Article <vqca5a$30k7f$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<vqca5a$30k7f$1@dont-email.me>

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.xcski.com!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Observe_the_trend=2E_It=E2=80=99s_happening=2E_Give?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_it_time=2E?=
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2025 08:06:34 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 386
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vqca5a$30k7f$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vq8k3n$29ai1$1@dont-email.me> <vq9v8e$2gefd$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqb4h0$2mq6d$1@dont-email.me>
Reply-To: rokimoto557@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="72435"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Grcc2G3A1845/GFcdZo1DUiUgV4=
In-Reply-To: <vqb4h0$2mq6d$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
	DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_REPLYTO,
	FREEMAIL_REPLYTO_END_DIGIT,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,
	RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED,
	RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,
	URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS,URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS,
	USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org
Bytes: 24526

On 3/5/2025 9:24 PM, MarkE wrote:
> On 6/03/2025 3:48 am, RonO wrote:
>> You need to better cite your sources so that it is easier to look them 
>> up.
> 
> Appreciate your engagement and detailed detailed content. Don't 
> appreciate your rudeness and oversimplified black-and-white stance, but 
> we live with these.

Dishonesty is not the best policy.  The good lie for god was made up to 
attack religious belief.  It was never meant to be used to support your 
religious beliefs.  The ID perps may live by the good lie for god adage, 
but it is not anything that you want to be involved with in the gray 
areas of reality that you want to believe exist.  Your gray areas no 
longer exist.  They haven't existed since the bait and switch started to 
go down, and the ID perps gave up and decided to just go with the 
obfuscation and denial for denial purposes.  It is just a fact that the 
ID creationist scam has just been used as bait for the last 23 years. 
What you keep trying to support is the use of this junk as bait.  You 
may believe that these types of arguments are leading somewhere that you 
want to go, but you already understand that they never will.  You do 
realize that your origin of life denial is not Biblical, but you still 
persist in going with the gap denial.  Gap denial is all the ID scam 
ever was, and the switch scam is just obfuscation and denial where they 
do not mention that ID nor creationism ever existed.  It is just 
obfuscation and denial meant to keep the kids as ignorant as possible 
because they can't tell them why they are being lied to.  That is their 
current means to continue their original Wedge political mission.

There is no existing ID "science" that, if they ever do validate any of 
it, will support their Wedge mission.  If Behe ever finds his three 
neutral mutations that were needed to evolve the flagellum over a 
billion years ago the ID perps would lose most of their financial and 
political support.  The vast majority of creationists that compose their 
"Big Tent" are YEC.  Any valid ID science would just be more science for 
them to deny.  This is why Nelson has always told the rubes that they do 
not have any ID science at this time, but that they are just working on 
producing some.  About the last thing that Nelson wants to happen would 
be if Meyer ever was able to demonstrate design during the Cambrian 
explosion over half a billion years ago.  Nelson is YEC and he would 
have never joined up for the ID perp's Wedge political mission if the 
other ID perps had, had any valid ID science.

> 
> 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.

Natural selection works in the real world, as such there are expected to 
be limits on what can happen in this universe or in any particular 
environment.  Your problem is that all you have are claims about such 
limits, and none of the ID perps have been able to demonstrate that any 
impossible evolution ever happened.  The ID perp's focus on natural 
selection is just a dishonest ploy anyway.  We already know that natural 
selection is only one factor in the evolution of life on earth. 
Biological evolution is just basically allele frequency change over 
time.  Behe's waiting time stupidity about 2 or 3 neutral mutations 
needed for the evolution of some new function depends on the fact that 
natural selection is not involved in a lot of the evolution of life on 
earth.  There are biologists that believe that genetic drift may have 
more influence on the diversity of life on this planet than natural 
selection.  Genetic drift and things like founder effects can do things 
that natural selection likely could not do, and would even work against 
such evolution happening, but those things still happen.  They still 
have happened because genetic drift and founder effects are a known part 
of the evolution of life on earth.

You need to deal with why Behe needs a time limit for his junk argument, 
and why he can't find any examples of impossible evolution.  Below I 
have a human and mouse example where there may already be 30 neutral 
mutations that have occurred in your average protein gene in each 
lineage (60 total).  Any existing pair or triplet could have a 
beneficial effect if the environment changed.  The mutations already 
exist in these proteins, but it took 80 million years to accumulate 
them.  Behe is looking for 2 or 3 mutations that have occurred in the 
same lineage within a limited number of generations, but in reality that 
time limit is not required by most protein genes.

You are just lying to yourself as you keep supporting a dishonest and 
bogus creationist scam.  A scam that was never going to accomplish what 
they wanted the rubes to believe could be accomplished.  The ID perps 
were never going to support Biblical creationism with their "science".

Ron Okimoto
> 
>>
>>> Sources:
>>>
>>> •    Behe, M. (1996). Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge 
>>> to Evolution. (Concept of irreducible complexity introduced, 
>>> flagellum as example).
>>
>> Still born and never amounted to anything.  Pretty much a complete 
>> failure.  Not a good source for much of anything.  What testable 
>> hypotheses ever came out of this book, and did Behe ever attempt to do 
>> any such testing?  The claim was that IC was testable, but both 
>> Minnich and Behe claimed that they had never bothered to attempt the 
>> testing. The test that they both proposed was bogus, and would not 
>> have been any type of valid test.  Has Behe ever been able to 
>> determine that his type of IC systems exist.  He has admitted that IC 
>> systems can evolve by natural means, but supposedly there exist IC 
>> systems that cannot evolve by natural means.  Demonstrate that any 
>> such systems have been found to exist.
>>
>>> •
>>> •    Yale News – discovery of 20-part SAGA complex.
>>
>> So what?  Do you understand how complex gene regulation has become in 
>> the last 3 billion years?  Behe could never come up with a number of 
>> parts for a system that would make it his type of IC.  You can't 
>> either.   You need to determine how it evolved in order to make any 
>> determination as to whether it was designed by some god or not.  Do 
>> you even know how this system works?  Without that knowledge why use 
>> it to support an obvious religious bait and switch scam like ID?  Both 
>> plants and animals have the same type of chromatin.  Histones are 
>> highly conserved proteins.  Angiosperms and mammals differ by only 2 
>> amino acid substitutions for one of the Histone genes.  This system 
>> has been evolving for well over a billion years to use chromatin 
>> structure to regulate the transcription of genes in eukaryotes that 
>> have their genes on chromosomes packed in the nucleus as chromatin.
>>
>>> •
>>> •    CSIRO/ABC Science – description of flagellum’s motor-like 
>>> complexity.
>>
>> So what?  Gish would put up a picture of the flagellum in his 
>> "debates" and used to claim that it was a designed machine.  Behe 
>> tried to do the same thing, and it was an utter failure.  Was the 
>> flagellum ever determined to be Behe's type of IC?  What good does 
>> failure do for the ID scam?
>>
>>> •
>>> •    NASA Astrobiology/PNAS – ribosome core conservation and origin.
>>
>> The RNA parts of the ribosome likely existed before the genetic code 
>> evolved.  You do understand that, right?  How much evolution could 
>> have occurred since proteins could be added to the ribosome.  The 
>> original ribosome likely did not have any protein components because 
>> the genetic code had not yet evolved.  The current ribosome was 
>> reconstructed with proteins that could now be encoded by organisms 
>> with a functional translation system.  You have to figure out how you 
>> can prevent proteins from being added to the functional ribosome in 
>> some evolutionary sequence to end up with what we have today.  The 
>> ribosome was already working before the ribosomal protein genes 
>> evolved and got added to an already functioning ribosome.
>>
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========