Article <vqp9lr$1vbsh$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<vqp9lr$1vbsh$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!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.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: MarkE <me22over7@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: Tue, 11 Mar 2025 23:18:00 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 151
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vqp9lr$1vbsh$1@dont-email.me>
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>
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="59608"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:4arCiEjXYF6f7dQOXrk7yznhk4U=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <846a8431496562385fc3e83484712749@www.novabbs.com>
Bytes: 9504

On 11/03/2025 5:44 pm, LDagget wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 5:30:52 +0000, MarkE wrote:
> 
>> On 11/03/2025 5:30 am, LDagget wrote:
>>> On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 4:34:30 +0000, MarkE wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/03/2025 9:29 pm, Ernest Major wrote:
>>>>> On 06/03/2025 00:45, MarkE wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> You assertions (it's vainglorious to promote them as hypotheses) are
>>> rooted in nonsensical presumptions. Why would "solution space"
>>> need to be fully traversed? A sensible person would have considered
>>> 'adequately traversed' and then followed that up with an analysis
>>> of what would be adequate. But you chose FULLY. It's beyond amateurish.
>>>
>>> That biological evolution will never get around to testing some
>>> potential
>>> genomes is one of those trivial things. You can work out the math on
>>> the number of potential genomes and the number of atoms in the universe
>>> and figure out that they won't all wind up in some fledgling organism
>>> asking for a try out. And so what? It doesn't advance a sensible point.
>>> You aren't advancing a remotely sensible notion, much less a hypothesis.
>>>
>>> Now as to your assertion about "intelligent design" being able to
>>> somehow consider all the possibilities, I don't think so. Tell me how
>>> you would model all the possible permutations of a yeast sized genome.
>>> All of them. And that's not about just flashing permutations of ATCG
>>> into memory, that's running a simulation on each. So your assertion ---
>>>
>>>>  ... Again, this
>>>> constraint does not apply to intelligent design.
>>>>
>>>
>>> --- is trivially false (on top of being proposed to follow a
>>> foolish premise).
>>>
>>> Why would you expect people to follow you down a poorly conceived
>>> speculation that is absolutely full of ill-informed speculations
>>> that pile on top of obviously flawed premises? Moreover, why
>>> don't you apply an internal editor to weed out foolish ideas
>>> before you post them?
>>>
>>
>> LD, your post may be a personal best in terms of count of overblown
>> adjectives, insults, and misconceived assertions. But don't let that
>> allow you to become complacent.
> 
> You can't expect too much science in response to a post that had
> none to respond to. And yet, my response hit directly at the flaws
> in your assertions.
> 
> Suggesting that evolution HAS to explore ALL available search space
> is simultaneously absurd and unnecessary. And yet you suggested that
> very thing. And now, you deflect when that defect is laid at
> your feet. Anybody reading this knows how to interpret that.
> 

Here's a review of what I said:

<quote>

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.

</quote)

Statement 1 is a postulate (i.e. I'm hypothesising) that NS is unable to 
fully traverse the solution space. I made this statement (and the 
second) to clarify that my contention is this: the limits of NS are more 
than the obvious and necessary, e.g. that NS can produce only 
"physically possible organisms".

Here's what I did NOT say or suggest: "that evolution HAS to explore ALL 
available search space." Rather, I suggested that evolution would not be 
able to explore all available search space. Which is a very different 
claim (and I assume one you would agree with?).

I also state that ID has does not have this constraint, i.e. an 
omniscient designer would have access all physically possible organisms.

My conclusion was not a claim to have refuted naturalism. Nor was I even 
claiming that some organisms (extant or extinct) are definitely 
unreachable by NS. Rather, I made the modest claim that naturalism 
should self-examine and consider this possibility, i.e. "ask the same 
questions and seek to answer them."

This line of reasoning was an attempt to establish a premise and terms 
of discussion. It was not intended as refutation, proof, or punchline.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. But with this clarification now 
made, you have the opportunity to respond and demonstrate that you're 
engaging in good faith.







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