Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.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: CONTRARY EVIDENCE (WASRe: Evide)nce! Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 20:44:58 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 71 Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org Message-ID: References: <86msr8tztx.fsf@example.com> <0kimuihr7sulviejpk5dnrjcduda26f8n0@4ax.com> <86il1wty8k.fsf@example.com> <86le6rvetn.fsf@example.com> <5vl2vilpidbokkqrd0v635aoudh42ql3u2@4ax.com> <8bpJN.709697$p%Mb.210946@fx15.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="30626"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:vMfPuA1jWMIR0Wl/faQWQ3Clrus= Return-Path: X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id B591022976C; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 23:41:23 -0400 (EDT) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981C4229758 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 23:41:21 -0400 (EDT) id 9B2C37D121; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 03:45:00 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org by mod-relay.zaccari.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B0A7D009 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 03:45:00 +0000 (UTC) id A70DCDC01CA; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 04:44:59 +0100 (CET) X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX18xurdPJVZ9NuwjwgZCxl5fkCT4ft5zOtY= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 6166 On 3/19/24 9:13 AM, Ron Dean wrote: > Mark Isaak wrote: >> On 3/17/24 4:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote: >>>  > [...] >>> The most vexing problem I have with evolution is the dogma of a >>> blind, random, unguided process. >> >> Perhaps you will feel better, then, knowing that every evolutionist >> also has a vexing problem with evolution as a dogma of a blind, >> random, unguided process.  (In their case, the vexation typically >> comes from knowing that other people mistake evolution for that.) >> >>> I'm an engineer. In engineering we never see this, there no chance >>> that a complex program can undergo random changes without dire >>> consequence. There might possibly be on rare occasion where an >>> unguided change might have no effect. Engineering starts out with an >>> objective or goal,  so must evolution. If there's no goal, then what >>> distinguishes a beneficial mutation from a bad mutation. Survival one >>> might say? But no! offspring with bad mutations can do frequently >>> survive, protected by the mother. And they can have offspring; only >>> the worst die out. >> >> Your "I'm an engineer" comment sounds like an ecologist specializing >> in whale migrations glancing at a paper on fern genetics and >> commenting, "I'm a biologist. In biology we never see this." >> >> Take a few years to study evolution algorithms.  There is an entire >> field of engineering dedicated to the study and utilization of what >> you say does not exist. >> >>> The members that usually survival depends largely upon luck, >>> surviving to adulthood without being eaten by other beast while at >>> rest or asleep at night and living long enough to reproduce is real. >>> The fittest is in reality survival of the luckiest. In other cases >>> massive numbers of eggs are laid. Sea turtles for example, lay eggs >>> by thousands and they hatch and rush forwards into the sea, except >>> for the large numbers that become food for birds and other animals. >>> Another consideration is the fact that each cell has it's own DNA >>> proofreading and repair systems, a defective cell can repair itself >>> or it is destroyed. >>> >>> Another vexing issue for me is the will to survive. In the case of >>> the turtles, it's as if they _know_ they are in danger, and seek the >>> protection of the sea. How do the know. Instinct where did instinct >>> come from. Going back the first living cell. What was the impetuous >>> of dead inorganic chemicals to created a living cell. Did the first >>> living cell have the will to survive? Where did this will come from? >> >> Have you thought of publishing your doubts in a scientific venue? >> Probably not, maybe because if you have an ounce of sense you would >> realize that your points have been raised and satisfactorily answered >> long ago, probably within a couple months of when _Origins_ was >> published.  But more likely because your unshakeable conviction that >> everyone who disagrees with you is a dogmatist makes you think it >> doesn't matter to you what the scientists say in any case. >> > You just pass over everything without any explanation. You cannot fault > the implied message, so what do you do: you shoot the messenger. Which > is about the only thing I ever get from you! You have shown repeatedly that you have no interest in answers to your challenges, so why should I waste my time? If you really want answers, prove it. If you really want answers, you could find them. Try a library. -- Mark Isaak "Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell