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: Mark Isaak Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: oecies just appear in the strata asz Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 08:13:46 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 183 Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org Message-ID: References: <2VYRN.256204$hN14.193303@fx17.iad> <4fch1jpp5qtolug4bj158sl9tvn8h7htp9@4ax.com> <%AzVN.19359$8tL7.11884@fx09.iad> <2BNYN.14288$oA33.1641@fx34.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="96305"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:zQehsqJKTUc+t4gcTxBdOi8clCc= Return-Path: X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id 48B95229786; Mon, 06 May 2024 11:13:52 -0400 (EDT) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28370229767 for ; Mon, 06 May 2024 11:13:50 -0400 (EDT) id CC4555DC2E; Mon, 6 May 2024 15:13:51 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org by mod-relay-1.kamens.us (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB7965DC29 for ; Mon, 6 May 2024 15:13:51 +0000 (UTC) id 53657DC01A9; Mon, 6 May 2024 17:13:48 +0200 (CEST) X-Injection-Date: Mon, 06 May 2024 17:13:48 +0200 (CEST) Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1+Xwjhj8SyLcP97a2Li/U47KKK+nq6IlXQ= Bytes: 12471 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_ observed in record >>> demonstrating of the _evolution_ of the eye. >>> There are detailed drawings, hypotheses and theories  regarding the >>> evolution of the eye, but >>> this is constrained only by the limit of human imagination. Not >>> observed evidence. Deliberate, purposeful and highly complex design >>> is the most reasonable and logical explanation as to the origin of >>> the eye. But there is nothing that can overcome ones bias and >>> commitment to a paradigm, even if it's wrong. >>> >> Not a real response to Ernest's questions. I don't think you even ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========