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: Ron Dean Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop,talk.origins Subject: Re: CONTRARY EVIDENCE (WASRe: Evide)nce! Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:11:14 -0400 Organization: Public Usenet Newsgroup Access Lines: 130 Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org Message-ID: References: <0CGGN.123819$CYpe.8878@fx40.iad> 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="40321"; 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/2.53.18.1 To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org Return-Path: X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id 588EE22976C; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:07:44 -0400 (EDT) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D820229758 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:07:42 -0400 (EDT) id 479447D11E; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:11:16 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org by mod-relay.zaccari.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419427D009 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:11:16 +0000 (UTC) by nntpmail01.iad.omicronmedia.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59E17E13CF for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:11:15 +0000 (UTC) id 111321CC01AD; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:11:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Path: fx12.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail In-Reply-To: X-Original-Complaints-To: abuse@newsgroups-download.com X-NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:11:14 UTC Bytes: 9033 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!