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 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: References: <%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="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 Return-Path: X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id 1AE55229786; Sun, 05 May 2024 00:16:30 -0400 (EDT) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE8B1229767 for ; Sun, 05 May 2024 00:16:27 -0400 (EDT) id 007C87D12B; Sun, 5 May 2024 04:16:28 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org by mod-relay.zaccari.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E68977D11E for ; Sun, 5 May 2024 04:16:27 +0000 (UTC) by nntpmail01.iad.omicronmedia.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D086EE15C7 for ; Sun, 5 May 2024 04:16:26 +0000 (UTC) id A1C9E180FA0; Sun, 5 May 2024 04:16:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Path: fx34.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail In-Reply-To: X-Original-Complaints-To: abuse@newsgroups-download.com X-NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 05 May 2024 04:16:25 UTC 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 ==========