Article <vr9m7j$hoct$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<vr9m7j$hoct$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.xcski.com!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>
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: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 10:30:27 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 204
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vr9m7j$hoct$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>
 <vqp9lr$1vbsh$1@dont-email.me>
 <269b7313de05ced18d3f67cec741b949@www.novabbs.com>
 <vqralh$2fuat$1@dont-email.me>
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="94650"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AKh6vg/NOwD3Dfne8pYGyYEd7Xk=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vqralh$2fuat$1@dont-email.me>
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,
	RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED,
	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

On 3/11/25 11:47 PM, MarkE wrote:
> 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:
>>>> 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:
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> You are getting revisionist here. Your over-arching premise is that
>> current life exhibits complexity that is inaccessible to biological
>> evolution. To support that, you're going on about how evolution can't
>> explore the full landscape of theoretically possible genomes.
>>
>> The connection between those two is BS. You have not and cannot
>> establish that it is necessary for evolution to explore all possible
>> genomes to produce the observed biological landscape. So the
>> whole line of your argumentation is nonsensical.
>>
>> Moreover, the things evolution deniers cite as "impossible" for
>> evolution to produce bear no resemblance to remote islands on a
>> fitness landscape. Not blood coagulation, not the immune system,
>> not regulator networks, not developmental pathways.
>> Nothing they can cite. Indeed, these all have simpler forms and
>> reuse basic biochemical mechanisms.
>>
>>> 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
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========