Article <tKDZN.14749$oA33.1855@fx34.iad>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<tKDZN.14749$oA33.1855@fx34.iad>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!earthli!nntp.terraraq.uk!news1.firedrake.org!news.xcski.com!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: oecies just appear in the strata asz
Date: Sun, 5 May 2024 00:16:25 -0400
Organization: Public Usenet Newsgroup Access
Lines: 244
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <tKDZN.14749$oA33.1855@fx34.iad>
References: <gdop0jt4mvqljioufv7stmefniid401svh@4ax.com>
 <ZudSN.257840$hN14.25285@fx17.iad>
 <folk1jhbg7o63c0spnibf1j72jeb6tcllc@4ax.com>
 <RUISN.631461$Ama9.561968@fx12.iad>
 <lafv1jp2fv47for3jusorqcmncfk1d9142@4ax.com> <IA3UN.953$9pR2.722@fx13.iad>
 <dsbc2jhon7ontdokugvdfg6tedrqnkntq4@4ax.com>
 <%AzVN.19359$8tL7.11884@fx09.iad>
 <n7jd2j1lamelgiq69tvlih4mh708alb8d7@4ax.com>
 <FtDWN.112651$moa7.28881@fx18.iad> <v0gdmp$3o3qj$1@dont-email.me>
 <bcYWN.317$Fmd1.77@fx13.iad> <zcydnVZrMY074rH7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <hA4YN.42633$A1d8.22819@fx47.iad>
 <zOGdndIdF_y2mqz7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <F7iYN.56503$yf_8.18093@fx14.iad> <v0t8oq$34m1p$1@dont-email.me>
 <2BNYN.14288$oA33.1641@fx34.iad> <v131cl$kcpi$1@dont-email.me>
 <jQcZN.65463$TyYf.54242@fx15.iad>
 <lMCdnVXRDr-Vwaj7nZ2dnZfqlJwAAAAA@giganews.com>
 <IsgZN.19921$cjh6.19394@fx48.iad>
 <Lt6dnZM9gt-rBqj7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <V3uZN.54724$iMKd.38581@fx12.iad>
 <a4f0d030-69e0-4ed1-9bd7-865f77eee565@gmail.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="40348"; 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: <a4f0d030-69e0-4ed1-9bd7-865f77eee565@gmail.com>
Bytes: 16184

erik simpson wrote:
> On 5/4/24 10:16 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 5/3/24 6:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 5/3/24 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>> Ernest Major wrote:
>>>>>>> On 02/05/2024 15:39, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ernest Major wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 01/05/2024 03:52, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/30/24 4:27 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/24 6:06 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ernest Major wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/04/2024 02:31, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think due to gradual increasing genetic errors and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase rate of deleterious mutations each generation 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes  less fit than the preceding generation, so in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the passing spans of time the genes of a species become 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> less and less incapable of reproduction or species 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> survival. This could account for many of 99%+ of of all 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species that ever lived that have gone extinct. Of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course the dinosaurs became extinct due to a 6 mile 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diameter meteor striking the Earth. Also changing 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weather the coming and going of ice ages; as well 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> massive volcano eruptions  accounts for extinction of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many species for example in Siberia.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you taking a progressive creationist position, in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which your Intelligent Designer is continuously creating 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> species de novo? Or are you claiming that the current 10 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> million (+/- a lot) species biota is the remnant of a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much richer biota of a billion species?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For your information, the conclusion drawn from the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fossil record is that (for multicellular eukaryotes at 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least) species diversity has been generally increasing 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over time (though with big setbacks at times of mass 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extinction).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  >
>>>>>>>>>> I dismissed, Although I do try to respond to questions, 
>>>>>>>>>> challenges and issues. I cannot address every comment that's 
>>>>>>>>>> presented due to time and my present concerns and interest. 
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not so sure of just how important anything I see on TO is 
>>>>>>>>>> to me, right now especially this thread. I never intentionally 
>>>>>>>>>> defended or supported West Virginia Creationism. But rather 
>>>>>>>>>> intelligent design has been my interest for decades.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To remind you of the context, I've removed the intermediate 
>>>>>>>>> material. The context is not "West Virginia creationism". The 
>>>>>>>>> context is the claims you've made about the natural world.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think the weakest facets of evolution is what is _not_ known 
>>>>>>>> about origins. The most serious is the question is the origin of 
>>>>>>>> highly complex information. Except for life, nothing else in the 
>>>>>>>> natural world has ever equaled or come close to such 
>>>>>>>> information. If the present is key to the past, then there is no 
>>>>>>>> exception; highly complex information comes _only_ from a mind. 
