process of evolution, then there is no need form Him to continually direct and tweak the process because it does what it was supposed to do. Of course, if God made the process, it has to be perfect and return the intended result all by itself.

Please, humor me and allow the use of an analogy. Suppose that I have a brand new red Ford Mustang that runs perfectly and I want to go to the the mall to buy my wife some perfume. I get in the driver seat, start the engine, put the automatic transmission in gear, turn the radio to my favorite station, and then recline the seat to rest while my new car takes me to the mall and parks close to the entrance so I don't have far to walk. What is the probability that the car will actually make it to the mall without me "directing" the trip by changing the gear selector from reverese to drive, making a left turn out of my driveway, traversing all the curves to the next turn and finally turning right into the mall parking lot and finding an open parking space? There may come a time when this is a poor analogy, but today what do you imagine the probability is of my car getting to the mall all by itself? Given an infinite amount of time and an infinite number of cars, will even one of them only one time do as I want it to do?

I find Melkikh's article of particular interest as it puts a little 'meat on the bones' of the idea that the evolutionary mechanism could have been designed and what such a design might actually require in practical terms - although he does not suggest divine design himself, of course. I was just curious to see if something more concrete might have made people more receptive to the idea.

Actually, you missed the central point or word - deterministic as opposed to casual.

de·ter·min·ism
1 a : a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws b : a belief in predestination
2 : the quality or state of being determined

versus

ca·su·al
1 : subject to, resulting from, or occurring by chance

Quoting from the article:

"Thus, the probability that mutated nucleotides prove to be exactly the ones needed for formation of a new species is vanishingly small: new species of organisms could not appear due to undirected mutations."

"Thus, species could not appear due to undirected mutations. Therefore, a considerable part of mutations and operations of the horizontal transport of genes are directed to creation of new organisms a priori adapted to new ecological conditions. In this case, the very mechanism of evolution changes drastically: it turns from casual to determined."

"The structure and chemical properties of nucleotides, amino acids and other substances essential for life are such that changes in the genome, which lead to appearance of new species, becomes controllable. The formation of new species represents a deterministic process approaching the morphogenesis."

Bottom line is that the author was making a strong case against random mutations as the source for the genetic variability needed for natural selection to act upon. By saying that new species could not appear due to undirected mutations, he is making the case that the mutations are controlled or directed to drive the evolutionary process for a new, predetermined (designed) species to fit into a niche. Although he does not say who or what is directing the process, we believers call this entity God or Allah.

 

[MustafaMc]

Question for any creationists and ID fans who have read Melkikh's article (confession... the math rather passed me by; I'll take his word it!);

Do you consider it possible that God could have designed the "mechanism of deterministic evolution" Melkikh suggests, i.e by establishing the properties of proteins and nucleotides that predetermine the species possible? If so, would you accept that, logically, having done so there would be no need for subsequent intervention by God in the evolutionary process?

It seems that you paraphrased part of the conclusion in his article:

"The structure and chemical properties of nucleotides, amino acids and other substances essential for life are such that changes in the genome, which lead to appearance of new species, become controllable. The formation of new species represents a deterministic process approaching the morphogenesis."

The point is that the the properties of proteins and nucleotides are such that the process of changes in the genetic blueprint becomes controllable. Controllabe/deterministic is contrary to random/casual. This article is calling for a paradigm shift in scientific thinking about evolution. Another way of saying it is deterministic Intelligent Design Evolution vs random Naturalistic Evolution.

 

[جوري]

Please, humor me and allow the use of an analogy. Suppose that I have a brand new red Ford Mustang that runs perfectly and I want to go to the the mall to buy my wife some perfume. I get in the driver seat, start the engine, put the automatic transmission in gear, turn the radio to my favorite station, and then recline the seat to rest while my new car takes me to the mall and parks close to the entrance so I don't have far to walk. What is the probability that the car will actually make it to the mall without me "directing" the trip by changing the gear selector from reverese to drive, making a left turn out of my driveway, traversing all the curves to the next turn and finally turning right into the mall parking lot and finding an open parking space? There may come a time when this is a poor analogy, but today what do you imagine the probability is of my car getting to the mall all by itself? Given an infinite amount of time and an infinite number of cars, will even one of them only one time do as I want it to do?
.

Sobhan Allah when I read that I thought if only one would consider an event in one tiny cell made to ensure a functional protein one that must contain 130 amino acid residues.. after the painstaking task of transcription we end up with a mRNA that contains both introns and exons.. this type of RNA would be called pre-RNA or HetroNuclear RNA, it must be processed to mature mRNA by post-transcriptional modification which includes 5' methyl guanisine capping and the addition of a 3' poly A tail and splicing only the exons that contain the proper nucleotide, base pair it all in the CORRECT order to result in an appropriate FUNCTIONAL protein, the introns would excised before translation by splicer protein.. Anything non-functional would be recognized and removed... and this happens round the clock in all cells which carry out different function, each in an of itself carrying the entire genetic code and is programmed to perform its specific function. a beta cell will produce its insulin a fibroblast its collagen, though each having the ability to basically do anything it wants... contrast that with any human run factory, have you known a factory to function on its own accord round the clock even the death of its members is programmed so that nothing is disorderly under normal physiological conditions? Have you known a factory to function at all with no staff and no management, and no end product for no apparent reason?
Sometimes I get weary having to write that which should be obscenely obvious even to someone suffering extreme form of myopia. Certain times when I have a lucid to myself moment, I feel rather glad we have such refractory beings in our midst who pose such derisory and preposterous comments and observation to the world around them.. It makes for a special gift for the rare few who choose to reflect!..

 

[Trumble]

Please, humor me and allow the use of an analogy. Suppose that I have a brand new red Ford Mustang that runs perfectly and I want to go to the the mall to buy my wife some perfume. I get in the driver seat, start the engine, put the automatic transmission in gear, turn the radio to my favorite station, and then recline the seat to rest while my new car takes me to the mall and parks close to the entrance so I don't have far to walk. What is the probability that the car will actually make it to the mall without me "directing" the trip by changing the gear selector from reverese to drive, making a left turn out of my driveway, traversing all the curves to the next turn and finally turning right into the mall parking lot and finding an open parking space? There may come a time when this is a poor analogy, but today what do you imagine the probability is of my car getting to the mall all by itself? Given an infinite amount of time and an infinite number of cars, will even one of them only one time do as I want it to do?

It's a feeble analogy now. Sticking with it for a moment, unlike the designers of the Ford Mustang, God must be able to design a car that not only runs perfectly but allows you to tell it to go to the mall, drives you there in perfect safety (just like everyone else on the road) and wakes you up when you get there. The only thing 'directing' the trip would be the car itself, according to pre-programmed information (which actually is a reasonable analogy with Melkikh). If God designed the car, He would not subsequently be needed to turn the wheel and shift gear unless for some reason He chose a sub-optimal design.

Actually, you missed the central point or word - deterministic as opposed to casual.

Actually, I did nothing of the sort.

The point is that the the properties of proteins and nucleotides are such that the process of changes in the genetic blueprint becomes controllable. Controllabe/deterministic is contrary to random/casual. This article is calling for a paradigm shift in scientific thinking about evolution. Another way of saying it is deterministic Intelligent Design Evolution vs random Naturalistic Evolution.

An interesting interpretation, but not Dr Melkikh's! He is suggesting an alternative to intelligent design as a solution for the problem he perceives, (as is made clear here) suggesting both the nature of the 'molecular machine' and the source of it's data.

"The problem is that the Darwin mechanism of the evolution (a random process) cannot explain the known rate of the species evolution. In accordance with the very first estimates, the total number of possible combinations of nucleotides in the DNA is about 4^(2 * 10^9) (because four types of nucleotides are available, while the number of nucleotides in the DNA of higher organisms is about 2*10^9). This figure is much larger than the number of all organisms, which have ever lived on Earth. Therefore, the evolution was not random. [...] From the viewpoint of the theory of random evolution, all genes are equal (no more or less important genes may exist), because all of them appeared by random mutations. In this case, an organism cannot know beforehand which genes it will need in the distant future. Thus, either a molecular or some other machine exists deciding on further evolution. However, such a machine will require certain reference samples for its operation establishing what is and what is not important for an organism. Or this machine [or Intelligent Designer] does not exist and, then, it is impossible to make a decision. There is no criterion to confirm that a set of nucleotides is the best one in a given situation."

Out of interest, HERE is the only peer review of the article I could find.

You have an interesting idea here, but I'm afraid that your analysis is quite unsound. It is unfortunate that you did not present a derivation for your first equation, which you rely upon to refute the possibility of Darwinian evolution. If there were a derivation one could point with more certainty as to where you went wrong. Here, however, are some thoughts.
As a subsidiary matter, there are other modes of mutation than nucleotide substitution, e.g., transposons, and chromosomal alterations. It may well be that nucleotide substitution, although important for genetic drift, is relatively unimportant as a mechanism for macroevolution. However the restriction to nucleotide substitution is not a critical source of error.

