Mod+ Intelligent Design

The "evolution" of one enzyme to a closely related enzyme with seven nucleotide differences would take longer than the age of the earth.
The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions:
A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway
Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe
Enzymes group naturally into families according to similarity of sequence, structure, and underlying mechanism. Enzymes belonging to the same family are considered to be homologs--the products of evolutionary divergence, whereby the first family member provided a starting point for conversions to new but related functions. In fact, despite their similarities, these families can include remarkable functional diversity. Here we focus not on minor functional variations within families, but rather on innovations--transitions to genuinely new catalytic functions. Prior experimental attempts to reproduce such transitions have typically found that many mutational changes are needed to achieve even weak functional conversion, which raises the question of their evolutionary feasibility. To further investigate this, we examined the members of a large enzyme superfamily, the PLP-dependent transferases, to find a pair with distinct reaction chemistries and high structural similarity. We then set out to convert one of these enzymes, 2-amino-3-ketobutyrate CoA ligase (Kbl2), to perform the metabolic function of the other, 8-amino-7-oxononanoate synthase (BioF2). After identifying and testing 29 amino acid changes, we found three groups of active-site positions and one single position where Kbl2 side chains are incompatible with BioF2 function. Converting these side chains in Kbl2 makes the residues in the active-site cavity identical to those of BioF2, but nonetheless fails to produce detectable BioF2-like function in vivo. We infer from the mutants examined that successful functional conversion would in this case require seven or more nucleotide substitutions. But evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth. Considering that Kbl2 and BioF2 are judged to be close homologs by the usual similarity measures, this result and others like it challenge the conventional practice of inferring from similarity alone that transitions to new functions occurred by Darwinian evolution.
My previous post is about how difficult it is to "evolve" one enzyme from one function to another similar function. Now consider the differences between humans and apes:
A comparison of the complete human and chimp genomes has identified twenty distinct gene families, each with multiple genes, that are present in humans but absent from chimps and other mammals.
Comparing the human and chimpanzee genomes:
Searching for needles in a haystack
Ajit Varki and Tasha K. Altheide
LIFE HISTORY: Secondary Altriciality: Helplessness of the Newborn, Prolonged Helplessness of Young, Extended Care of Young, Childhood, Adolescence, Age at First Reproduction, Longevity.

REPRODUCTIVITY BIOLOGY: Concealed Ovulation, Virgin Breast Development, Female Pituitary Menopause, Placentophagy, Female Labia Majora, Vaginal Hymen, Baculum (Penis Bone), Sperm Count, Copulatory Plug.

EMBRYOLOGY: Early Fetal Wastage/Aneuploidy, Hydatiform Molar Pregnancy, Umbilical Cord Length.

PREGNANCY/PARTURITION: Cephalo-pelvic Disproportion, Duration of Labor, Maternal Mortality in Childbirth, Pain During Childbirth, Need for Assistance with, Childbirth, Neonatal Cephalhematoma.

POSTNATAL DEVELOPMENT: Late Closure of Cranial Sutures, Duration of Infant Arousal, Inconsolable Infant Crying, Infant-Caregiver Attunement, Maternal-Infant Eye-To-Eye Gaze.

ANATOMY: Sagittal Crest of Skull, Brow Ridge, Protuberantia Menti (Chin), Length of Sphenoid Sinus, Choroid Plexus Biondi Bodies, Inner Ear Canal Orientation, Apical Phalangeal Tufts, Age of Pelvic Bone Fusion, Bone Cortex Thickness, Laryngeal Position, Pharyngeal Air Sacs, Ear Lobes, Sexual Body Size Dimorphism, Lacrimal Gland Structure, Visible Whites of the Eyes, Small/Large Intestine Length Ratio, Meningeal Artery Source.

BIOMECHANICS: Bipedal Gait, Adductive Thumb, Skeletal Muscle Strength, Hand-Eye Coordination, Fine Motor Coordination, ORGAN PHYSIOLOGY, Aldosterone Response to Posture, Salt-Wasting Kidneys, Ability For Sustained Running, Voluntary Control of Breathing, Ability to Dive Underwater, Diving Reflex, Ability to Float/Swim, Emotion Lacrimation, Salt Content of Tears, Olfactory Sense.

