I'm almost hesitant to post this, because this is a really good thread and I don't want to derail the conversation I'm learning so much from (I'm fairly ignorant when it comes to the nitty gritty of genetics, biology in general was always the hardest field for me by far).


My question is about design. If there were an intelligent force behind the design of living creatures, what is the explanation, if any for vestigial structures? Why would an intelligent design include function-less parts.

i must have missed it in all the manure: where did you specifically point out where the design occured?

Yes I am aware of that.  evolutionary processes have a chance component.
 

If you look back you will see that it is characterized as "unintentional constrained contingency".  Contingency is the chance component.  The constraint is said to be Natural Selection presumably by a confluence of physical laws.  Thank you for that bit of wisdom jpn.

True enough.  The number of atoms is not constant.  The number is the mass equivalent, it is estimated by gravitational measurements and therefore includes energy (Relativity theory has been confirmed on this point, unconstrained energy does indeed have inertia).  Furthermore the difference/error is in the noise since the number of elements in the periodic table is small so any error is less than three orders of magnitude.

Always happy to help you out, RF. 

I was working on a response to your other questions but did not finish.  Will post that tomorrow.


Atomic events are the smallest interactions that can act at the molecular level.  Mutations are molecular events.  Each relevant interaction is an opportunity for a chance event to cause the target event to occur. Therefore, once we've considered the possibility of 10^150 independent opportunities in figuring probability of an event or series of events, we have exhausted all the opportunities in the entire universe.

Experimental, theoretical and molecular biology has demonstrated that these mutations by observed evolutionary processes are limited in scope and don't seem to accumulate in accordance with an evolutionary pathway that the narrative presumes.  

Indications are that when more than three distinct alterations are required in a pathway to a modified form, evolutionary processes does not bridge this gap.  Analysis from probability studies provides the basis to explain why this is since the number of alternate permutations is so large and because the intermediate alterations are not selectable and therefore these intermediates do not form a large group, there simply are not enough opportunities for a functional set of alterations to arise.  Therefore if the functional gap is greater than three mutations in a typical sized protein, it just does not happen.


Fair enough.  In the example of flagellum I stipulated these proteins into existence, to simplify the calculations and to give chance an unearned advantage.   Therefore this presumption has no effect on this topic unless you are attempting to propose a presumed pathway to the finished product through mutation to avoid the combitorial requirement for localization and configuration.  Is this your purpose?



I think so.  It is the high level beginnings of the pathway.  As you continue to define the steps a complete pathway could emerge.  Then we can apply probability estimates to see if chance accounts for this pathway.


I think we are both pointing at the same issue but through different lenses.  You start with the presumption that evolution has executed a path but it is too tortuous for us to discover what that path was.  I believe that we can use probability to provide an indication of the confidence in the presumption.  

I look at evolutionary processes with skepticism and see the presumed tortuous path as too difficult for evolutionary processes to navigate and therefore doubt if the pathway actually exists at all.  The test for Specified Complexity gives us an objective way to infer which viewpoint is more likely correct.

I would appreciate it.  Short of these pathways, the only other possibility I can envision seems to be random mutation of nonfunctional surplus genes and pseudogenes or other such junk DNA until they happen to hit on new functional configurations.  The problem with this is that if Axe's research is correct, this process will hit on one of these once every 10^55 mutations, far too slowly to account for observed diversity.

Thank you for the compliment, I appreciate your patience with me and your knowledge and skill at explanations.


Objective and 10^150 as certainty. I'll have to check with our statisticians. I stop messing with data when I reach 0.95 confidence.
[/quote]

When I was working with statistical analysis of process data in California, I stopped at two standard deviations (about 96% for a normal distribution, I think).  The number 10^150 puts us so far beyond the numbers you and I accept it should not even be an issue.  The fact that some people do take issue with it is quite illuminating to me.