Article <xn0ojc7pnau2bwo009@news.giganews.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<xn0ojc7pnau2bwo009@news.giganews.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: "Dexter" <not@home.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop,talk.origins
Subject: Re: CONTRARY EVIDENCE (WASRe: Evide)nce!
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:40:22 +0000
Organization: University of Ediacara
Lines: 134
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <xn0ojc7pnau2bwo009@news.giganews.com>
References: <l4bukmFe1ulU1@mid.individual.net> <eTGdnXH2fpEw3374nZ2dnZfqlJ_8fwAA@giganews.com> <l4holqFaqukU1@mid.individual.net> <Vl4FN.343607$yEgf.190186@fx09.iad> <l4k49vFlpj0U1@mid.individual.net> <R59FN.35073$hN14.19961@fx17.iad> <us50n9$38rn0$1@dont-email.me> <0CGGN.123819$CYpe.8878@fx40.iad> <uskhdv$30tec$1@dont-email.me> <vy9IN.3279$_a1e.2580@fx16.iad> <usv6lv$1n5jj$1@dont-email.me> <CTPIN.439433$Ama9.157927@fx12.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="43855"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: XanaNews/1.20-0cfde51 (x86; Portable ISpell)
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Bytes: 9980

Ron Dean wrote:

> Mark Isaak wrote:
> > [Crosspost to uk.comp.sys.mac removed. I'll remove alt.computer.workshop
> > in my next reply, if any.]
> > 
> > On 3/12/24 9:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> > > Mark Isaak wrote:
> > > > On 3/8/24 7:59 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
> > > > > Mark Isaak wrote:
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
> > > > > > designer -- not as efficient as human designers, but a designer
> > > > > > nonetheless; and second, that where humans and evolution differ
> > > > > > regarding their being designers, life unquestionably looks like it
> > > > > > is not the result of intelligent design.
> > > > >  >
> > > > > Of course life looks designed. There is nothing else on the planet
> > > > > with the capacity to replace or reproduce itself with the same level
> > > > > of complexity and organization as does life.  Life alone has the
> > > > > capability and the information  to obtain needed raw materials,
> > > > > modify and order these materials into the highly organized entities
> > > > > called living organisms. Secondly, one of the fact that's  of the
> > > > > essentials of all is the question of origins. Darwin himself
> > > > > acknowledged that the key to the past is the present.
> > > > 
> > > > > If one accepts this truism, then to our present knowledge the
> > > > > _only_source of highly complex information is mind.
> > > > 
> > > > That is a huge non sequitur, and it is not true. We know from physics
> > > > (and astronomy and geology and meteorology) that complexity forms
> > > > spontaneously in a wide variety of circumstances.
> > >  >
> > > Complex forms do no constitute highly complex information which in  this
> > > case infers knowledge, know-how or instructions. Crystals can  form
> > > complex strictures so can bubbles in water, star formations, but  there
> > > is nothing pertaining to information.
> > 
> > That's because you define information away in those cases. By most
> > definitions of information, information forms, or at least gets  localized,
> > in stars, hurricanes, cave formations, river systems, etc.
> > 
> > > > > Information is key,
> > > > 
> > > > No, energy flow is key.
> > >  >
> > > I agree, energy is key, but energy without information that's
> > > controlling energy, energy can be and usually is destructive. A  tornado
> > > is not controlled by intelligence energy.  But a tractor with  a
> > > controlling factor (a man) is controlled energy, if the man has a  heart
> > > attack and dies, the throtle remains open, now the tractors  energy is
> > > uncontrolled. The barn, stables and building can be destroyed.
> > 
> > You miss the reality. Energy flow *without controlling information* can
> > and does, observably and repeatably, produce complex, information-dense
> > formations. Yes, energy can be destructive. So can intelligence;  homicide
> > kills a lot more people than tornadoes do. But flowing energy  has a
> > tendency to produce order. If the principle could be quantified,  it would
> > probably be a fourth law of thermodynamics.
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > > Darwin observed pigeons and finches that were varying sizes shapes
> > > > > and differing beaks and he concluded that change was unlimited. This
> > > > > proved false, unknown to Darwin was the information contained in
> > > > > DNA. We observe dogs and hogs of differing sizes and shapes, but
> > > > > there is a limit to the change possible which is determined by
> > > > > information.
> > > > 
> > > > That doesn't even make sense. If change is limited by information,
> > > > then a change to the information eliminates those limits.
> > >  >
> > > True, but cave fish went blind, some birds lost their ability to fly.
> > > Dogs can  vary in size and shape, but they cannot grow new organs.
> > > Because the information in DNA to express new organs don't exist. But
> > > it's possible to lose information and fail to survive. We once owed a
> > > dog that gave birth to pups that were blind on two different occasions.
> > > So, the information  required for functioning eyes was lost.
> > 
> > Yeah, so? I have lost money on more than one occasion, and I know the  same
> > is true of most people. If I were to go by your logic, everybody is  losing
> > money, and nobody is making any.
> > 
> > Don't forget also to look at such things as the adaptions to high
> > altitude, evolved separately in the Andes and Tibet, and tetrachromacy.
> > 
> > > > Also, I don't believe Darwin ever supported the idea that change was
> > > > unlimited. Change is still limited by constraints imposed by physics
> > > > and resources,
> > >  >
> > > I agree, also absent in DNA.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > and there appear to be some possibilities (large wheels is
> > > > the only example I know) that cannot evolve from existing forms.
> > > > 
> > > > > There is no information (DNA) which expresses for wings on a hog.
> > > > > But there can be a loss of information, birds that lost the ability
> > > > > to fly. The origin of life itself: since the present is key to the
> > > > > past, the Pasteur experiment that life comes only from life has
> > > > > never been falsified. Life must have been created billion years ago.
> > > > > And until a better explanation is discovered. In science the origin
> > > > > of life remains unresolved,  there is no more logical  or rational
> > > > > conclusion available than what we observe in the present. We do not
> > > > > observe new non carbon life or other substances forming a unique
> > > > > type of life at present, again verifying the fact that life comes
> > > > > from life. "And God breathed the breath of life into man and man
> > > > > became a living soul". Man as the only concern of the writer of the
> > > > > statement, but also life was breathed into other life forms. \
> > > > 
> > > > Unfortunately for your position, the constraints to change do not
> > > > include one's choice of religion or lack of ability to conceive of
> > > > alternatives.
> > > > 
> > > At the present there is no better explanation.
> > 
> > There is no better explanation for biological change of populations over
> > extended time than evolution. I know of only one other explanation --
> > tampering by super-high-tech extraterrestrials --, and nobody takes it
> > seriously. Creationism, aka magic, is not an explanation; it is a word  to
> > use in place of one.
> > 
> > > Don't get my wrong I am against organized religion. But this is a
> > > religious dogma which comes from religious sources. But the only
> > > argument against this dogma is atheism - there is a God or there is no
> > > God, either of which is in reality, just a philosophy.  But my bet would
> > > be on the positive.
> > 
> > None of which has any relevance to the issue of evolution.
> > 
> No one on TO is serious! I'm not dealing with this any longer. This is it! My
> Final Post!
-------------------------------------

Promise?