Article <jnp2tj5bujummb58mmb6gg9oil7e68c1os@4ax.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<jnp2tj5bujummb58mmb6gg9oil7e68c1os@4ax.com>

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: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: =?utf-8?Q?Observe_the_trend._It?=
 =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=99s_happening._Give_?=
 =?utf-8?Q?it_time.?=
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 07:03:11 -0400
Organization: What are you looking for?
Lines: 224
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <jnp2tj5bujummb58mmb6gg9oil7e68c1os@4ax.com>
References: <vq8k3n$29ai1$1@dont-email.me> <vqar6h$2lnbh$1@dont-email.me> <vqehpj$3g1ui$1@dont-email.me> <vqghcq$41r$1@dont-email.me> <1paosjtj59vvqqe6ikjf02a54murfctvdm@4ax.com> <vqjdk9$jpso$2@dont-email.me> <kstqsj5ben8pers6ah48pn4uq2b34quogi@4ax.com> <vqmim4$1agp7$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="95893"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rTbEqe3aQQqCgfgd9vVh9BgQyZg=
Bytes: 11905

On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 22:33:23 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 9/03/2025 10:12 pm, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 17:48:41 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> On 8/03/2025 11:34 pm, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:34:30 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/03/2025 9:29 pm, Ernest Major wrote:
>>>>>> On 06/03/2025 00:45, MarkE wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/03/2025 3:31 pm, MarkE wrote:
>>>>>>>> Is there a limit to capability of natural selection to refine, =
adapt
>>>>>>>> and create the =E2=80=9Cappearance of design=E2=80=9D? Yes: the =
mechanism itself of
>>>>>>>> =E2=80=9Cdifferential reproductive success=E2=80=9D has =
intrinsic limitations,
>>>>>>>> whatever it may be able to achieve, and this is further =
constrained
>>>>>>>> by finite time and population sizes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip for focus>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Martin, let's stay on topic. Would you agree that there are =
limits to
>>>>>>> NS as described, which lead to an upper limit to functional =
complexity
>>>>>>> in living things?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How these limits might be determined is a separate issue, but the
>>>>>>> first step is establishing this premise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, natural selection is not the only evolutionary process. =
Even if
>>>>>> one evolutionary process is not capable of achieving something =
that
>>>>>> doesn't mean that evolutionary processes in toto are not capable =
of
>>>>>> achieving that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Natural selection is the *only* naturalistic means capable of =
increasing
>>>>> functional complexity and genetic information.
>>>>>
>>>>> All other factors have only a shuffling/randomising effect. In =
every
>>>>> case, NS is required to pick from the many resulting permutations =
the
>>>>> rare chance improvements.
>>>>>
>>>>> Without the action of NS, all biological systems are degrading over=
 time.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, you've changed the question. Evolutionary processes have
>>>>>> limitations, but those limitations need not be on the degree of
>>>>>> functional complexity achievable. Evolution cannot produce living
>>>>>> organisms that can't exist in the universe. (You could quibble =
about
>>>>>> lethal mutations, recessives, etc., but I hope you can perceive =
the
>>>>>> intent of my phrasing; for example, I very much doubt that =
evolution
>>>>>> could result in an organism with a volume measured in cubic light =
years.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Applying this to functional complexity, physical limits on how big=
 an
>>>>>> organism can be, and how small details can be, do pose a limit on =
how
>>>>>> much functional complexity can be packed into an organism. But =
such a
>>>>>> limit doesn't help you - humans are clearly capable of existing in=
 this
>>>>>> universe, so aren't precluded by that limit. You need a process
>>>>>> limitation, not a physical limitation; I don't find it obvious =
that
>>>>>> there is a process limitation that applies here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You say that the first step is establishing the premise. That is =
your job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That there are things that evolution cannot achieve (a classic =
example
>>>>>> is the wheel, though even that is not unimaginable) doesn't not =
mean
>>>>>> that evolution cannot achieve things that already exist; one of =
the
>>>>>> reasons that ID is not science is it's lack of interest in =
accounting
>>>>>> for the voluminous evidence that evolution has achieved the =
current
>>>>>> biosphere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assertions without evidence do not an argument make.  Your expressed
>>>> hypotheses above make it clear you have no idea how genetic drift =
and
>>>> natural selection work.  Both are capable of setting allele
>>>> frequencies to either 100% or 0% aka "arrived".  This is Genetic =
101.
>>>>
>>>> Your hypotheses also express a simplistic understanding of the =
meaning
>>>> of "fittest".  It does not mean the fittest among all possibilities.
>>>> It does mean the fittest among extant features; features which don't
>>>> exist at some arbitrary time and place need not be considered.
>>>>
>>>> As you say, a reasonable discussion needs to be limited to =
"possible"
>>>> features; no organisms transmuting elements or quantum jumping.  =
What
>>>> you don't say is an hypothesis for how intelligent design gets =
genetic
>>>> material not available to natural selection.  Without that,
>>>> intelligent design and natural selection necessarily are limited to
>>>> the same solution space.  Or, like Behe, do you allow intelligent
>>>> design to magically *poof* features into existence?
>>>>
>>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========