Article <pfij1j5g77h3mkdcdud73houn3q4fodk9j@4ax.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<pfij1j5g77h3mkdcdud73houn3q4fodk9j@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: West Virginia creationism
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 16:58:51 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 72
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <pfij1j5g77h3mkdcdud73houn3q4fodk9j@4ax.com>
References: <66ad07ee-b140-4518-a9df-bffa316b7391@gmail.com> <9OZNN.758376$p%Mb.330094@fx15.iad> <f43i0jh8u89nlndn5137sfa0uo7b0isoik@4ax.com> <8a_ON.491226$yEgf.384550@fx09.iad> <gdop0jt4mvqljioufv7stmefniid401svh@4ax.com> <CvnRN.140988$6ePe.119511@fx42.iad> <rcpd1jtljvngh3g3s7455lun0ukjlrqoeb@4ax.com> <2VYRN.256204$hN14.193303@fx17.iad> <4fch1jpp5qtolug4bj158sl9tvn8h7htp9@4ax.com> <ZudSN.257840$hN14.25285@fx17.iad> <musi1jhm09745v4es6ca1pbc4nmogs42ck@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="11059"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:899nl7jtAz72bpFjbxt0ucmHDRU=
Bytes: 5434

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:04:15 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com>:

>On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron Dean
><rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>>In the most cases where adaptations and minor evolutionary changes are 
>>observed it's not because new information is added to DNA, but rather 
>>there is a loss of information.
>>
>>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57694-8
>>
>>Bad mutations seems to be the rule.
>
>*Most* mutations are harmful, but to disprove evolution you need to
>show that *all*  mutations are harmful -- those rare beneficial
>mutations can be selected by and amplified through natural selection,
>resulting in better-functioning organisms.
>
As I understand it, most mutations are neutral; the
beneficial and harmful ones are (approximately) equal in
number, and are far outnumbered by the neutral ones. But
don't expect your correspondent to accept any of that.
>
>> The male sperm count is decreasing 
>>with each generation. Each year new and previously unknown genetic 
>>diseases are occurring just in humans. With the passing of time, there 
>>is little doubt that our DNA, our genetics is become increasingly _less_ 
>>perfect. The Homo-sapiens species is believed to have arrived on the 
>>scene 200,000 years ago, given the increases in genetic disorders we 
>>observe today, it's highly _likely_ that the DNA of our early ancestors 
>>were far closer to perfect that any of their decedents. Therefore, from 
>>this evidence one can deduce that the proofreading and repair mechanisms 
>>themselves are in a declining state with each generation becoming a bit 
>>less perfect than the preceding generation. It's possible we saw this in 
>>the extinction of Neanderthal species.
>>
>>Beneficial mutations are rarely observed. The defective mutations are 
>>overwhelming the beneficial mutations, as evidenced by the increasing 
>>list of genetic disorders. Perhaps, this explains the 99% extinction 
>>rate of all life forms that ever lived as observed or recorded in the 
>>fossil record, as well as the numbers of the species become extinct 
>>today. of course, human involvement accounts for some of this extinction 
>>such as passenger pigeons, the dodo bird and the Tasmanian tiger. But to 
>>your point the proofreading and repair systems are not perfect. But 
>>without deliberate design how did the proofreading and repair systems 
>>come about in the first place? 
>
>Obviously, because something that helps something replicate itself
>better is going to leave more copies of itself in the gene pool .
>
>
>>  Of course there is educated, guesses, 
>>suppositions, hypothesis and theories, but no one _knows_.
>
>Do you consider your Intelligent Design argument to be an educated
>guess, or a supposition?  And is there anything wrong with being a
>hypothesis or theory? 
> 
>>question is where is the man holding hold Occam sword? Has he been 
>>barred from entering this room of science?
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov