"Two existing protein fragments fused to create something new. The first cells fused into different communities which eventually evolved into every new organ and organism. Yes, yes, the whole of life can be called evidence for design,"

An answer:

https://www.livescience.com/chemistry/asteroid-bennu-contains-the-seeds-of-life-osiris-...

"Scientists have discovered the essential building blocks to life on a sample from a distant asteroid.

"The sample, which the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft collected from the asteroid Bennu and returned to Earth in 2023, contains all five nucleobases — the "letters" that make up DNA and RNA — alongside mineral compounds, all of which have never previously been seen on extraterrestrial rocks.

"The minerals are rich in carbon, sulfur, phosphorus, fluorine and sodium, making them resemble those left in the crusts of dried lake beds on Earth — except they date to the birth of the solar system 4.6 billion years ago. These elements, alongside the five nucleobases that make up DNA and RNA, are the basic building blocks for life on our planet. (my bold)

***

"'We now know from Bennu that the raw ingredients of life were combining in really interesting and complex ways on Bennu's parent body," study co-lead author Tim McCoy, curator of meteorites at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, said in a statement. "We have discovered that next step on a pathway to life."

"Bennu is a potentially hazardous asteroid that has a 1-in-2,700 chance of striking Earth in the year 2182 — the highest odds of any known space object. But scientists are more interested in what's trapped on the space rock: As a carbon-rich asteroid, it likely contains many of the primordial molecules present when life first emerged on Earth." (my bold)

Comment: if I were a designer setting up the alphabet for my code controls of life, I would have them available from the beginning in the terrestrial substances. I am not attacking Darwin's degree of theism. I don't care what he believed theistically. He believed chance mutations drove evolution, seasoned by natural selection. And that mess made our brain! No way!

https://phys.org/news/2025-01-crucial-protein-millions-years-predating.html

"Wageningen researchers have discovered that a vital plant protein originated more than 600 million years ago, long before the first plants existed. They traced its origins back to an evolutionary event in a distant unicellular ancestor, during which genetic material was reshuffled. This process gave rise to the Auxin Response Factor (ARF), a protein that continues to play a key role in the growth and development of plants and trees today.

***

"The researchers found clues to the origins of the ARF protein in the green alga Chlorokybus melkonianii, a distant cousin of the plants we find on land. His research revealed that this protein emerged from the fusion of two protein fragments: a chromatin factor and a transcription factor. Neither of these fragments originally had anything to do with the plant hormone auxin.

"'This fusion created an entirely new protein that took on a central role in the auxin signaling pathway," says Dolf Weijers, Professor of Biochemistry. The chromatin factor enables ARF proteins to collaborate, while the transcription factor allows the protein to bind to DNA and regulate gene activity.

"Interestingly, the chromatin factor found in the crucial plant protein is not exclusive to plants. It also occurs in humans, animals, and fungi. Although biologists have studied the ARF protein for over twenty years, they had overlooked this connection until now. Therefore, the post-doctoral researcher was cautious when presenting his findings to Weijers.

***

"Over time, the evolution of ARF led to two classes of the protein: one that activates genes in the presence of auxin and another that suppresses genes. "This competitive interaction is essential for the fine-tuned regulation of plant growth," Hernández-García explains.

"The research also revealed that some features of ARF, such as its ability to bind DNA, were present from the very beginning, while others, like gene activation, developed later in evolution.

"The scientists were able to reconstruct the origins and evolution of the ARF protein thanks to newly available genomic data. "Over the past decade, it has become clear that we can better study the core traits of plants in those that have been around a bit longer in their current shape," says Weijers."

Comment: the ARF appeared long before required its current use. If it had a use at its appearance, none is known. If it is a de novo phenomenon, if is evidence for pure design, not Darwinian natural selection.

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/hoyle-with-updates-from-walker-and-davie...

"The big problem in biology, as I see it, is to understand the origin of the information carried by the explicit structures of biomolecules. The issue isn’t so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties, which other orderings wouldn’t give. The case of the enzymes is well known . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrange-ments that would be useless in serving the pur-poses of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link,it’s easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. [ –> 20^200 = 1.6 * 10^260] This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be? This is, as I see it, the biological problem – the information problem . . . .

"I was constantly plagued by the thought that the number of ways in which even a single enzyme could be wrongly constructed was greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe. So try as I would, I couldn’t convince myself that even the whole universe would be sufficient to find life by random processes – by what are called the blind forces of nature . . . . By far the simplest way to arrive at the correct sequences of amino acids in the enzymes would be by thought, not by random processes . . . .

"Now imagine yourself as a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a living cell was a feasible construct? Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use: Some supercalculating 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. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix."

Comment: fascinating opinion for an atheist.

https://theologyonline.com/threads/some-intelligent-design-quotes-from-an-atheist-fred-...

“Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that
there are about 2000 enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them
all in a random trial is only one part in 10^40,000, an outrageously
small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe
consisted of organic soup.”

“The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program
of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic
soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.”_

“Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so
utterly miniscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the
favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect
deliberate ... . It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of
intelligence must reflect ... higher intelligences ... even to the limit of
God ... such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific.”_

***

"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
super-intellect 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."

Comment: Hoyle never described if he left atheism.

DAVID: Neil Thomas' book is out. Why not read it!!!!
https://www.amazon.com/Taking-Leave-Darwin-Longtime-Discovers/dp/1637120036/

dhw: Allowing for meals, exercise and daytime naps, I work most days from approx. 6 am until approx 10.30 pm (including the time I spend on this forum). I’m not complaining – this is my choice, because I love the work that I do. But I do not have time to read all the books you would like me to read, and so I rely on you to reproduce the arguments. You have actually repeated the arguments from your last post, and so I will repeat my comments:

The heading is a travesty in itself. Darwin – himself an agnostic - explicitly wrote that he “saw no good reason why the views given in this book (Origin) should shock the religious feelings of anyone.” We may (and do) disagree with aspects of his theory (random mutations, and natural selection as a creative force), just as some theists might disagree with the proposal that God designed every species individually and his only aim was to design humans. But that does not mean opponents of parts of your theory or parts of Darwin's can't be theists. Darwinism allows for theistic evolution! He said so, and he should know!

DAVID: Antony Flew, a famous atheist philosopher published his book, There is a God, in 2007. And now an English humanist is now an agnostic after reviewing ID material:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1637120036/
Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design

QUOTE: Thomas's deeply personal conclusion? Intelligent design is not only possible but, indeed, is presently the most reasonable explanation for the origin of life's great diversity of forms.

DAVID: Minds can be opened if ID is researched properly. I did it, and my mind changed. Try it. But it involves reading their material.

From the very start of this website I have accepted the logic of the design argument, which is a major reason for my rejection of atheism (the other being psychic experiences). I have also rejected Darwin’s theory of random mutations, and of natural selection as a creative force.

...agnostics & atheists leaving

Does Neil Thomas reject common descent, how many agnostics and atheists have “left” what? Does this mean that Mr Thomas and the other agnostics are now theists?

I will look forward to hearing the answers when you have read the book – as I’m sure you will!

What Neil Thomas seems to do is reject Darwin propaganda. Asking me to distill the book for you is an interesting request I'll consider.

Allowing for meals, exercise and daytime naps, I work most days from approx. 6 am until approx 10.30 pm (including the time I spend on this forum). I’m not complaining – this is my choice, because I love the work that I do. But I do not have time to read all the books you would like me to read, and so I rely on you to reproduce the arguments. You have actually repeated the arguments from your last post, and so I will repeat my comments:

The heading is a travesty in itself. Darwin – himself an agnostic - explicitly wrote that he “saw no good reason why the views given in this book (Origin) should shock the religious feelings of anyone.” We may (and do) disagree with aspects of his theory (random mutations, and natural selection as a creative force), just as some theists might disagree with the proposal that God designed every species individually and his only aim was to design humans. But that does not mean opponents of parts of your theory or parts of Darwin's can't be theists. Darwinism allows for theistic evolution! He said so, and he should know!

DAVID: Antony Flew, a famous atheist philosopher published his book, There is a God, in 2007. And now an English humanist is now an agnostic after reviewing ID material:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1637120036/
Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discovers the Case for Design

QUOTE: Thomas's deeply personal conclusion? Intelligent design is not only possible but, indeed, is presently the most reasonable explanation for the origin of life's great diversity of forms.

DAVID: Minds can be opened if ID is researched properly. I did it, and my mind changed. Try it. But it involves reading their material.

From the very start of this website I have accepted the logic of the design argument, which is a major reason for my rejection of atheism (the other being psychic experiences). I have also rejected Darwin’s theory of random mutations, and of natural selection as a creative force.

...agnostics & atheists leaving

Does Neil Thomas reject common descent, how many agnostics and atheists have “left” what? Does this mean that Mr Thomas and the other agnostics are now theists?

I will look forward to hearing the answers when you have read the book – as I’m sure you will!

https://www.amazon.com/Taking-Leave-Darwin-Longtime-Discovers/dp/1637120036/

Antony Flew, a famous atheist philosopher published his book, There is a God, in 2007. And now an English humanist is now an agnostic after reviewing ID material:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1637120036/

"A brilliantly synoptic, dispassionate overview of the controversies that have swirled around Darwin's theory of evolutionary transformation over the past 160 years. The more that science has progressed, argues Neil Thomas, the greater the dissonance between Darwinism's simplistic mechanism and the inscrutable complexities of life it seeks to explain. Thomas's open-minded interrogation of the implications for our understanding of ourselves and our world is masterly and persuasive.

"-James Le Fanu, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and winner of the Los Angeles Times Book Prize

"Taking Leave of Darwin bristles with righteous indignation. Retired British humanities professor and lifelong rationalist Neil Thomas believed the confident claims for Darwinism. Now he knows better. Writing in elegant, erudite prose, Thomas excoriates those who have robbed people of their right to grapple with our mysterious universe as best they can. I highly recommend the book.

"-Michael J. Behe, Lehigh University Professor of Biological Sciences and author of Darwin's Black Box

"Professor Neil Thomas has written a brief, courageous, spirited, and lucid book. It shows the commendable willingness of a committed agnostic intellectual to change his mind about Darwinism, the great contemporary sacred cow, in the face of the large, accumulating body of new evidence against it and also to avail himself of the insights and arguments of intelligent critics of it since the very beginning and across 160 years-including Sedgwick, Mivart, Butler, A.R. Wallace, Agassiz, Max Muller, Kellogg, Dewar, Jacques Barzun, and Gertrude Himmelfarb. His intelligent, non-specialist survey of the contemporary state of the question is enriched by references to the insights of the distinguished philosopher Thomas Nagel and the MD and award-winning science writer James Le Fanu, and by a quite moving rationalist commitment to "follow the argument where it leads," however unexpected and uncomfortable this loyalty to logic and truth has made him. He provides a gratifying and illuminating case study in intellectual courage.

"-M.D. Aeschliman, Professor Emeritus, Boston University, author of The Restoration of Man: C.S. Lewis and the Continuing Case Against Scientism"

Comment: Minds can be opened if ID is researched properly. I did it, and my mind changed. Try it. But it involves reading their material. Use nothing secondhand, which is what I supply here.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1637120036/

"A brilliantly synoptic, dispassionate overview of the controversies that have swirled around Darwin's theory of evolutionary transformation over the past 160 years. The more that science has progressed, argues Neil Thomas, the greater the dissonance between Darwinism's simplistic mechanism and the inscrutable complexities of life it seeks to explain. Thomas's open-minded interrogation of the implications for our understanding of ourselves and our world is masterly and persuasive.

"-James Le Fanu, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and winner of the Los Angeles Times Book Prize

"Taking Leave of Darwin bristles with righteous indignation. Retired British humanities professor and lifelong rationalist Neil Thomas believed the confident claims for Darwinism. Now he knows better. Writing in elegant, erudite prose, Thomas excoriates those who have robbed people of their right to grapple with our mysterious universe as best they can. I highly recommend the book.

"-Michael J. Behe, Lehigh University Professor of Biological Sciences and author of Darwin's Black Box

"Professor Neil Thomas has written a brief, courageous, spirited, and lucid book. It shows the commendable willingness of a committed agnostic intellectual to change his mind about Darwinism, the great contemporary sacred cow, in the face of the large, accumulating body of new evidence against it and also to avail himself of the insights and arguments of intelligent critics of it since the very beginning and across 160 years-including Sedgwick, Mivart, Butler, A.R. Wallace, Agassiz, Max Muller, Kellogg, Dewar, Jacques Barzun, and Gertrude Himmelfarb. His intelligent, non-specialist survey of the contemporary state of the question is enriched by references to the insights of the distinguished philosopher Thomas Nagel and the MD and award-winning science writer James Le Fanu, and by a quite moving rationalist commitment to "follow the argument where it leads," however unexpected and uncomfortable this loyalty to logic and truth has made him. He provides a gratifying and illuminating case study in intellectual courage.

"-M.D. Aeschliman, Professor Emeritus, Boston University, author of The Restoration of Man: C.S. Lewis and the Continuing Case Against Scientism"

Comment: Minds can be opened if ID is researched properly. I did it, and my mind changed. Try it. But it involves reading their material. Use nothing secondhand, which is what I supply here.

DAVID: A major issue is where do body plans come from and then last 500 million years. Is this evidence of guided evolution?:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26essay.html
> 
> dhw: I find all this very confusing. First, I don't know why David has put it under the heading "Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism", which is a highly misleading heading in the first place. As we have repeated over and over again on this website, and Darwin himself also emphasized, Darwinism does not exclude theism. -The answer to dhw's question is simple. Darwin did not exclude theism, but the Darwinists of today do; they espouse Darwin's theory as the only correct one, which is what I mean by the term Darwinism, as a living faith, and therefore vs. theistic evolution.
> 
> dhw: Secondly, if a body plan is successful within a given environment, why would it NOT last? As we keep saying, the key to "how biodiversity grows" (i.e. evolutionary development) has to be innovation, but you seem to want to have it all ways: stasis suggests guided evolution, innovation suggests guided evolution. Even higgledy-piggledy would suggest guided evolution if only you could find a way to explain it!-If we look at the Cambrian, and especially the latest Cambrian find in the Canadian Rockies with organ systems visable, one has to recognize that these animals with all organ systems working in conjunction, came out of nowhere with a planned set of equipment. Sure they survived, but the huge question this fossil find makes is how without precursors? Therefore it raises the theistic question of who made the complete body plan. By chance? Think of the number of coordinated mutations that had to take place. The latest theory based on virus studies is the viruses did it!-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129583.300-origin-of-organs-thank-viruses-for-your-skin-and-bone.html#.UxCTC_mQyM5 -Since self-sufficient life had to start first, viruses came later as partial copies of life, and then they pushed evolution? Quite a reach for a new theory.
> 
> dhw: However, thirdly, the conclusion to this article seems to me to be just as confusing: 
> 
> QUOTE: Does all this add up to a new modern synthesis? There is certainly no consensus among evolutionary biologists, but development, ecology, genetics and paleontology all provide new perspectives on how evolution operates, and how we should study it. -No wonder they are confused. They want natural chance mechanisms and to me that is wishful "pie on the sky".
> 
> dhw: I really don't know what this article is trying to prove....... There is always a scintilla of hope for alternative theories if existing theories remain so flawed.-That was my point in presenting the article. Theistic evolution is another way of theorizing


> We're aware that we can never "know" any of the answers to our main questions, and can only come up with subjective beliefs, but at least some of us never stop searching, and sometimes by exchanging views on these personal realities I think we can (and I hope we do) help one another.-I completely agree, dhw. And so appreciate the openness and respectfulness here, especially since I have brought to the table many times some pretty far out ideas here. 
 
> BBELLA: And when we each consciously perceive this teleo-reality, we, each, again, have the choice in how to neatly place what we view into our own conscious reality - which then moves the very state/fabric of the reality we perceive. We all do it...but, for most, it is done automatically, unconsciously, without purposeful thought.
> 
> That is part of the pleasure and sometimes the frustration of our discussions. Especially when sceptical agnostics cast doubt on subjective opinions that claim to be based on objective realities!-So very true! Objective Reality: The ultimate oxymoron.


> DAVID: The issue is we have no objective reality at the quantum level. And it underlies the level we experience. Quantum reality is seen as the probability we can calculate from the random actions of all the particles. We live with quantum averages and can use these to create electronic machines that work. But in the purely quantum level what is it we have? No one knows. But it is the basis of the universe. No one has any real understanding of this.- 
> You could hardly have made a clearer case for agnosticism.-I read another way of putting the point about quantum theory and God. We live in a secondary reality. The primary reality is at the quantum level. And that is God's level. What would an agnostic call the primary level?

David: So we are stuck. How long can a person search and how far, if there is no real answer and probably can never be?[/i]
> 
> dhw:You could hardly have made a clearer case for agnosticism.-Why should the basis of reality be so unintelligable, unless the creator wanted to stay hidden? Read Einhorn's "A Concealed God" for clarification. God wanted a requirement of faith.