There is no appeciation of population dynamics and a misunderstanding of the nature of niches and their role in evolution.

The notion of a potential well as the maximum number of nucleotides that change before a species (or members of a species) become another species is interesting and may even be of some statistical utility. However the simple fact is that there is no such single numbers. In some cases different species can be separated by a handful of genomic differences. Contrariwise the members of a single species can have substantial differences in their genomes. It all depends on which genes are affected and in what way.

The crucial error may be a probability theory fallacy, that of calculating an a priori probability of some particular result and than claiming that the resulting small number means that the possibility of any change is remote. I suspect that the route that you took to get there is a belief that speciation and niche change are equivalent. This is not at all true. The number of potential species that could evolve from a given species is immense, and is vastly larger than the number of niches those potential species could occupy. For that matter it can happen that a given species can change niches.

That the paper's argument against the possibility of Darwinian evolution is fallacious is scarcely surprising. After all, Darwinian evolution has been exensively observed and studied both in the laboratory and in nature.

In the second part of your paper you introduce the idea of elementary particles having a complex inner structure. There is no particular experimental evidence for this notion, nor is there any place for such structures in current theory. Indeed, the experimental results that seem to rule out "no hidden variables" militate against the idea. Be that as it may, the idea is an interesting speculative possibility. More substance is required, however, for it to be more than handwaving. The notion of particle inner structure driving evolution is somewhat less plausible.

Sorry, nice try, but it doesn't fly.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Oh my I can't believe I missed out on this movie so long, subhanAllah these computersimulations are beatifull. I'd like to see root defend abiogensis and the chemical evolution of proteins by meteors hitting earth after watching this video.

 

[root]

Oh my I can't believe I missed out on this movie so long, subhanAllah these computersimulations are beatifull. I'd like to see root defend abiogensis and the chemical evolution of proteins by meteors hitting earth after watching this video.

What video?

 

[vpb]

A human is a level above animals, because he can believe in the unseen. How? bc we have the intelligence to discuss about something we haven't seen and come to the conclusion that it exists. Use our intellect. while animals believe only on things that their senses can feel. Indeed if a person rejects the belief on things which can't be seen has come on the same level with the animal, and has the same level of intelligence as i.e. a donkey.

The greatest stupidity is to say "No it doesn't exist" about something that you dont have knowledge of.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

What video?

Hi root,
The one of the opening post.

 

[ranma1/2]

A human is a level above animals, because he can believe in the unseen. How? bc we have the intelligence to discuss about something we haven't seen and come to the conclusion that it exists. Use our intellect. while animals believe only on things that their senses can feel. Indeed if a person rejects the belief on things which can't be seen has come on the same level with the animal, and has the same level of intelligence as i.e. a donkey.

The greatest stupidity is to say "No it doesn't exist" about something that you dont have knowledge of.

humans are no more above other animals than hippos are above us.
Other animals have been shown to have intellegence and we have discussed this in other threads. And I can think of many ways that animals exceed humans. It seems to be a very arbitray choice to pick intel over other aspects. I would think animals could be considered better since they arent as self distructive as humans are. They kill in general for survival. Humans do it for greed, power, jealousy etc.... of course im sure other animals may do these as well but humans excel at it.

 

[MustafaMc]

It's a feeble analogy now. Sticking with it for a moment, unlike the designers of the Ford Mustang, God must be able to design a car that not only runs perfectly but allows you to tell it to go to the mall, drives you there in perfect safety (just like everyone else on the road) and wakes you up when you get there. The only thing 'directing' the trip would be the car itself, according to pre-programmed information (which actually is a reasonable analogy with Melkikh). If God designed the car, He would not subsequently be needed to turn the wheel and shift gear unless for some reason He chose a sub-optimal design.

Sounds like "Intelliegent Design" just got surpassed by "Super Intelligent Design". Or do you still contend that the evolutionary process is a result of random mutations and natural selection without the involvement of a Higher Power?

 

[vpb]

humans are no more above other animals than hippos are above us.
Other animals have been shown to have intellegence and we have discussed this in other threads. And I can think of many ways that animals exceed humans. It seems to be a very arbitray choice to pick intel over other aspects. I would think animals could be considered better since they arent as self distructive as humans are.

so you think you are on the same level as a donkey??? ;D
would you have a problem from now on if I call you a donkey since "we are the same" ???

hmmm, I wonder why NONE of the animals managed to go to space or build a computer...hmmmmm

They kill in general for survival. Humans do it for greed, power, jealousy etc.... of course im sure other animals may do these as well but humans excel at it.

yes, this exactly proves that humans are above animals. bc animals only live an animal life, while humans live either to satisfy their desires which leads to hell, or obey Allah swt which leads to paradise.

 

[ranma1/2]

so you think you are on the same level as a donkey??? ;D
would you have a problem from now on if I call you a donkey since "we are the same" ???

hmmm, I wonder why NONE of the animals managed to go to space or build a computer...hmmmmm

yes, this exactly proves that humans are above animals. bc animals only live an animal life, while humans live either to satisfy their desires which leads to hell, or obey Allah swt which leads to paradise.

well to be honest i know many a person that are Asses.
Now being all superior and such you can swim underwater without hodling your breath right? you can outrun a lion? you can fly? other animals have advantages that are beyond you. You only pick intel since its the one thing we might excel at over other animals.

Then again as stated before. Other animals cant destroy on the level we can. In that aspect i see other animals as better than us.

 

[Trumble]

Sounds like "Intelliegent Design" just got surpassed by "Super Intelligent Design". Or do you still contend that the evolutionary process is a result of random mutations and natural selection without the involvement of a Higher Power?

I never have contended that. I don't rule out a "Higher Power" of some sort being responsible for the evolutionary mechanism itself, only that that mechanism would need tinkering with afterwards. ID, which suggests just such tinkering, is incoherent with the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent God. In which case, if one exists, the other cannot exist. Therefore if God exists, ID cannot.

hmmm, I wonder why NONE of the animals managed to go to space or build a computer...hmmmmm

Perhaps they had no need to do so? Whales and dolphins are considered quite bright as animals go.. what need would they have to go into space or build a computer? They can swim far faster than we can walk. Food is all around them. They have no need of shelter. They can communicate unaided across vast distances. And of course, lets think what else they and NONE of the animals have managed to do. Kill millions of their fellows in ideological and religious disputes. Build atom bombs. Create global warming with their pollution. Kill off large numbers of other species in the belief they are are somehow 'special' and entitled to use the world and its resources as they see fit? Hmmm......

 

[root]

Hi root,
The one of the opening post.

I watched it all. All it represented was the smudging of evolution & the origins of life which we all agree are two differing entities, the rest was just Behe of the discovery institute and his emty box.

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/published.shtml

No talk of abiogenesis nor panspermia at all other than in the context of the theory of evolution...........

Diisapointed so i am.

 

[MustafaMc]

I never have contended that. I don't rule out a "Higher Power" of some sort being responsible for the evolutionary mechanism itself, only that that mechanism would (not?) need tinkering with afterwards. ID, which suggests just such tinkering, is incoherent with the concept of an omniscient, omnipotent God. In which case, if one exists, the other cannot exist. Therefore if God exists, ID cannot.

I am sure that you understand what you are trying to say, but I am having major difficulty in understanding why you think that ID evolution is incompatible with an omnipotent God.

It has been 14 years since I minored in molecular biology, but I still have some understanding of developmental biology and gene expression. During the development of an individual from a single fertilized egg (>zygote) different genes are expressed in space and time even though all living cells of that individual are genetically identical. This process apparently occurs according to an extremely fine-tuned, pre-programmed plan that was set at the moment of fertilization. Initially, the zygote appears to be just a glob of undifferentiated cells, but there comes a time when one cell or set of cells is set to become a specific organ or appendage while others are set to become other organs. From what I remember, the position that cells occupy in the zygote relative to other cells determines the unique expression of specific regulatory genes that subsequently turn on some genes and turn off others. The process continues such that the organism starts to take some shape but with an amazing similarity between the embryos of different classes, orders, families, genera, and species. As the individual further differentiates, the fetuses of different taxonomical classifications start to become distinct from other organisms such that a hippo fetus becomes distinguishable from a human one. At birth most individuals of each species look and act pretty much the same as other individuals of the same species. Even though there are obvious differences such as black and white, male and female, how much and color of hair, length and weight, the full development of the individual continues long after birth.

All of this discourse was meant as an analogy with evolution. I have some understanding of how the genetic potential of an individual is set at fertilization and apparently doesn't need the continued direct intervention of God to become realized. I personally believe that God created the biological process and that He does not need to direct the division and differentiation of each and every cell in each and every individual that has ever existed. (Note: God's involvement in individual development can neither be proven nor disproven.)

If I understand you correctly, you believe the same way about the evolutionary process. That IF God was involved in the development of all new species that has ever existed, the fullest extent of that involvement could have been no more than the creation of the evolutionary mechanism. The following definition is also my understanding of naturalistic evolution. Is there an essential element that is missing?

