Article <k285tj9c4b7d3to4j3ou3vnmq2mf532jcl@4ax.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<k285tj9c4b7d3to4j3ou3vnmq2mf532jcl@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!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: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 05:09:35 -0400
Organization: What are you looking for?
Lines: 159
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <k285tj9c4b7d3to4j3ou3vnmq2mf532jcl@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> <af429d58c8a8f999cc9c5b674a54e8c4@www.novabbs.com> <vqohqc$1qn8i$1@dont-email.me> <846a8431496562385fc3e83484712749@www.novabbs.com> <vqp9lr$1vbsh$1@dont-email.me> <269b7313de05ced18d3f67cec741b949@www.novabbs.com> <vqralh$2fuat$1@dont-email.me> <6097870255ae5a922d8ed5ab74a99696@www.novabbs.com> <vqtmo0$32o3u$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="31303"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nPYHPiwxcsA04hD8c6NqlK+vKhY=
Bytes: 9808

On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 15:25:36 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 13/03/2025 4:03 am, LDagget wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 6:47:10 +0000, MarkE wrote:
>>=20
>>> On 12/03/2025 11:09 am, LDagget wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 12:18:00 +0000, MarkE wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/03/2025 5:44 pm, LDagget wrote:
>> ...
>>>> small selection of posts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Look, we'll probably always strongly disagree, but a rhetorical =
boxing
>>> match is at the expense of interesting discussion. I am willing to
>>> examine the less certain aspects of my own position.
>>>
>>> 1. I've been quite open about being a mainstream Christian, therefore
>>> belief in an omniscient designer is assumed. The only reason I =
mentioned
>>> it here was to contrast solution space access, even at risk of =
stating
>>> the obvious. Not sure what your concern with this is?
>>=20
>> You are asserting ID as an alternative to evolution. You borrow
>> from the ID movement that exists, riding on their shoulders.
>> They have religiously denied that their claims about the designer
>> are specific to their God.
>>=20
>> They do this for well documented reasons.
>>=20
>> It is foundationally dishonest to ride their coattails but retreat
>> to claiming you want to refer to an omniscient designer when you
>> are pressed and find it to be rhetorically convenient.
>>=20
>> You assert that evolution cannot create the complexity observed in
>> the biochemistry of living organisms. My undergraduate degree was
>> in biochemistry, my further degrees and work expanded upon that
>> such that I have a strong background in biochemistry, immunology,
>> regulatory networks, biopolymer structure, and metabolic networks.
>> And as a companion interest, I have studied evolution.
>>=20
>> So when you make these claims, as sloppily as you do, I take
>> some offense at the fact of how wrong they are. I also take offense
>> when someone falsely claims that other countries pay for tariffs.
>>=20
>> If you aren't talking about an abstract notion of a Designer, and
>> are instead limiting yourself to a cartoon of an Omniscient,
>> Omnipotent, Omnipresent God, then why go through the deceit of
>> labeling them a designer. Be honest and just say "God did it."
>>=20
>> The raison d'etat for saying "designer" instead of god is well
>> documented. It was a scheme conspired to pretend it wasn't about
>> god but was a neutral analysis that could compete with evolution
>> because certain people were afraid that children who learned
>> about evolution would not feel the need to believe in god.
>> This in concert with attempts to bypass US Constitutional bans
>> on pushing specific religious beliefs in public schools.
>>=20
>> So you invoking a "designer" tars you with that legacy.
>> You can try to avoid it, but when you retreat to a triple-
>> omni god we're left to ask
>>=20
>>  =C2=A0---=C2=A0 why did you ever reference a designer?
>>=20
>>=20
>>> 2. As I said above, you interpreted me to be saying "that evolution =
HAS
>>> to explore ALL available search space." I clarified that my meaning =
was
>>> not that, but rather the postulate "that evolution would NOT be able =
to
>>> explore all available search space." Do you accept this?
>>=20
>> Your claim was that evolution can't account for observed complexity
>> because of its limitation, and to expand upon those limitations
>> you point out that evolution can't explore the entire hypothetically
>> possible genomic landscape. It was an odd thing to bring up because
>> it's trite and irrelevant. Nothing about the observed biochemical
>> complexity of life suggests it would have been necessary to have
>> been able to source from the entirety of the genomic landscape.
>> Thus your comments about exploring the entirety of the genomic
>> landscape is a nonsensical smokescreen.
>>=20
>> Apparently, you wanted to dump on evolution because it can't consider
>> things your omniscient designer can. And now I can't help myself.
>>=20
>> The evidence is against your omniscient designer drawing from an
>> unconstrained realm of the full conceptually possible genomic
>> landscape. If that was happening, why would we have the pairing of
>> the twin nested hierarchies? An omniscient designer would not have
>> such a constraint. They wouldn't have=C2=A0 that excuse for filling so
>> many life forms with kludgy solutions hobbled together from =
preexisting
>> structures and pathways.
>>=20
>>=20
>>> 3. I can appreciate there is some frustration in relation to the =
"what,
>>> why, where, and how" questions. I'm not actively avoiding them, and =
have
>>> given some broad suggestions here and there.
>>>
>>> An example I've give before is this: it is entirely valid to seek to
>>> show that human induced global warming is a real problem, regardless =
of
>>> whether or not you have a solution.
>>=20
>> That's not the same thing. That's about identifying a problem whether
>> or not you have a solution. That isn't remotely like talking about =
some
>> "designer" and religiously avoiding asking about when, where, and how.
>>=20
>>> Similarly, it is entirely valid to
>>> seek to show that naturalistic explanations of origins are =
inadequate,
>>> regardless of whether or not you offer an alternative hypothesis. =
That
>>> would in and of itself be of profound importance and value. Offering =
an
>>> alternative hypothesis (naturalistic or supernatural) would be also =
be
>>> of profound importance and value, but not necessary to validate the
>>> former.
>>>
>>> Open to exploring this further.
>>=20
>> And yet, you continue to wander away from your assertion that
>> naturalistic explanations can't account for the complexity observed
>> in living organism. Instead, you talk about how evolution can't
>> test the entirety of sequence space. In other words, you revert to
>> irrelevant asides. You talk about how an omniscient designer
>> could use any genomic sequence --- except that hasn't been observed
>> to have happened but rather the opposite.
>>=20
>> Son, people can see you.
>>=20
>
>I see you are fond of recycling that particular put-down.


What particular put-down are you talking about?  ISTM his comments
above are the epitome of civility. =20

Ironically his points echo mine, not that I expect anybody to
acknowledge that fact.


>And I see you've chosen to double down. My offer of civil and open=20
>discussion stands. Let me know if ever you're willing.


========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========