I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This causes
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended.
But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in
an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we
would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be
in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common
than believed.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare,
and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes. https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
This causes
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in
an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we
would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be
in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common
than believed.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare,
and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes. https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in
an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be
in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common than believed.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare,
and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes. https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
This causesAll beings have most of capabilities of their organism not exercised
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
fully most of the time, because there is no need to. They are not
optimal fit to their environment but noticeably too good for it. Need
to use one or other capability to edge might arise only rarely, but that
will matter on such occasions. If they actually have to struggle too
much then there is obvious pressure to improve.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite justWhy in sync? Mutations are small, rare and usually do not matter at all,
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in
an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
if these matter then these are more commonly crippling.
Few with some positive effect that matters however give better chance
to survive and to procreate. That chance makes their offspring slowly
to prevail. We talk about hundreds of millions generations. When
pressure is obvious like bear who likes to hunt seals towards polar bear
then that goes tens of thousands times quicker.
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, wePressure is when part of population struggles with something.
would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be
in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were
beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common
than believed.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare,
and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes.
https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
The beneficial mutations are rare like winning the lottery is rare. But someone wins lottery each year. Same way someone in large population
gets advantage.
Demo on e-coli, generation length about 20 min, so 11 days is about 800 generations:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8>
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 1:51:02 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
Erm, no, on the contrary? Every organism is always fully developed
it is your misunderstanding of the ToE that equates "transitional"
with "not fully developed".
yet from the perspective of a being in 500 m years or so, should you fossilise, you are a transitional (having just 2 eyes, or knees that make running
backwards possible but difficult, or whatever traits our descendants will develop over the ages)
This causes
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in
an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we
would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be
in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were
beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common
than believed.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare,
and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes.
https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
This causesAll beings have most of capabilities of their organism not exercised
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
fully most of the time, because there is no need to. They are not
optimal fit to their environment but noticeably too good for it. Need
to use one or other capability to edge might arise only rarely, but that
will matter on such occasions. If they actually have to struggle too
much then there is obvious pressure to improve.
Here you're describing "stasis". Does this mean the heart can remain in stasis
while the anatomy undergoes changes? How many of the numerous organs
can remain static while the physical body changes? At some point betweem
the worm and the fish anatomy the organs and body parts have to catch up,
bot to mention between the worm and the human form.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite justWhy in sync? Mutations are small, rare and usually do not matter at all,
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in
an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
if these matter then these are more commonly crippling.
How then, can evolution occur?
Few with some positive effect that matters however give better chance
to survive and to procreate. That chance makes their offspring slowly
to prevail. We talk about hundreds of millions generations. When
pressure is obvious like bear who likes to hunt seals towards polar bear
then that goes tens of thousands times quicker.
During the hundreds of millions of years, organs has to be suited for the animals physical form. If the kidney, heart, lungs don't evolve in sync
the animal cannot survive and have offspring. This applies not only to organs but each organ. The eye for example: Does a spot in the skin become light sensitive first. If so, there is no nerve endings to the brain,
nor is the
brain sensitive to the signals as they arrive. How is a blind spot
without nerves of benefit to the creature? If the spot on the skin just happens and has no initial functionl, why would it be passed down
o offspring? Where is natural selection? Why is not deliberate,
purposeful design not the better explanation? And this applies to
each of the 100 or so organs and parts.
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, wePressure is when part of population struggles with something.
would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be
in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were
beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
That might explain why, but nor how, considering the rarity of beneficial mutations and the numerous organs involved. at some distance up the evolutionary path, up to the mouse sized animal, the heart, lungs,
kidneys,
liver and other essential organs necessary for survival, has to be
developed
to meet the requirements of survival. With the rarity of applicable mutations, what are the odds, of these organs being sufficiently developed
to meet the needs of survival? And especially considering the error
detection
and repair mechanisms the DNA possesses!
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common >>> than believed.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare,
and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes.
https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
The beneficial mutations are rare like winning the lottery is rare. But
someone wins lottery each year. Same way someone in large population
gets advantage.
True, one or maybe a limited few, but never at one time, even 1% even 1%
of the people who buy lottery tickets.
But at the end of our 800 generations 1% of the evolved organs will not suffice.
IOW the critical organs must be passed down.
Demo on e-coli, generation length about 20 min, so 11 days is about 800
generations:
And each generation has to receive and pass down newly evolved organs
and body parts.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8>
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
This causesAll beings have most of capabilities of their organism not exercised
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
fully most of the time, because there is no need to. They are not
optimal fit to their environment but noticeably too good for it. Need
to use one or other capability to edge might arise only rarely, but that
will matter on such occasions. If they actually have to struggle too
much then there is obvious pressure to improve.
Here you're describing "stasis". Does this mean the heart can remain in stasis
while the anatomy undergoes changes? How many of the numerous organs
can remain static while the physical body changes? At some point betweem
the worm and the fish anatomy the organs and body parts have to catch up,
bot to mention between the worm and the human form.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite justWhy in sync? Mutations are small, rare and usually do not matter at all,
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in
an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
if these matter then these are more commonly crippling.
How then, can evolution occur?
Few with some positive effect that matters however give better chance
to survive and to procreate. That chance makes their offspring slowly
to prevail. We talk about hundreds of millions generations. When
pressure is obvious like bear who likes to hunt seals towards polar bear
then that goes tens of thousands times quicker.
During the hundreds of millions of years, organs has to be suited for the animals physical form. If the kidney, heart, lungs don't evolve in sync
the animal cannot survive and have offspring. This applies not only to
organs but each organ. The eye for example: Does a spot in the skin become light sensitive first. If so, there is no nerve endings to the brain,
nor is the
brain sensitive to the signals as they arrive. How is a blind spot
without nerves of benefit to the creature? If the spot on the skin just happens and has no initial functionl, why would it be passed down
o offspring? Where is natural selection? Why is not deliberate,
purposeful design not the better explanation? And this applies to
each of the 100 or so organs and parts.
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, wePressure is when part of population struggles with something.
would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be
in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were
beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
That might explain why, but nor how, considering the rarity of beneficial mutations and the numerous organs involved. at some distance up the evolutionary path, up to the mouse sized animal, the heart, lungs, kidneys, liver and other essential organs necessary for survival, has to be developed to meet the requirements of survival. With the rarity of applicable mutations, what are the odds, of these organs being sufficiently developed
to meet the needs of survival? And especially considering the error detection
and repair mechanisms the DNA possesses!
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common >>> than believed.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare,
and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes.
https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
The beneficial mutations are rare like winning the lottery is rare. But
someone wins lottery each year. Same way someone in large population
gets advantage.
True, one or maybe a limited few, but never at one time, even 1% even 1%
of the people who buy lottery tickets.
But at the end of our 800 generations 1% of the evolved organs will not suffice.
IOW the critical organs must be passed down.
Demo on e-coli, generation length about 20 min, so 11 days is about 800
generations:
And each generation has to receive and pass down newly evolved organs
and body parts.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8>
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This causes
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in
an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be
in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common than believed.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare,
and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes. https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
On 2023-08-05 17:20:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.Like all the other organisms since the origin of life.
On 8/5/23 10:20 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
This causesAll beings have most of capabilities of their organism not exercised
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
fully most of the time, because there is no need to. They are not
optimal fit to their environment but noticeably too good for it. Need
to use one or other capability to edge might arise only rarely, but that >> will matter on such occasions. If they actually have to struggle too
much then there is obvious pressure to improve.
Here you're describing "stasis". Does this mean the heart can remain in stasis
while the anatomy undergoes changes? How many of the numerous organs
can remain static while the physical body changes? At some point betweem the worm and the fish anatomy the organs and body parts have to catch up, bot to mention between the worm and the human form.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite justWhy in sync? Mutations are small, rare and usually do not matter at all, >> if these matter then these are more commonly crippling.
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in >>> an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
How then, can evolution occur?
Few with some positive effect that matters however give better chance
to survive and to procreate. That chance makes their offspring slowly
to prevail. We talk about hundreds of millions generations. When
pressure is obvious like bear who likes to hunt seals towards polar bear >> then that goes tens of thousands times quicker.
During the hundreds of millions of years, organs has to be suited for the animals physical form. If the kidney, heart, lungs don't evolve in sync the animal cannot survive and have offspring. This applies not only to organs but each organ. The eye for example: Does a spot in the skin becomeNilsson D., Pelger S. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an
light sensitive first. If so, there is no nerve endings to the brain,
nor is the
brain sensitive to the signals as they arrive. How is a blind spot
without nerves of benefit to the creature? If the spot on the skin just happens and has no initial functionl, why would it be passed down
o offspring? Where is natural selection? Why is not deliberate, purposeful design not the better explanation? And this applies to
each of the 100 or so organs and parts.
eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B
1994; 256:53-58.
http://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/dmcfarlane/bio145mcfarlane/PDFs/Nilsson%20and%20Pelger_eye%20evolution%20model%20ProcRoyalSoc_1994.pdf
This doesn't resolve all your complaints, but it does point the way. You should at least read it.
On 8/4/23 5:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This
causes me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
What do you mean by "complete"? Amphibian lungs are much simpler than mammalian lungs. Are they complete? Some amphibians (notably
plethodontids) have no lungs at all. Are those complete? This objection
is more a failure of your knowledge and imagination than anything else.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and comprehended.
I get the feeling that you don't actually mean "allegorical". Is that correct?
But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync,
in an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
Isn't the limited time space around 500 million years or more? Do we not
see a lot of the intermediate steps in the fossil record and in extant species? Not seeing the problem here.
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop,
we would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be
in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how
were beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
Nothing needs to be anticipated.
random directions, as is observed in all populations. Some things
bigger, some smaller, and so on. A change in organ A makes a
corresponding change in organ B advantageous, s
selected. Rinse and repeat. Also, some developmental processes just
adapt. For example, if you were a mutant such that your eyes moved
toward the side of your head, the optic nerve would move to match,
because the nerve is just arranged to grow in whatever direction it
finds the eyes in. If bones get longer, muscles, nerves, blood vessels,
etc. get longer to match.
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more
common than believed.
No, it's just that what's beneficial changes over time. Selection also
takes advantage of existing variation. New mutations are needed only in
the very long term.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are
rare, and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes.
https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
Yeah, that's gibberish. Known mutation rates already take repair
mechanisms into account. And this "rain" you propose is happening over
the entire Phanerozoic, so it could easily be a light drizzle at any one time. Further, the frequency of beneficial mutations changes with time, depending on how the environment changes, including the internal
environment. The rate of adaptive evolution observed in the fossil
record is actually much smaller than the rate observed in the present, presumably because of frequent stasis.
On 2023-08-05 17:20:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
;
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Like all the other organisms since the origin of life.
Here you're describing "stasis". Does this mean the heart can remain
This causesAll beings have most of capabilities of their organism not exercised
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
fully most of the time, because there is no need to. They are not
optimal fit to their environment but noticeably too good for it. Need
to use one or other capability to edge might arise only rarely, but that >>> will matter on such occasions. If they actually have to struggle too
much then there is obvious pressure to improve.
;
in stasis
while the anatomy undergoes changes? How many of the numerous organs
can remain static while the physical body changes? At some point betweem
the worm and the fish anatomy the organs and body parts have to catch up,
bot to mention between the worm and the human form.
How then, can evolution occur?
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite justWhy in sync? Mutations are small, rare and usually do not matter at all, >>> if these matter then these are more commonly crippling.
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in
an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
;
;During the hundreds of millions of years, organs has to be suited for the
Few with some positive effect that matters however give better chance
to survive and to procreate. That chance makes their offspring slowly
to prevail. We talk about hundreds of millions generations. When
pressure is obvious like bear who likes to hunt seals towards polar bear >>> then that goes tens of thousands times quicker.
;
animals physical form. If the kidney, heart, lungs don't evolve in sync
the animal cannot survive and have offspring. This applies not only to
organs but each organ. The eye for example: Does a spot in the skin
become
light sensitive first. If so, there is no nerve endings to the brain,
nor is the
brain sensitive to the signals as they arrive. How is a blind spot
without nerves of benefit to the creature? If the spot on the skin just
happens and has no initial functionl, why would it be passed down
o offspring? Where is natural selection? Why is not deliberate,
purposeful design not the better explanation? And this applies to
each of the 100 or so organs and parts.
That might explain why, but nor how, considering the rarity of beneficial
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we >>>> would not bePressure is when part of population struggles with something.
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be >>>> in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were
beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
;
mutations and the numerous organs involved. at some distance up the
evolutionary path, up to the mouse sized animal, the heart, lungs,
kidneys,
liver and other essential organs necessary for survival, has to be
developed
to meet the requirements of survival. With the rarity of applicable
mutations, what are the odds, of these organs being sufficiently
developed
to meet the needs of survival? And especially considering the error
detection
and repair mechanisms the DNA possesses!
True, one or maybe a limited few, but never at one time, even 1% even 1%
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more
common
than believed.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare, >>>> and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes.
https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
The beneficial mutations are rare like winning the lottery is rare. But
someone wins lottery each year. Same way someone in large population
gets advantage.
;
of the people who buy lottery tickets.
;But at the end of our 800 generations 1% of the evolved organs will
not suffice.
IOW the critical organs must be passed down.
Demo on e-coli, generation length about 20 min, so 11 days is about 800And each generation has to receive and pass down newly evolved organs
generations:
;
and body parts.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8>
John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/23 5:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This
causes me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
What do you mean by "complete"? Amphibian lungs are much simpler than mammalian lungs. Are they complete? Some amphibians (notably plethodontids) have no lungs at all. Are those complete? This objection
is more a failure of your knowledge and imagination than anything else.
In looking at the organisms in the cite, below, each organism depicted is "complete" a the stage of development it has reached. But to the stage humans have reached there is a way to go. So, from an evolutionary
scheme no stage short of the human stage is complete. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 8:51:02 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This causes
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in
an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we
would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be
in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were
beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
"“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking,
. 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in
. — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have
. been made to have me in it!' " Douglas Adams
The things you copied and pasted above question the series of steps that
led to humans, as if we were a pre-ordained target, an objective.
Does that really make sense to you?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common
than believed.
First off, than believed by whom?
Second off, of the total number of changes/mutations over the time periods involved, how many were beneficial, how many deleterious, how many lethal? I'll give you a hint. For the lethal ones, many never made it far past the egg
stage. But that's evolution for you, go ahead and lay many thousands of eggs even if only two or so ultimately survive.
I'll give you another hint.
Imagine a kidney. You likely know some little bit about kidneys. They help filter
blood in a manner that extracts out some stuff that gets excreted as urine. Human kidneys have to do some fairly sophisticated filtering, more than a fish does. But the changes from a "primitive" kidney to a modern mammalian kidney had a long time to happen.
A thing to consider about the human kidneys, there are two after all, is that they..
have an excess capacity. If one gets destroyed, it turns out that you can survive
pretty well off the one that remains. But kidneys do use a significant amount of
energy. Some might consider that to be wasteful. People who think that are seldom well informed biologists.
The less informed people do wonder why evolution would produce excess capacity. Why spend all that extra energy? Sure, you could design in excess capacity, but how do you evolve it? A biologist/physiologist who still recalls
basic chemistry (as 99% likely do, 100% of the physiologists) will immediately
think of buffering capacities. The solutions flow from there.
.
I often wish you asked these sorts of questions because they are at least more interesting. But the thing is, you don't seem to know enough biology
to ask them, and instead you ask more mundane questions that have been answered many times.
.
Think some on the puddle. Think some on the bit about viewing the natural history of the ancestors of humans, back to fish and before as if humans
were a pre-ordained target. Understand how that is a fundamental logical mistaken way to think. Then ask a few questions.
.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare,
and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes.
https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
This causesAll beings have most of capabilities of their organism not exercised
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
fully most of the time, because there is no need to. They are not
optimal fit to their environment but noticeably too good for it. Need
to use one or other capability to edge might arise only rarely, but that will matter on such occasions. If they actually have to struggle too
much then there is obvious pressure to improve.