Wikipedia
A species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another. However, when a species is separated into populations that are prevented from interbreeding, mutations, genetic drift, and the selection of different traits by different environments cause the accumulation of differences over generations and the emergence of new species. The similarities between organisms suggest that all known species are descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) through this process of gradual divergence.

Genetic mutation is the fundamental source for genetic variation that ultimately yields new species. How can a destructive process (mutation) be the cornerstone in a creative mechanism (evolution) that has yielded all existing and extinct species from a single unicellular organism without a Higher Power (God) directing the process? Whether God designed the perfect species-creating process (evolution) or personally created each and every species that has ever existed (creation), what is the point of trying to prove one over the other? Why are you so adamant in trying to prove that God does not direct the creation of new life forms?

 

[Trumble]

I am sure that you understand what you are trying to say, but I am having major difficulty in understanding why you think that ID evolution is incompatible with an omnipotent God.

I can't make it any clearer, I'm afraid. I think you may be having difficulty because you seem to think I am making some sort of scientific argument. I am not, I am making a purely philosophical argument.

Whether God designed the perfect species-creating process (evolution) or personally created each and every species that has ever existed (creation), what is the point of trying to prove one over the other?

Exactly! What is the point of trying to prove one over the other? But it isn't me trying to do that, it's the creationist contingent who insist of doing it. Those two are the only logically coherent options, I have demonstrated that ID is not (although obviously not to your satisfaction).

The point is that the first option is wholly compatible with Darwinian evolution while the second is totally incompatible with it. But both options are equally compatible with the existence of God ('Darwinism' does not equal 'atheism'), so why do so many people insist on denying that evolution by natural selection exists?

 

[MustafaMc]

I can't make it any clearer, I'm afraid. I think you may be having difficulty because you seem to think I am making some sort of scientific argument. I am not, I am making a purely philosophical argument.



Exactly! What is the point of trying to prove one over the other? But it isn't me trying to do that, it's the creationist contingent who insist of doing it. Those two are the only logically coherent options, I have demonstrated that ID is not (although obviously not to your satisfaction).

The point is that the first option is wholly compatible with Darwinian evolution while the second is totally incompatible with it. But both options are equally compatible with the existence of God ('Darwinism' does not equal 'atheism'), so why do so many people insist on denying that evolution by natural selection exists?

Perhaps you can see why I reject natural selection (NS) evolution if we make an analogy between the development of a single human from a fertilized egg with the evolution of the human species from a single unicellular common ancestor. We can use our imagination to see that as we developed in our mother's womb, each of us went through a mini-evolution within only 9 months. The difference with NS evo is that the entire blueprint for an individual is contained within that fertilized egg and it exists in the perfect incubatory environment to become realized. In the common ancestor there was not a complete blueprint for the development of each and every species. The simple act (according to NS evo) of going from a unicelluar prokaryotic organism such as a bacterium to a complex eukaryotic organism with bilateral symmetry is too complex to have happened without a Creator. Take the Mona Lisa painting as an example. If, rather than da Vinci painstakingly applying the paint to the canvas with a brush, what would the painting have looked like if he used his fingers instead and was blindfolded? How many times would he have to repeat the process for it to come out like the one in the museum? Just as this is an impossibility so too do I see undirected NS evo as the means for the origin of species.

Take the single globular protein hemoglobin that is essential for all multicellular animals. This protein is composed of 4 protein subunits each with a heme group containg iron. The sole purpose for hemoglobin is to transport oxygen from the lungs throughout the body and to return carbon dioxide from throughout the body back to the lungs for expulsion.

Wikipedia
Hemoglobin (Hb) is synthesized in a complex series of steps. The heme portion is synthesized in a series of steps which occur in the mitochondria and the cytosol of the immature red blood cell, while the globin protein portions of the molecule are synthesized by ribosomes in the cytosol. ... Mutations in the genes for the hemoglobin protein in humans result in a group of hereditary diseases termed the hemoglobinpathies, the best known of which is sickle-cell disease.

To my knowledge, there is no hemoblobin in any unicellular organism. The construction of a single protein unit of hemoglobin cannot evolve without a Creator. We see that mutations don't create a better hemoglobin rather they yield a less functional one that renders the individual less, not more, fit than the unmutated one. My understanding of science renders NS evo as completely illogical and statistically impossible. I stand back, look at the creation and say, "Glory to Allah the Creator of all that exists!"

 

[ranma1/2]

it would seem you have no understanding of NS or EVO.