Path: ...!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: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 07:03:11 -0400 Organization: What are you looking for? Lines: 224 Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org Message-ID: References:

<1paosjtj59vvqqe6ikjf02a54murfctvdm@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="95893"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org" User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272 To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:rTbEqe3aQQqCgfgd9vVh9BgQyZg= Return-Path: X-Original-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org Delivered-To: talk-origins@ediacara.org id 1247E22978C; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 07:03:31 -0400 (EDT) by beagle.ediacara.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD065229783 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 07:03:28 -0400 (EDT) id CF9151C0C36; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 11:03:20 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org by newsfeed.bofh.team (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C38E41C06E7 for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 11:03:20 +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 164B3622AC for ; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 11:03:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: name/164B3622AC; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com id E8923DC01CA; Wed, 12 Mar 2025 12:03:17 +0100 (CET) X-Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 12:03:17 +0100 (CET) X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1/XEGyrDy9Y4ej9W43xv1PKJegcXjfnf9w= DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,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,USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 smtp.eternal-september.org Bytes: 11905 On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 22:33:23 +1100, MarkE wrote: >On 9/03/2025 10:12 pm, jillery wrote: >> On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 17:48:41 +1100, MarkE wrote: >>=20 >>> On 8/03/2025 11:34 pm, jillery wrote: >>>> On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:34:30 +1100, MarkE = wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 7/03/2025 9:29 pm, Ernest Major wrote: >>>>>> On 06/03/2025 00:45, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/03/2025 3:31 pm, MarkE wrote: >>>>>>>> Is there a limit to capability of natural selection to refine, = adapt >>>>>>>> and create the =E2=80=9Cappearance of design=E2=80=9D? Yes: the = mechanism itself of >>>>>>>> =E2=80=9Cdifferential reproductive success=E2=80=9D has = intrinsic limitations, >>>>>>>> whatever it may be able to achieve, and this is further = constrained >>>>>>>> by finite time and population sizes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Martin, let's stay on topic. 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> First, natural selection is not the only evolutionary process. = Even if >>>>>> one evolutionary process is not capable of achieving something = that >>>>>> doesn't mean that evolutionary processes in toto are not capable = of >>>>>> achieving that. >>>>> >>>>> Natural selection is the *only* naturalistic means capable of = increasing >>>>> functional complexity and genetic information. >>>>> >>>>> All other factors have only a shuffling/randomising effect. In = every >>>>> case, NS is required to pick from the many resulting permutations = the >>>>> rare chance improvements. >>>>> >>>>> Without the action of NS, all biological systems are degrading over= time. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Second, you've changed the question. Evolutionary processes have >>>>>> limitations, but those limitations need not be on the degree of >>>>>> functional complexity achievable. Evolution cannot produce living >>>>>> organisms that can't exist in the universe. (You could quibble = about >>>>>> lethal mutations, recessives, etc., but I hope you can perceive = the >>>>>> intent of my phrasing; for example, I very much doubt that = evolution >>>>>> could result in an organism with a volume measured in cubic light = years.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Applying this to functional complexity, physical limits on how big= an >>>>>> organism can be, and how small details can be, do pose a limit on = how >>>>>> much functional complexity can be packed into an organism. But = such a >>>>>> limit doesn't help you - humans are clearly capable of existing in= this >>>>>> universe, so aren't precluded by that limit. You need a process >>>>>> limitation, not a physical limitation; I don't find it obvious = that >>>>>> there is a process limitation that applies here. >>>>>> >>>>>> You say that the first step is establishing the premise. That is = your job. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> Assertions without evidence do not an argument make. Your expressed >>>> hypotheses above make it clear you have no idea how genetic drift = and >>>> natural selection work. Both are capable of setting allele >>>> frequencies to either 100% or 0% aka "arrived". This is Genetic = 101. >>>> >>>> Your hypotheses also express a simplistic understanding of the = meaning >>>> of "fittest". It does not mean the fittest among all possibilities. >>>> It does mean the fittest among extant features; features which don't >>>> exist at some arbitrary time and place need not be considered. >>>> >>>> As you say, a reasonable discussion needs to be limited to = "possible" >>>> features; no organisms transmuting elements or quantum jumping. = What >>>> you don't say is an hypothesis for how intelligent design gets = genetic >>>> material not available to natural selection. Without that, >>>> intelligent design and natural selection necessarily are limited to >>>> the same solution space. Or, like Behe, do you allow intelligent >>>> design to magically *poof* features into existence? >>>> >>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========