CELL BIOLOGY: No Differences Are Known?.

BIOCHEMISTRY: Placental Alkaline Phosphatase, N-Glycolylneuraminic Acid Expression, Alpha 2-6-Linked Sialic Acid Expression.

ENDOCRINOLOGY: Thyroid Hormone Metabolism.

PHARMACOLOGY: Methylation of Inorganic Arsenic, ANATOMIC PATHOLOGY, Cortical Neurofibrillary Tangles.

CLINICAL PATHOLOGY: Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate, Serum Alkaline Phosphatase Level, RBC and Serum Folate, Serum Vitamin B12/B12 Binding, Total Leukocyte Count, Absolute Neutrophil Count, Absolute Lymphocyte Count.

DENTAL BIOLOGY/DISEASE: Canine Tooth Diastema, Canine Tooth Dysmorphism, Tooth Enamel Thickness, Retromolar Gap, Third Molar Impaction, Dental Eruption Sequence/Timing.

MEDICAL/SURGICAL DISEASES: HIV Progression to AIDS, P. falciparum malaria, Viral Hepatitis B/C Complications, Influenza A Infection Severity, Incidence of Carcinomas, Hemorrhoids, Varicose Veins, Pelvic Phleboliths, Foamy Virus (Spumavirus) Infections, Sexually Transmitted Diseases.

IMMUNOLOGY: Sialoadhesin on Macrophages.

SKIN BIOLOGY AND DISEASE: Eyebrows, Eccrine Sweat Glands, Acne Vulgaris, Subcutaneous Fat, Body Lice.

NUTRITION: Frugivory, Carnivory, Aquatic Foods, Underground Foods, Cooking.

NEUROANATOMY: Relative Brain Size, Direct Cortical Projections, Relative Volume of Frontal Cortex, Relative Volume of Corpus Callosum, Relative Volume of Cerebellum, % of Brain Growth Complete at Birth, Rate of Postnatal Brain Growth.

NEUROBIOLOGY: Population Distribution of, Handedness, Postnatal Dendritic Growth, Postnatal Synapse Formation, Cortical Synapse Density, Cortical Neuron Density, Dendrites Per Neuron, Synapses Per Neuron, Adult Neurogenesis, Cingulate Cortical Spindle Neurons, Finger Tip Sensory Nerve Endings.

NEUROCHEMISTRY: Brain Aromatisation of Testosterone, Tyrosine Hydroxylase Heterogeneity, MENTAL DISEASE, Schizophrenia, Bipolar Psychosis, Autism, Suicide.

BEHAVIOR: Control of Facial Expressions, Planning Ahead, Intentional Deception, Deliberately Delaying Gratification, Long-Range Transport of Materials, Secondary Tool-Making, Mechanical Multi-Tasking, Physical Abuse of the Young, Torture, Organized Warfare, Adult Play, Symbolic Play, Abuse of Other Animals, Inter-Group Coalition Formation, Use of Containers, Care of Infirm and Elderly, Grandparenting, Home Base, Control of Fire, Food Preparation, Organized Gathering of Food, Domestication of Animals, Domestication of Plants, Altruistic Punishment, Peace-Making, Somnambulism, Mind-Altering Drug Use.

COGNITIVE CAPACITY: Declarative Memory, Imitative Learning, Teaching, Symbolic Representation, Awareness of Death, Awareness of the Past, Awareness of the Future, Theory of Mind, Theory of Other Minds, Empathy, Numeracy, COMMUNICATION, “Parentese” Sounds, Infant “Protoconversations”, Gestural Communication, Symbolic Communication, Semantics, Grammar and Syntax, Recursion, Writing.

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION: Institutions: Social Conventions, Governments, Enforcement Through, Sanctions, CULTURE, Composition of Art, Composition of Music, Composition of Rhythms, Death Rituals, Clothing (Covering of, Body Parts), Rites of Passage, Genocide, Competitive Sports, Practicing of Skills, Physical Modifications of, the Body, Inheritance of Resources, and Status, Rythmic Dance, Sculpture, Belief in Supernatural/, Religion, Body Adornment, Childbirth Customs, Sexual Intercourse in Private, Gift-Giving, Hospitality, Intertwining (e.g.,, weaving), Meal Times, Poetry, Property, Construction of Shelters, Taboos, Taxonomy of Species, Trade, Measurement of Time, Weapons, Toys.
Last edited:
Feser is right that if you see a text message in DNA you don't know who put it there. It could be someone that is part of the physical universe, such as space aliens, or the intelligent dinosaurs who evolved into wise old owls. But if you consider the big bang, the fine tuning of an intelligible universe, and the implicit design in the fact that the same characteristics that allow a planet to support life also make it an ideal place to make scientific discoveries, then that points to a designer outside the universe, a transcendent creator.
The following quotes explain Hoyle's views in his own words:

On the fine tuning of the universe:
Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (Wikipedia)
Fred Hoyle said something really profound here. He is not talking about a message in DNA that could have been put there after the creation of the universe. He is not talking about information, irreducible complexity, codes, or cybernetic systems in cells that might have been designed from within this universe. He is saying that the atoms that make the processes and structures of life possible must have been designed by an intelligence intending to create a universe that would support biological life.

Hoyle worked in the field of nucleosynthesis - how heavy elements are created within stars - so the quote above comes from his area of expertise. Interestingly, Hoyle used the anthropic principle in this work:
Carbon-12 comprises six protons and six neutrons and is a key step in nucleosynthesis – the process by which heavier elements are produced inside stars. Physicists studying stellar fusion in the 1940s and 1950s reckoned that carbon-12 forms when two helium-4 nuclei fuse to produce beryllium-8 – which then fuses with a third helium-4 nucleus. There was a problem with this hypothesis, however. The energy of the fused particles is considerably higher than that of the ground state of carbon-12. This implies that the new particle is in fact extremely unlikely to form in this way – far too unlikely to account for the great abundance of carbon in the universe.
To overcome this apparent contradiction the British astronomer Fred Hoyle proposed in 1954 that carbon-12 has an excited state that had never been seen before. The idea is that carbon-12 would form readily in this state and then decay to its ground state, giving off a well defined amount of energy (7.6 MeV) in the process. This excited state was then observed three years later by researchers at the California Institute of Technology, when carrying out experiments involving beta decays of boron-12.
"Hoyle predicted his state on the basis of the anthropic principle, arguing that if the state didn't exist we wouldn't be here," he says.
Last edited:
The Cambrian explosion just got more explosive. Clear evidence of a vertebrate during Cambrian times has been found among Cambrian fossils making a natural explanation for the cambrian explosion even less likely. As more and more complex animals arising during the Cambrian period is found, the absence of ancestors becomes harder and harder for materialists to explain.
Metaspriggina: Vertebrates Found in Cambrian Explosion
Now that some months have passed since the discovery of another rich trove of Cambrian fossils 26 miles from the Burgess Shale, scientists are starting to publish findings from the new Marble Canyon site. One amazing find just published by Simon Conway Morris and Jean-Bernard Caron is putting more bang in the Cambrian explosion.

Not so long ago, evolutionists emphasized that no vertebrates existed in the Cambrian. They knew that vertebrates were too advanced for that first appearance of multicellular body plans. Primitive chordates, maybe -- but nothing like fish till many millions of years later.

Metaspriggina (originally named after an Ediacaran species Spriggina but later determined to be unrelated) was earlier thought to be a primitive chordate -- an ancestor of vertebrates. Now, Conway Morris and Caron have examined a hundred more fossils of Metaspriggina and compared them with similar fossils from China and the Burgess Shale. The greater detail seen in the Marble Canyon specimens (thought to be earlier than the Burgess Shale) confirms that this animal was far more than a chordate: it was a vertebrate fish, right there in the Lower Cambrian! Imagine a vertebrate fish, with a skeleton, binocular vision, muscles, nerves, gut and blood vessels: it is so complex compared to what came before, it makes the suddenness and explosive increase in complexity undeniable.
An abstract of the research published in Nature is here:
Last edited:
This thread is Mod+. This means that the OP can ask for extra moderation and that posters should be aware that this thread is likely to be more carefully moderated than other threads. A request has been made and in answer this thread has been tidied up. Further comments on the meaning of Mod+ should be posted in the Guidelines and Introduction forum. Jim has posted a serious topic and presented some interesting research to support it. If this is not credible to you for whatever reason, please feel free to discuss it in the other ID thread or on a different forum.

Enough soft-bodied precambrian fossils have been found for the missing ancestors of the Cambrian explosion to have been found if they existed.
So there is now no shortage of Precambrian fossils. Not only do we have fossils of bacteria, but we also have many fossils of soft-bodied Multicellular organisms. “In the Ediacaran organisms there is no evidence for any skeletal hard parts,” wrote Conway Morris in 1998. “Ediacaran fossils look as if they were effectively soft-bodied” (Crucible of Creation, 28).
That the precursors to the Cambrian groups are indeed missing from the record is widely accepted among paleontologists; thus, this is not the controversial aspect of the ID position. About the missing precursors at the base of the tree of the animal phyla, Valentine notes:
…many of the branches, large as well as small, are cryptogenetic (cannot be traced into ancestors). Some of these gaps are surely caused by the incompleteness of the fossil record…,
but that cannot be the sole explanation for the cryptogenetic nature of some families, many
invertebrate orders, all invertebrate classes, and all metazoan phyla.
Charles Marshall concurs:
While the fossil record of the well-skeletonized animal phyla is pretty good, we have virtually no
fossils that are unambiguously assignable to the most basal stem groups [putative ancestors] of
these phyla, those first branches that lie between the last common ancestor of all bilaterians and
the last common ancestor of the living representatives of each of the phyla….their absence is
striking. Where are they?
To be clear: Valentine and Marshall, leading paleontologists, oppose ID theory.
Pre-cambrian fossils include:
Charia, which is a single celled algae, originally wrongly thought to be a shelly invertebrate due to more misguided attempts to solve ‘Darwin’s Dilemma.’
Barghoorn Gunflint microfossils, which again comprise bacterial stromatolites that do not serve as precursors to the Cambrian fauna.
Bitter Springs Chert, which again are microbe fossils, not clear evolutionary precursors to the Cambrian fauna.
Saucer-sized organisms, at Ediacara, also called the Ediacaran Fauna, which are enigmatic fossils generally not thought to be ancestral to the Cambrian fauna.
Now consider the differences between humans and apes:
It might also be productive to consider the similarities between humans and other (non ape) mammals. For example modern medicine makes frequent use of the similarities between certain aspects of humans and pigs. (e.g. heart valves and skin).
The evidence for the evolution of the cytoskeleton is missing. There is no evidence of similarity between bacterial cytoskeleton and eukaryotic cytoskeleton. The last common ancestor of all eukaryotes had much of the complexity found in existing eukaryotes.
Evolutionary theory predicts there to be an evolutionary progression of cytoskeleton designs, as this key aspect of the cell design evolved. But this is not what the science reveals.

For example, in eukaryotes, the proteins actin and tubulin are the building blocks for the microfilament and microtubule structures, respectively. In bacteria and archaea these roles are performed by proteins such as MreB and FtsZ, respectively. But these cousin proteins do not reveals signs of an evolutionary progression.
The sequence relationships between actin and MreB, and between tubulin and FtsZ, are essentially what we find between any two randomly selected proteins.
As one review paper admitted,

it has become clear that there is no simple relationship between the cytoskeletons of prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Moreover, there is considerable diversity in both composition and function between cytoskeletons in different lines of prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

Another surprise for evolutionists is much of the eukaryotic cytoskeletal functionality must trace back to the first eukaryotic cell—the so-called LECA or Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor. It is yet another case of complexity pushed farther and farther back in history, to the era of early evolution where the supposed evolution of such complexity is hidden in evolutionary gaps. Here is a particularly candid admission from our review paper:

One of the most surprising results of our increasing ability to probe the characteristics of the LECA has been how much of the biological complexity in extant cells can be traced back to this ancestral cell. The LECA possessed much of the complexity now seen in the replisome, the spliceosome, and the endocytic system, as well as the machineries necessary for meiosis and phagotrophy. Moreover, comparative analysis of the genome of the free-living excavate Naegleria gruberi identified ∼4,000 protein groups that probably were present in the LECA.

This “complexity early” model of eukaryotic evolution is mirrored in the cytoskeleton (Fig. 2 D). Somewhere in the evolutionary space between prokaryotes and the LECA, single proto-tubulin and proto-actin molecules diversified into multiple specialized forms. Three classes of motors arose independently, and evolved to include at least nine classes of dynein, eleven classes of kinesin, and three classes of myosin. As well as these, the axoneme formed, with 100–200 associated proteins, many of which have no prokaryotic orthologues. Between the prokaryotes and the LECA, a revolution occurred in cytoskeletal biology.
The last paragraph in the quote describes a lot of "evolution" but it occurred "Somewhere in the evolutionary space between prokaryotes and the LECA". What this really means is: the scientific evidence shows these cellular components appeared all at once in the LECA but faith in materialism leads to the belief they evolved.
Claiming "the earth is an open system therefore entropy can decrease locally without violating the second law of thermodynamics" does not mean you can ignore the probabilistic difficulties for the natural origin and evolution of life.

A tornado cannot turn rubble into houses even though the earth is an open system.

Entropy naturally increases because higher entropic states are more probable. It is more probable that molecules of a gas will be evenly distributed inside a balloon than they will all move to one side of the balloon by chance. Entropy is essentially a statement about probability.

You need to specify the specific mechanism by which entropy is decreased in an open system and demonstrate it is probable, otherwise you could claim that tornadoes can turn rubble into houses.
It is widely argued that the spectacular local decreases in entropy that occurred on Earth as a result of the origin and evolution of life and the development of human intelligence are not inconsistent with the second law of thermodynamics, because the Earth is an open system and entropy can decrease in an open system, provided the decrease is compensated by entropy increases outside the system. I refer to this as the compensation argument, and I argue that it is without logical merit, amounting to little more than an attempt to avoid the extraordinary probabilistic difficulties posed by the assertion that life has originated and evolved by spontaneous processes. To claim that what has happened on Earth does not violate the fundamental natural principle behind the second law, one must instead make a more direct and difficult argument.
Not only is the bacterial flagellum irreducibly complex, the assembly instructions for it are even more irreducibly complex.
As imaging improves, so does knowledge of the workings of the bacterial flagellum. Two new papers point out new findings about these outboard motors that contribute to the argument that they are irreducibly complex and intelligently designed. As could be predicted, neither attempts any explanation of how they could have evolved.
This is just what Dr. Scott Minnich pointed out in Unlocking the Mystery of Life 12 years ago. The assembly instructions, he said, are even more irreducibly complex than the motor itself. Parts are arriving on time and moving into place in a programmed sequence, with feedback to the nucleus affecting how many parts are to be manufactured. Dr. Jonathan Wells added, "What we see is irreducible complexity all the way down." Twelve years of closer looks at these astonishing machines have only amplified those conclusions.
Big Bang theory of human evolution: Missing link still missing.

Humans appeared suddenly in the fossil record without links to previous fossil forms.
The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.114
[114.] Ernst Mayr, What Makes Biology Unique?: Considerations on the Autonomy of a Scientific Discipline (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 198.
Paleoanthropological studies reveal that early hominids appear suddenly,
without clear direct fossil ancestors, and distinct from previous hominoids.
Within hominids, evolutionary theory proposes that the genus Homo is
descended from the genus Australopithecus, and have cited Homo habilis
as a possible link with transitional morphology. Recent studies indicate
habilis should not be classified within Homo but rather under
Australopithecus, and that both its morphology and temporal span
preclude habilis from consideration as a link between the two genera.
Subsequent evolutionist studies highlight significant morphological
differences between Homo and Australopithecus requiring very rapid and
significant genetic changes. The abrupt appearance of Homo as a novel
and distinct form, significantly different from earlier fossil forms and
without links to previous fossil forms, implicates intelligent design as a
cause involved in the origin of Homo.
Homo is proposed as a basic type,
with current members of Australopithecus plus what is currently labeled
Homo habilis suggested as another extinct basic type. The species
remaining within Homo have similar morphologies that can generally be
explained as microevolution within a basic type.
It supposedly took five to six million years for humans to evolve from a chimp-like ancestor. But population genetics shows that one mutation in a DNA binding site would take six million years to become fixed in the population.

Above (post #2 in this thread) I posted some the hundreds of differences between humans and chimps. Many of these traits are useless unless they occur together. So how did so many differences becomes fixed in the population all at the same time? The best explanation is intelligent design.

Podcast: Science & Human Origins: Interview with Dr. Ann Gauger
Starting at 8:04
Okay, here's the hidden secret that nobody talks about in population genetics. And that is the equations are pretty rigid in what they will permit. If you have a population of a particular size and a mutation rate of a particular size the equations give you an estimate for how long it would take to achieve a certain number of adaptations say for example. And in the case for the change from the chimp like ancestor to human we have five to six million years. But published work in the literature taking into account our population size and the estimated population size of our chimp like ancestor, mutation rate, etc etc. They say it takes at least six million years to fix one mutation in a DNA binding site in a target of 1000 bases. Okay. That's six million years to achieve one mutation. That's the entire window we have to go from a chimp like ancestor to a human. So there's an obvious problem.

Now here's the other piece to the argument. They argue that well that's because all those mutations, it's not just one target that's being screened its 20,000 targets, the 20,000 different genes in the human genome all independently mutating all independently being screened. But if you look at the kinds of adaptations necessary to get from a chimp like animal to us, those adaptations require that they happen coordinately. So for example, its no advantage to a chimp to suddenly have human like hips if their feet and their spine and their necks are adapted for living in trees. They'll just be a miserable chimp. It's no advantage to learn to walk upright if you have no neck and your're forced to look down because you can't get your head upright. And it's no advantage to be able to run if your ribcage is compressed and not able to move freely and so you have to have all of those traits at the same time. And that's in fact what we see in the fossil record. The move from a chimp like skeleton to an upright bipedal homo skeleton is sudden and there aren't any transitions in between them.
Here is pretty much the same argument in video.

In the video, Dr. Gauger also points out that in bacteria, the time required for a change to a protein that required six or more coordinated mutations would be longer than the age of the universe. I posted about this above in the first post in this thread. The generation time for bacteria is much faster than for primates and the population is much higher. So for humans to have evolved from a chimp-like ancestor is impossible.
Last edited:
This thread is Mod+. This means that the OP can ask for extra moderation and that posters should be aware that this thread is likely to be more carefully moderated than other threads. A request has been made and in answer this thread has been tidied up. Further comments on the meaning of Mod+ should be posted in the Guidelines and Introduction forum. Jim has posted a serious topic and presented some interesting research to support it. If this is not credible to you for whatever reason, please feel free to discuss it in the other ID thread or on a different forum.

But he won't post it in the C/D forum, though. Requesting mod+ allows him to spout off this stuff without him having to answer to criticism of it, which he never does anyway, other than spam links to his own website, which quote famous people, as though argument from authority somehow carries weight behind it.
Is intelligent Design evidence that there is an intelligence at the level of the biochemistry. Is there a Universal Intelligence that is feeling its way through the possibilities, trying to realize some greater manifestation?
The only evidence that I'm aware of that points to who the intelligence is, is the evidence from cosmology that suggests the universe was designed created. In that case you can say the universe was created by a transcendent creator, a creator outside the universe.
The only evidence that I'm aware of that points to who the intelligence is, is the evidence from cosmology that suggests the universe was designed created. In that case you can say the universe was created by a transcendent creator, a creator outside the universe.
I thought that biology was driven by remarkably improbably assemblages that make intelligence the better explanation. But it makes me wonder: is it our consciousness? Or God's design? the case of intelligent biological evolution.
I am perfectly amenable to the idea that there is some sort of intelligent drive in evolution itself. However, I am not prepared to jump to the conclusion that some being who exists outside of time and space created everything. I'd like to see an explanation for that other than, it was just here.
I thought that biology was driven by remarkably improbably assemblages that make intelligence the better explanation. But it makes me wonder: is it our consciousness? Or God's design? the case of intelligent biological evolution.
Unconscious PK seems theoretically possible, but I think the origin of life and evolution is probably guided by agents of god. Entities working in accord with the spiritual plans for the universe. I don't think designed self-organization is plausible.
I am perfectly amenable to the idea that there is some sort of intelligent drive in evolution itself. However, I am not prepared to jump to the conclusion that some being who exists outside of time and space created everything. I'd like to see an explanation for that other than, it was just here.
The blind watchmaker is a Dawkins God.