Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.killfile.org!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Observe the trend
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2025 06:01:08 -0500
Organization: What are you looking for?
Lines: 55
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <sdklsjhfgj7vcjvoda7m5fu52umpefn45u@4ax.com>
References: <vq8k3n$29ai1$1@dont-email.me> <vqar6h$2lnbh$1@dont-email.me> <p9lisjtdjr31e7i0m5bd1cq0g5gcnab300@4ax.com>
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="5798"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1n9JhnKhVCd2ImxNio4clONHQ/U=
Return-Path: <news@eternal-september.org>
X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org
	id 1DBBD22978C; Fri, 07 Mar 2025 06:01:21 -0500 (EST)
	by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB5DD229783
	for <talk-origins@ediacara.org>; Fri, 07 Mar 2025 06:01:18 -0500 (EST)
	id 9C1351C0838; Fri,  7 Mar 2025 11:01:12 +0000 (UTC)
Delivered-To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
	by newsfeed.bofh.team (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 938E31C04A5
	for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Fri,  7 Mar 2025 11:01:12 +0000 (UTC)
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.eternal-september.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 655086062D
	for <talk-origins@moderators.isc.org>; Fri,  7 Mar 2025 11:01:11 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: name/655086062D; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com
	id 3E39EDC01CA; Fri,  7 Mar 2025 12:01:11 +0100 (CET)
X-Injection-Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2025 12:01:11 +0100 (CET)
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1+hSOUcaCefnZ91GjOzVzia06lUvJCaDDE=
	DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,
	USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org
Bytes: 4783

On Thu, 06 Mar 2025 07:56:53 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 11:45:05 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 5/03/2025 3:31 pm, MarkE wrote:
>>> Is there a limit to capability of natural selection to refine, adapt =
and=20
>>> create the =E2=80=9Cappearance of design=E2=80=9D? Yes: the mechanism=
 itself of=20
>>> =E2=80=9Cdifferential reproductive success=E2=80=9D has intrinsic =
limitations, whatever=20
>>> it may be able to achieve, and this is further constrained by finite=20
>>> time and population sizes.
>>>=20
>>
>><snip for focus>
>>
>>Martin, let's stay on topic. Would you agree that there are limits to =
NS=20
>>as described, which lead to an upper limit to functional complexity in=20
>>living things?
>>
>>How these limits might be determined is a separate issue, but the first=
=20
>>step is establishing this premise.
>
>I have several times put a lot of time and effort into responding to
>your arguments but time and time again, you have simply ignored my own
>challenges to your arguments and just walked away from the questions I
>asked you. Why should I think this time would be any different?
>
>The arguments you present above are just another rehash of what you
>have argued before.  I can see only two reasons why you keep rehashing
>this stuff.
>
>The first possible reason is that you are genuinely trying to convince
>other people but you are never going to do that whilst you refuse to
>respond to the things they challenge you about.
>
>The second possible reason is that you are trying to convince yourself
>that the things science show are not a threat to your Faith because
>they don't stand up to scrutiny.  You will never succeed at that
>because you simply cannot wish away the things that science shows, you
>have to find ways of combining what science tells you with your Faith.
>The weird thing is that when you do that, your Faith can actually
>become stronger rather than weaker. I have given you several examples
>of people who have found that but, like other inconvenient things, you
>simply ignore it.


So follow your own advice, KF him, and STFU already.

--=20
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge