Article <haij1jp7cokjfm0quf6vdtfs0u99bspmt1@4ax.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<haij1jp7cokjfm0quf6vdtfs0u99bspmt1@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Vincent Maycock <maycock@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: West Virginia creationism
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 17:25:59 -0700
Organization: University of Ediacara
Lines: 122
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <haij1jp7cokjfm0quf6vdtfs0u99bspmt1@4ax.com>
References: <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$hN14.25285@fx17.iad> <musi1jhm09745v4es6ca1pbc4nmogs42ck@4ax.com> <FMhSN.790040$xHn7.100515@fx14.iad>
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="11821"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Bytes: 8448

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 17:33:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.

That is, you don't "get" the principles of evolution. 

> 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.

How would evolution even occur with *perfect replication*? 

> 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.

Neither of those ideas are alternatives of each other.  Only evolution
fits the facts, and Intelligent Design is pseudo-intellectualism, not
a valid "alternative" to anything in science or even academia in
general. 

>>> 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.

LOL!  So you don't believe in survival of the fittest?  Just how much
of kook *are* you? 

> 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 

Where did you get this idea from? 

>of it DNA continued to incur mistakes until the species became 
>unfit to survive.

How would natural selection interact with this process?

>>>   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 

Thank you, Captain Obvious!

>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?

Occam's razor tells us to reject the idea of an Intelligent Designer
because things work quite well in biology without one. 

>>> The question is where is the man holding hold Occam sword? Has he been
>>> barred from entering this room of science?
>>