>>>>>>>> Without information - there is no life.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That may be a reply, but it's not a response.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've been advocating for "genetic entropy" in which gene pools 
>>>>>>> degrade over time to the point that species become extinct.
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>> If the fossil records reflects the actual events in the history of 
>>>>>> life, then according the late S.J. Gould and Niles Eldredge the 
>>>>>> majority of species appear abruptly in the record, remain in 
>>>>>> virtual stasis for their duration on the planet, then they 
>>>>>> disappear from the fossil record.
>>>>>> We know that copy error occur ( mutations) very few are said to be 
>>>>>> beneficial, but there are far more
>>>>>> that are detrimental, unfit to survive and are removed by natural 
>>>>>> selection.  However,  the overwhelming majority these errors are 
>>>>>> neutral mutations. But are there any purely neutral mutations or 
>>>>>> errors in copying? Probably not! They would tend in one direction 
>>>>>> or the other. Those
>>>>>> with slightly detrimental tendencies would survive, spread and 
>>>>>> pass on the mutation. Since, by far the larger number of harmful 
>>>>>> mutations exceed the beneficial ones, the accumulation of harmful 
>>>>>> mutations would become the rule. Is there any rational or honest 
>>>>>> reason to assert that this "genetic entropy" could not have led to 
>>>>>> species extinction?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In response to this
>>>>>>> I asked "Are you taking a progressive creationist position, in 
>>>>>>> which your Intelligent Designer is continuously creating species 
>>>>>>> de novo? 
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>> Not at all. I think species can undergo minor changes, to whatever 
>>>>>> change the genetic information within their gene pool can express. 
>>>>>> I've read that only a relative small portion of it's gene pool is 
>>>>>> used in the expression of an organism. Was is 99% is called waste 
>>>>>> since no proteins are expressed? I don't this is believed today. 
>>>>>> So, a vast amount of genetic information is present in a species 
>>>>>> gene pool which can be used to create varying changes within 
>>>>>> species. How many definitions is there of species? I think the 
>>>>>> best is any that can breed and produce fertile offspring.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or
>>>>>>> are you claiming that the current 10 million (+/- a lot) species 
>>>>>>> biota is the remnant of a much richer biota of a billion species?"
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>> Don't know exactly how to answer this. But I've read that 99%+ of 
>>>>>> species that ever lived have gone extinct. So, less than 1% remain 
>>>>>> today. How to translate this into numbers, IE billions???  Or why 
>>>>>> does numbers matter?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand why ID advocates refrain from specifying the who of 
>>>>>>> "Intelligent Design", as they don't want to make the religious 
>>>>>>> underpinnings explicit. 
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>> No, that not the reason. Most observe that there is scientific 
>>>>>> evidence for design, but there's no known scientific evidence 
>>>>>> which _identifies_ the designer. One might believe the designer is 
>>>>>> the God, but that's not of evidence, but rather it's a belief and 
>>>>>> only a belief!
>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But why do you fail to be specific about the
>>>>>>> what and the when? You claim that design is self-evident, but 
>>>>>>> appear to be unable to identify what was designed.
>>>>>>  >
>>>>>> The genetic code is design the genetic information is infused into 
>>>>>> the genetics of organisms. When: perhaps when the first life 
>>>>>> appeared: or certainly, by the time of the Cambrian. I believe the 
>>>>>> eye was
>>>>>> designed. The first eyes were observed in the Cambrian when some 
>>>>>> species of trilobites had developed, functioning eyes. 
>>>>>> Furthermore, the master control gene of a mouse was transferred 
>>>>>> into a
>>>>>> fruit fly embyro and the mouse eye gene played it's role in 
>>>>>> producing the eye in the fruit fly. Not a mouse eye but a fruit 
>>>>>> fly eye. Was the same Gene the Pax6 gene the same gene that 
>>>>>> produced the eyes of trilobites? The point is there _nothing_ 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========