Article <WOq9O.154112$cLn1.45377@fx18.iad>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<WOq9O.154112$cLn1.45377@fx18.iad>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Wistar Symposium "Mathematical Challenge to Neo-Darwinism".
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:22:29 -0400
Organization: Public Usenet Newsgroup Access
Lines: 168
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <WOq9O.154112$cLn1.45377@fx18.iad>
References: <v3d6nf$2bmpj$1@dont-email.me>
 <lmvq5j15rbj2gkn7m8v65e30msc5cop6ip@4ax.com>
 <jOmdnTmj1IHGWfn7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <lcl7kpFfjiuU1@mid.individual.net>
 <n27b6j5nsggb6tnm70p4167q409r9nu63r@4ax.com>
 <04WdneoFM9deKvj7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="97848"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 13.4; rv:91.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
In-Reply-To: <04WdneoFM9deKvj7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
Bytes: 10223

John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/9/24 5:16 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 10:32:25 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-06-08 20:51:39 +0000, John Harshman said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/8/24 1:38 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>> jillery wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean
>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jillery wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean
>>>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How many have you read pointing out the flaws
>>>>>>>>>>> in evolutionary theory?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The problem with that question is you and other cdesign 
>>>>>>>>>> proponentsists
>>>>>>>>>> have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in 
>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>> theory.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IOW - None!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
>>>>>>>> change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
>>>>>>>> nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people 
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> quote are talking about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and 
>>>>>>> equilibrium.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
>>>>>> stasis and equilibrium.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
>>>>> that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw
>>>>> it as "no data".
>>>>>
>>>>> But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
>>>>> Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and 
>>>>> ignored
>>>>> by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's 
>>>>> theory. I
>>>>> think that explains the "no data".
>>>>>
>>>>> Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated
>>>>> equilibrium, as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis
>>>>> followed by punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically
>>>>> speaking)), then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then 
>>>>> sudden
>>>>> disappearance.
>>>>>
>>>>> IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
>>>>> rapidly) into a new stable "y species".Â  He calls punctuated which is
>>>>> not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
>>>>> If I wrong then please explain why.
>>>>
>>>> Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems
>>>>
>>>> 1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.
>>>>
>>>> 2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is stasis.
>>>>
>>>> 3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and I'm
>>>> not sure you know what they are. They're just small, geographically
>>>> isolated populations on the periphery of a species range.
>>>
>>> Speciation in such cases can happen remarkably rapidly. On the island
>>> of Madeira there are six races (the term they use, though they fit
>>> Mayr's definition of species) of mice, that cannot breed either with
>>> one another or with the common European mouse. They appear to have
>>> evolved within the past 1000 years (if you assume they are descended
>>> from mice introduced by the Vikings), or much less than that if they 
>>> came with the Portuguese. (Madeira is an island with numerous deep
>>> valleys separated by high ground that mice can't cross.)
>>
>>
>> I like this example:
>> <https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6372/224>
>>
>>  From the abstract:
>> *************************
>> Homoploid hybrid speciation in animals has been inferred frequently
>> from patterns of variation, but few examples have withstood critical
>> scrutiny. Here we report a directly documented example, from its
>> origin to reproductive isolation. An immigrant Darwin’s finch to
>> Daphne Major in the Galápagos archipelago initiated a new genetic
>> lineage by breeding with a resident finch (Geospiza fortis). Genome
>> sequencing of the immigrant identified it as a G. conirostris male
>> that originated on Española >100 kilometers from Daphne Major. From
>> the second generation onward, the lineage bred endogamously and,
>> despite intense inbreeding, was ecologically successful and showed
>> transgressive segregation of bill morphology. This example shows that
>> reproductive isolation, which typically develops over hundreds of
>> generations, can be established in only three.
>> *************************
>>
>> Not bad for a bunch of birdbrains.
> 
> Rapid speciation, perhaps. Peripheral isolate speciation, no.
 >
Species can vary, even to a minor stage of evolution. We can observe 
this with dogs, pigeons and mice. But we never observe major 
evolutionary change on the family level. The specific information is not 
present in the dog genome to evolve into anything with wings they can 
never evolve out of the dog family into another family.

Furthermore, the origin of DNA and the origin of instructive information 
can only be theorized. In the real world we actually see the loss of 
information in DNA, but the origin of  _new_ information in DNA is 
rarely observed, if ever. But it must have happened for evolution to be 
valid. The theory of evolution requires vast amounts of new specific 
information to arise. But how? From our everyday experiences, 
instructive information never just appears. Books don't write themselves 
even if the printing press are automatic and set up to run, randomly 
selecting letters of the alphabet and printing them. If you trace it 
back specific information always cones from intelligence. Ten thousands 
monkeys on keyboards in time of the earth's existence could not write a 
book of 100 pages with meaning. What is the chances of blindly and 
randomly selecting from a disordered alphabet and placing the letters in 
proper A to Z order?

There is one chance in 26 of blindly selecting the A. One chance in 25 
of selecting B next, One chance is 24 of select C next, one in 23 of 
selecting D next, one 22 of E. so we have 26x25x24x23x22 equals 
7,893,600. So, just getting the first five (5) letters in the proper 
order is 1 chance in 7,893,600 and there is 21 letters remaining. Going 
just through H = 1 chance in 2,999,568,000

In in a blind, aimless, random universe what chose the 20 - 22 amino 
acids from the ones that existed 4000 years ago. One might ask can we 
determine the number of acids that existed on earth 4 billion yeers ago. 
But chances are at least 100 existed. So the chance are astronomical as 
to the random selecting the 20 amino acids from 100. But time is the 
hero, so given the millions of years anything can happen including 
selecting these special 20 amino acids. . Looking at the chart below 
how does mindless random processes "create" the right sequence or order 
of these amino acids observed in the chart below to fashion proteins and 
in the precise folding needed. There can be little variation.
So, as I see it, it requires tremendous faith to believe this could 
happen without any intelligent guidance. Faith I do not have.

https://rsscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/read-codon-chart-table.pdf


>>>>   Some peripheral isolates are in fact observed. If you look at the
>>>> original publication, Eldredge N., Gould S.J. Punctuated equilibria: an
>>>> alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf T.J.M. editor. Models of
>>>> Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115, you will see that it produces a couple
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========