BBELLA: Isn't life just one great experiment being sought by us all, each individually as well as socially? Seek and you will find, as the scripture say. Yet, even so, we cannot see the result or the complete picture, of what this means.
> 
> dhw: I go along with this analogy. 
> 
> dhw: We're aware that we can never "know" any of the answers to our main questions, and can only come up with subjective beliefs, but at least some of us never stop searching, and sometimes by exchanging views on these personal realities I think we can (and I hope we do) help one another.
> 
> dhw: That is part of the pleasure and sometimes the frustration of our discussions. Especially when sceptical agnostics cast doubt on subjective opinions that claim to be based on objective realities!-The issue is we have no objective reality at the quantum level. And it underlies the level we experience. Quantum reality is seen as the probability we can calculate from the random actions of all the particles. We live with quantum averages and can use these to create electronic machines that work. But in the purely quantum level what is it we have? No one knows. But it is the basis of the universe. No one has any real understanding of this. So we are stuck. How long can a person search and how far, if there is no real answer and probably can never be?

Quantum math allows the use of probabilities to create electronic devices we use. Yet we cannot ever know whether the individual particle is a wave or a point of energy. When an experiment is done the result can only give an answer sought, not the complete picture.-Isn't life just one great experiment being sought by us all, each individually as well as socially? Seek and you will find, as the scripture say. Yet, even so, we cannot see the result or the complete picture, of what this means.->Thus the results have to factor in conscious intent because only what is looked for is found. -I've always thought this a conundrum. Scientist realize what they see when looking into QR is what they are looking for, and they know it. So what is the point and the result, the big/complete picture? Just that, what it is! The malleable fabric of what they are looking to experiment on reflects back their own belief, or reality. Now what? Just keep staring...keep experimenting...seeking a different answer? Or, start looking at the implications and taking that "science" seriously and to it's nth degree. But, this is where they (most) fall off the flat earth into quantum nothingness. Which is understandable, in a sense. I pretty much fall off there too.->dhw: Of course this proves absolutely nothing. I am merely questioning the meaning and accuracy of your statements.->My statements about quantum theory are correct. My statements of my conclusions are the correct conclusions for me. Consciousness is mixed up in quantum reality, the level underlying our perceived reality.-So very well said, David. I think this belief, of personal observed "Quantum Reality" is something we both have in common (not sure about anyone else here). We both understand that our perceptions of "what is" is just that...our own personal perceived realities that we consciously, or unconsciously, have searched to find and have found within our own personal realities. -I am convinced that the Quantum State of the malleable fabric of all that is, is just that - malleable by the state of consciousness. And the Quantum entanglement theory, on a macro scale, for me, also fits my own thought, that each of our separate realities collide, get entangled, and yet at the same time, coalesce into one balanced body that has it's painful, as well as glorious moments from which we perceive from our separate and social states of conscious reality seat. And when we each consciously perceive this teleo-reality, we, each, again, have the choice in how to neatly place what we view into our own conscious reality - which then moves the very state/fabric of the reality we perceive. We all do it...but, for most, it is done automatically, unconsciously, without purposeful thought.


> dhw: What exactly do you mean by "quantum reality"? Is there any consensus even among quantum theorists on what it means? Do you yourself believe that the reality you perceive does not exist if you are not there to perceive it? That cause and effect are an illusion? That everyday objects are not real? -Quantum math allows the use of probabilities to create electronic devices we use. Yet we cannot ever know whether the individual particle is a wave or a point of energy. When an experiment is done the result can only give an answer sought, not the complete picture. Thus the results have to factor in conscious intent because only what is looked for is found. Do I believe that reality would disappear if all human consciousness disappeared? No. One simply takes my next step. Consciousness pre-existed reality and exists first.-> 
> dhw:Do you mean that all quantum theorists accept the same definition of reality, and they have all concluded that it was created by a quantum mind, i.e. that consciousness preceded the material world? -The theorists I follow believe as I do. Obviously they tend to be theistic.-
> dhw:Of course this proves absolutely nothing. I am merely questioning the meaning and accuracy of your statements.-My statements about quantum theory are correct. My statements of my conclusions are the correct conclusions for me. Consciousness is mixed up in quantum reality, the level underlying our perceived reality.