Article <CTPIN.439433$Ama9.157927@fx12.iad>

Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <CTPIN.439433$Ama9.157927@fx12.iad>
Deutsch English Français Italiano
<CTPIN.439433$Ama9.157927@fx12.iad>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
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: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop,talk.origins
Subject: Re: CONTRARY EVIDENCE (WASRe: Evide)nce!
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:11:14 -0400
Organization: Public Usenet Newsgroup Access
Lines: 130
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <CTPIN.439433$Ama9.157927@fx12.iad>
References: <l4bukmFe1ulU1@mid.individual.net>
 <eTGdnXH2fpEw3374nZ2dnZfqlJ_8fwAA@giganews.com>
 <l4holqFaqukU1@mid.individual.net> <Vl4FN.343607$yEgf.190186@fx09.iad>
 <l4k49vFlpj0U1@mid.individual.net> <R59FN.35073$hN14.19961@fx17.iad>
 <us50n9$38rn0$1@dont-email.me> <0CGGN.123819$CYpe.8878@fx40.iad>
 <uskhdv$30tec$1@dont-email.me> <vy9IN.3279$_a1e.2580@fx16.iad>
 <usv6lv$1n5jj$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="40321"; 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/2.53.18.1
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
In-Reply-To: <usv6lv$1n5jj$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 9033

Mark Isaak wrote:
> [Crosspost to uk.comp.sys.mac removed. I'll remove alt.computer.workshop 
> in my next reply, if any.]
> 
> On 3/12/24 9:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 3/8/24 7:59 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a 
>>>>> designer -- not as efficient as human designers, but a designer 
>>>>> nonetheless; and second, that where humans and evolution differ 
>>>>> regarding their being designers, life unquestionably looks like it 
>>>>> is not the result of intelligent design.
>>>>  >
>>>> Of course life looks designed. There is nothing else on the planet 
>>>> with the capacity to replace or reproduce itself with the same level 
>>>> of complexity and organization as does life.  Life alone has the 
>>>> capability and the information  to obtain needed raw materials, 
>>>> modify and order these materials into the highly organized entities 
>>>> called living organisms. Secondly, one of the fact that's  of the 
>>>> essentials of all is the question of origins. Darwin himself 
>>>> acknowledged that the key to the past is the present.
>>>
>>>> If one accepts this truism, then to our present knowledge the 
>>>> _only_source of highly complex information is mind.
>>>
>>> That is a huge non sequitur, and it is not true. We know from physics 
>>> (and astronomy and geology and meteorology) that complexity forms 
>>> spontaneously in a wide variety of circumstances.
>>  >
>> Complex forms do no constitute highly complex information which in 
>> this case infers knowledge, know-how or instructions. Crystals can 
>> form complex strictures so can bubbles in water, star formations, but 
>> there is nothing pertaining to information.
> 
> That's because you define information away in those cases. By most 
> definitions of information, information forms, or at least gets 
> localized, in stars, hurricanes, cave formations, river systems, etc.
> 
>>>> Information is key,
>>>
>>> No, energy flow is key.
>>  >
>> I agree, energy is key, but energy without information that's 
>> controlling energy, energy can be and usually is destructive. A 
>> tornado is not controlled by intelligence energy.  But a tractor with 
>> a controlling factor (a man) is controlled energy, if the man has a 
>> heart attack and dies, the throtle remains open, now the tractors 
>> energy is uncontrolled. The barn, stables and building can be destroyed.
> 
> You miss the reality. Energy flow *without controlling information* can 
> and does, observably and repeatably, produce complex, information-dense 
> formations. Yes, energy can be destructive. So can intelligence; 
> homicide kills a lot more people than tornadoes do. But flowing energy 
> has a tendency to produce order. If the principle could be quantified, 
> it would probably be a fourth law of thermodynamics.
> 
>>>
>>>> Darwin observed pigeons and finches that were varying sizes shapes 
>>>> and differing beaks and he concluded that change was unlimited. This 
>>>> proved false, unknown to Darwin was the information contained in 
>>>> DNA. We observe dogs and hogs of differing sizes and shapes, but 
>>>> there is a limit to the change possible which is determined by 
>>>> information.
>>>
>>> That doesn't even make sense. If change is limited by information, 
>>> then a change to the information eliminates those limits. 
>>  >
>> True, but cave fish went blind, some birds lost their ability to fly. 
>> Dogs can  vary in size and shape, but they cannot grow new organs. 
>> Because the information in DNA to express new organs don't exist. But 
>> it's possible to lose information and fail to survive. We once owed a 
>> dog that gave birth to
>> pups that were blind on two different occasions. So, the information 
>> required for functioning eyes was lost.
> 
> Yeah, so? I have lost money on more than one occasion, and I know the 
> same is true of most people. If I were to go by your logic, everybody is 
> losing money, and nobody is making any.
> 
> Don't forget also to look at such things as the adaptions to high 
> altitude, evolved separately in the Andes and Tibet, and tetrachromacy.
> 
>>> Also, I don't believe Darwin ever supported the idea that change was 
>>> unlimited. Change is still limited by constraints imposed by physics 
>>> and resources, 
>>  >
>> I agree, also absent in DNA.
>>
>>
>> and there appear to be some possibilities (large wheels is
>>> the only example I know) that cannot evolve from existing forms.
>>>
>>>> There is no information (DNA) which expresses for wings on a hog. 
>>>> But there can be a loss of information, birds that lost the ability 
>>>> to fly. The origin of life itself: since the present is key to the 
>>>> past, the Pasteur experiment that life comes only from life has 
>>>> never been falsified. Life must have been created billion years ago. 
>>>> And until a better explanation is discovered. In science the origin 
>>>> of life remains unresolved,  there is no more logical  or rational 
>>>> conclusion available than what we observe in the present. We do not 
>>>> observe new non carbon life or other substances forming a unique 
>>>> type of life at present, again verifying the fact that life comes 
>>>> from life. "And God breathed the breath of life into man and man 
>>>> became a living soul". Man as the only concern of the writer of the 
>>>> statement, but also life was breathed into other life forms. \
>>>
>>> Unfortunately for your position, the constraints to change do not 
>>> include one's choice of religion or lack of ability to conceive of 
>>> alternatives.
>>>
>> At the present there is no better explanation.
> 
> There is no better explanation for biological change of populations over 
> extended time than evolution. I know of only one other explanation -- 
> tampering by super-high-tech extraterrestrials --, and nobody takes it 
> seriously. Creationism, aka magic, is not an explanation; it is a word 
> to use in place of one.
> 
>> Don't get my wrong I am against organized religion. But this is a 
>> religious dogma which comes from religious sources. But the only 
>> argument against this dogma is atheism - there is a God or there is no 
>> God, either of which is in reality, just a philosophy.
>> But my bet would be on the positive.
> 
> None of which has any relevance to the issue of evolution.
> 
No one on TO is serious! I'm not dealing with this any longer. This is 
it! My Final Post!