Article <FMhSN.790040$xHn7.100515@fx14.iad>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<FMhSN.790040$xHn7.100515@fx14.iad>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!news.szaf.org!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: talk.origins
Subject: Re: West Virginia creationism
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 17:33:24 -0400
Organization: Public Usenet Newsgroup Access
Lines: 90
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <FMhSN.790040$xHn7.100515@fx14.iad>
References: <cBYNN.132676$GX69.32667@fx46.iad>
 <66ad07ee-b140-4518-a9df-bffa316b7391@gmail.com>
 <9OZNN.758376$p%Mb.330094@fx15.iad>
 <f43i0jh8u89nlndn5137sfa0uo7b0isoik@4ax.com>
 <8a_ON.491226$yEgf.384550@fx09.iad>
 <gdop0jt4mvqljioufv7stmefniid401svh@4ax.com>
 <CvnRN.140988$6ePe.119511@fx42.iad>
 <rcpd1jtljvngh3g3s7455lun0ukjlrqoeb@4ax.com>
 <2VYRN.256204$hN14.193303@fx17.iad>
 <4fch1jpp5qtolug4bj158sl9tvn8h7htp9@4ax.com>
 <ZudSN.257840$hN14.25285@fx17.iad>
 <musi1jhm09745v4es6ca1pbc4nmogs42ck@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="7660"; 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
In-Reply-To: <musi1jhm09745v4es6ca1pbc4nmogs42ck@4ax.com>
Bytes: 7355

Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> <snip>
>> 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.
>
It's not my objective to prove anything to people in whose mind is ruled 
by their paradigm. But rather people who are really questioning, I hope 
to offer some of information that I have learned since I began 
questioning and some conclusions I'be reached.  As far as disproving 
evolution, it's not possible. However, I think for the person with an 
unbiased frame of mind truly sees nature and natural processes as 
design.  I think Dawkins expressed this better than I could. It's my 
conclusion that deliberate and purposeful design is a _better_ 
explanation for what we observe in nature and natural processes. I see 
evolution as an alternative to design, both observe the same evidence, 
BUT this evidence in interpreted to fit within one's pre-existing 
determination or view.
> 
>> 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 .
> 
The fossil record is overwhelmed with the extinction of species 99% that 
ever lived are extinct, this is empirical  evidence that the vast 
majority of copies,  contrary to theory of survival of the fittest, 
disappeared from the face of earth. The fossil record depicts species 
appearing abruptly in the fossil record, remaining in stasis during 
their tenure on the planet then suddenly disappearing.
(Gould & Eldredge). Stasis was observed with little variability, I 
suspect the DNA of each species
during it's period of stasis, its variability was becoming increasing 
imperfect of it DNA continued to incur mistakes until the species became 
unfit to survive.
> 
>>   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?
>
No, as long as it has the can be falsified; if a theory is falsified, 
there is no real justification for holding on to a falsified theory 
until a another and better theory is advanced.  But what I have problems 
with is hypothesis and theories which come about in an effort to rescue 
a theory that  conflicts with observations and facts.  And evolution is 
replete with just such hypothesis which are limited only by the 
imagination of its proponent. Has Occam's razor been dulled or thrown 
away by science?
>   
>> The question is where is the man holding hold Occam sword? Has he been
>> barred from entering this room of science?
>