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: Bob Casanova Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: Re: West Virginia creationism Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 16:58:51 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 72 Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org Message-ID: References: <66ad07ee-b140-4518-a9df-bffa316b7391@gmail.com> <9OZNN.758376$p%Mb.330094@fx15.iad> <8a_ON.491226$yEgf.384550@fx09.iad> <2VYRN.256204$hN14.193303@fx17.iad> <4fch1jpp5qtolug4bj158sl9tvn8h7htp9@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89"; logging-data="11059"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org" User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218 To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:899nl7jtAz72bpFjbxt0ucmHDRU= Return-Path: X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id 9E2E222976C; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 19:58:53 -0400 (EDT) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D50A229758 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2024 19:58:51 -0400 (EDT) by moderators.individual.net (Exim 4.97) for talk-origins@moderators.isc.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (envelope-from ) id 1rvQnN-00000000jv1-3lPs; Sat, 13 Apr 2024 01:59:02 +0200 id 82F73DC01A9; Sat, 13 Apr 2024 01:58:52 +0200 (CEST) X-Injection-Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2024 01:58:52 +0200 (CEST) X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX18PTnECk6xRWeNNg7uc1EKDVH4+DnubHxxpy7kRj0zX9JV7a4dCN1zB Bytes: 5434 On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:04:15 -0700, the following appeared in talk.origins, posted by Vincent Maycock : >On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron Dean > wrote: > > >>In the most cases where adaptations and minor evolutionary changes are >>observed it's not because new information is added to DNA, but rather >>there is a loss of information. >> >>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57694-8 >> >>Bad mutations seems to be the rule. > >*Most* mutations are harmful, but to disprove evolution you need to >show that *all* mutations are harmful -- those rare beneficial >mutations can be selected by and amplified through natural selection, >resulting in better-functioning organisms. > As I understand it, most mutations are neutral; the beneficial and harmful ones are (approximately) equal in number, and are far outnumbered by the neutral ones. But don't expect your correspondent to accept any of that. > >> The male sperm count is decreasing >>with each generation. Each year new and previously unknown genetic >>diseases are occurring just in humans. With the passing of time, there >>is little doubt that our DNA, our genetics is become increasingly _less_ >>perfect. The Homo-sapiens species is believed to have arrived on the >>scene 200,000 years ago, given the increases in genetic disorders we >>observe today, it's highly _likely_ that the DNA of our early ancestors >>were far closer to perfect that any of their decedents. Therefore, from >>this evidence one can deduce that the proofreading and repair mechanisms >>themselves are in a declining state with each generation becoming a bit >>less perfect than the preceding generation. It's possible we saw this in >>the extinction of Neanderthal species. >> >>Beneficial mutations are rarely observed. The defective mutations are >>overwhelming the beneficial mutations, as evidenced by the increasing >>list of genetic disorders. Perhaps, this explains the 99% extinction >>rate of all life forms that ever lived as observed or recorded in the >>fossil record, as well as the numbers of the species become extinct >>today. of course, human involvement accounts for some of this extinction >>such as passenger pigeons, the dodo bird and the Tasmanian tiger. But to >>your point the proofreading and repair systems are not perfect. But >>without deliberate design how did the proofreading and repair systems >>come about in the first place? > >Obviously, because something that helps something replicate itself >better is going to leave more copies of itself in the gene pool . > > >> Of course there is educated, guesses, >>suppositions, hypothesis and theories, but no one _knows_. > >Do you consider your Intelligent Design argument to be an educated >guess, or a supposition? And is there anything wrong with being a >hypothesis or theory? > >>question is where is the man holding hold Occam sword? Has he been >>barred from entering this room of science? -- Bob C. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov