Article <269b7313de05ced18d3f67cec741b949@www.novabbs.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<269b7313de05ced18d3f67cec741b949@www.novabbs.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
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: j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Observe the trend. =?UTF-8?B?SXTigJlzIGhhcHBlbmluZy4gR2l2ZSBpdCB0aW1l?=
 =?UTF-8?B?Lg==?=
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:09:57 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <269b7313de05ced18d3f67cec741b949@www.novabbs.com>
References: <vq8k3n$29ai1$1@dont-email.me> <vqar6h$2lnbh$1@dont-email.me> <vqehpj$3g1ui$1@dont-email.me> <vqghcq$41r$1@dont-email.me> <af429d58c8a8f999cc9c5b674a54e8c4@www.novabbs.com> <vqohqc$1qn8i$1@dont-email.me> <846a8431496562385fc3e83484712749@www.novabbs.com> <vqp9lr$1vbsh$1@dont-email.me>
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="76931"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Bytes: 9757
Lines: 163

On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 12:18:00 +0000, MarkE wrote:

> On 11/03/2025 5:44 pm, LDagget wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 5:30:52 +0000, MarkE wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/03/2025 5:30 am, LDagget wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 4:34:30 +0000, MarkE wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>>> The limits of NS are not simply due to physically possible organisms.
>>>>> It's much tighter constraint. The mechanism of "differential
>>>>> reproductive success" is a blunt instrument, rightly described as
>>>>> explaining the survival but not arrival of the fittest.
>>>>>
>>>>> To elaborate my hypotheses (not proofs):
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. NS, along with any other naturalistic mechanisms, do not have the
>>>>> logical capacity to fully traverse the solution space, regardless of
>>>>> time available. Some (many) areas of the fitness landscape will be
>>>>> islands, local maxima, inaccessible via gradualistic pathways (e.g.
>>>>> monotonically increasing fitness functions). These are however
>>>>> accessible to intelligent design.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. The time/material resources of the universe allow exploration of
>>>>> only
>>>>> a small fraction of even the accessible solutions. Again, this
>>>>> constraint does not apply to intelligent design.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the burden of proof for these hypotheses rest exclusively with ID?
>>>>> Not at all. Naturalism, if being intellectually curious, honest, and
>>>>> open-minded, will ask the same questions and seek to answer them.
>>>>
>>>> You assertions (it's vainglorious to promote them as hypotheses) are
>>>> rooted in nonsensical presumptions. Why would "solution space"
>>>> need to be fully traversed? A sensible person would have considered
>>>> 'adequately traversed' and then followed that up with an analysis
>>>> of what would be adequate. But you chose FULLY. It's beyond amateurish.
>>>>
>>>> That biological evolution will never get around to testing some
>>>> potential
>>>> genomes is one of those trivial things. You can work out the math on
>>>> the number of potential genomes and the number of atoms in the universe
>>>> and figure out that they won't all wind up in some fledgling organism
>>>> asking for a try out. And so what? It doesn't advance a sensible point.
>>>> You aren't advancing a remotely sensible notion, much less a hypothesis.
>>>>
>>>> Now as to your assertion about "intelligent design" being able to
>>>> somehow consider all the possibilities, I don't think so. Tell me how
>>>> you would model all the possible permutations of a yeast sized genome.
>>>> All of them. And that's not about just flashing permutations of ATCG
>>>> into memory, that's running a simulation on each. So your assertion ---
>>>>
>>>>>  ... Again, this
>>>>> constraint does not apply to intelligent design.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- is trivially false (on top of being proposed to follow a
>>>> foolish premise).
>>>>
>>>> Why would you expect people to follow you down a poorly conceived
>>>> speculation that is absolutely full of ill-informed speculations
>>>> that pile on top of obviously flawed premises? Moreover, why
>>>> don't you apply an internal editor to weed out foolish ideas
>>>> before you post them?
>>>>
>>>
>>> LD, your post may be a personal best in terms of count of overblown
>>> adjectives, insults, and misconceived assertions. But don't let that
>>> allow you to become complacent.
>>
>> You can't expect too much science in response to a post that had
>> none to respond to. And yet, my response hit directly at the flaws
>> in your assertions.
>>
>> Suggesting that evolution HAS to explore ALL available search space
>> is simultaneously absurd and unnecessary. And yet you suggested that
>> very thing. And now, you deflect when that defect is laid at
>> your feet. Anybody reading this knows how to interpret that.
>>
>
> Here's a review of what I said:
>
> <quote>
>
> The limits of NS are not simply due to physically possible organisms.
> It's much tighter constraint. The mechanism of "differential
> reproductive success" is a blunt instrument, rightly described as
> explaining the survival but not arrival of the fittest.
>
> To elaborate my hypotheses (not proofs):
>
> 1. NS, along with any other naturalistic mechanisms, do not have the
> logical capacity to fully traverse the solution space, regardless of
> time available. Some (many) areas of the fitness landscape will be
> islands, local maxima, inaccessible via gradualistic pathways (e.g.
> monotonically increasing fitness functions). These are however
> accessible to intelligent design.

You are getting revisionist here. Your over-arching premise is that
current life exhibits complexity that is inaccessible to biological
evolution. To support that, you're going on about how evolution can't
explore the full landscape of theoretically possible genomes.

The connection between those two is BS. You have not and cannot
establish that it is necessary for evolution to explore all possible
genomes to produce the observed biological landscape. So the
whole line of your argumentation is nonsensical.

Moreover, the things evolution deniers cite as "impossible" for
evolution to produce bear no resemblance to remote islands on a
fitness landscape. Not blood coagulation, not the immune system,
not regulator networks, not developmental pathways.
Nothing they can cite. Indeed, these all have simpler forms and
reuse basic biochemical mechanisms.

> 2. The time/material resources of the universe allow exploration of only
> a small fraction of even the accessible solutions. Again, this
> constraint does not apply to intelligent design.
>
> Does the burden of proof for these hypotheses rest exclusively with ID?
> Not at all. Naturalism, if being intellectually curious, honest, and
> open-minded, will ask the same questions and seek to answer them.
>
> </quote)
>
> Statement 1 is a postulate (i.e. I'm hypothesising) that NS is unable to
> fully traverse the solution space. I made this statement (and the
> second) to clarify that my contention is this: the limits of NS are more
> than the obvious and necessary, e.g. that NS can produce only
> "physically possible organisms".
>
> Here's what I did NOT say or suggest: "that evolution HAS to explore ALL
> available search space." Rather, I suggested that evolution would not be
> able to explore all available search space. Which is a very different
> claim (and I assume one you would agree with?).
>
> I also state that ID has does not have this constraint, i.e. an
> omniscient designer would have access all physically possible organisms.

My my my. An Omniscient Designer?

So yours is the theory of Omniscient Design.

About your Gish Gallop: your nag just threw a shoe.

But I'll give you this, the tautology in your claim is something
to behold. An all knowing designer would know how to design.

It's a bit unclear why you took the time to type that out, but if
that's where you want to hang your hat, my hat's off to you. It
seems entirely in character.

I had frankly hoped to push you into trying to apply some biochemical
specifics into  your rhetoric but you went in a completely different
direction  toward even more abstract hand waving.

But I must comment. You were asked why your Design "Science" doesn't
act like actual science and ask questions like who, what, why, where,
and how. You have at least answered the who question.

Your who is an Omniscient Designer. It would be nice if you could
be honest enough to make that clear to people who don't read this
small selection of posts.