Here you're describing "stasis". Does this mean the heart can remain in stasis while the anatomy undergoes changes? How many of the numerous
organs can remain static while the physical body changes?
At some point betweem
the worm and the fish anatomy the organs and body parts have to catch up, bot to mention between the worm and the human form.
But I say it right next?In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite justWhy in sync? Mutations are small, rare and usually do not matter at all, if these matter then these are more commonly crippling.
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in
an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
How then, can evolution occur?
Few with some positive effect that matters however give better chance
to survive and to procreate. That chance makes their offspring slowly
to prevail. We talk about hundreds of millions generations. When
pressure is obvious like bear who likes to hunt seals towards polar bear then that goes tens of thousands times quicker.
During the hundreds of millions of years, organs has to be suited for the animals physical form. If the kidney, heart, lungs don't evolve in sync
the animal cannot survive and have offspring. This applies not only to organs but each organ.
The eye for example: Does a spot in the skin become
light sensitive first. If so, there is no nerve endings to the brain,
nor is the
brain sensitive to the signals as they arrive. How is a blind spot
without nerves of benefit to the creature? If the spot on the skin just happens and has no initial functionl, why would it be passed down
o offspring? Where is natural selection? Why is not deliberate,
purposeful design not the better explanation? And this applies to
each of the 100 or so organs and parts.
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we >> would not bePressure is when part of population struggles with something.
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be
in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were
beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
That might explain why, but nor how, considering the rarity of beneficial mutations and the numerous organs involved. at some distance up the evolutionary path, up to the mouse sized animal, the heart, lungs, kidneys, liver and other essential organs necessary for survival, has to be developed to meet the requirements of survival. With the rarity of applicable mutations, what are the odds, of these organs being sufficiently developed to meet the needs of survival? And especially considering the error detection
and repair mechanisms the DNA possesses!
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common >> than believed.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare, >> and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes.
https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
The beneficial mutations are rare like winning the lottery is rare. But someone wins lottery each year. Same way someone in large population
gets advantage.
True, one or maybe a limited few, but never at one time, even 1% even 1%
of the people who buy lottery tickets.
But at the end of our 800 generations 1% of the evolved organs will not suffice.
IOW the critical organs must be passed down.
Demo on e-coli, generation length about 20 min, so 11 days is about 800 generations:
And each generation has to receive and pass down newly evolved organs
and body parts.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8>
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 11:41:04 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:criticism."
On 8/5/23 10:20 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:Nilsson D., Pelger S. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Here you're describing "stasis". Does this mean the heart can remain inThis causesAll beings have most of capabilities of their organism not exercised
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to >>>>> mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
fully most of the time, because there is no need to. They are not
optimal fit to their environment but noticeably too good for it. Need
to use one or other capability to edge might arise only rarely, but that >>>> will matter on such occasions. If they actually have to struggle too
much then there is obvious pressure to improve.
stasis
while the anatomy undergoes changes? How many of the numerous organs
can remain static while the physical body changes? At some point betweem >>> the worm and the fish anatomy the organs and body parts have to catch up, >>> bot to mention between the worm and the human form.
How then, can evolution occur?
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite justWhy in sync? Mutations are small, rare and usually do not matter at all, >>>> if these matter then these are more commonly crippling.
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in >>>>> an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
During the hundreds of millions of years, organs has to be suited for the >>> animals physical form. If the kidney, heart, lungs don't evolve in sync
Few with some positive effect that matters however give better chance
to survive and to procreate. That chance makes their offspring slowly
to prevail. We talk about hundreds of millions generations. When
pressure is obvious like bear who likes to hunt seals towards polar bear >>>> then that goes tens of thousands times quicker.
the animal cannot survive and have offspring. This applies not only to
organs but each organ. The eye for example: Does a spot in the skin become >>> light sensitive first. If so, there is no nerve endings to the brain,
nor is the
brain sensitive to the signals as they arrive. How is a blind spot
without nerves of benefit to the creature? If the spot on the skin just
happens and has no initial functionl, why would it be passed down
o offspring? Where is natural selection? Why is not deliberate,
purposeful design not the better explanation? And this applies to
each of the 100 or so organs and parts.
eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B
1994; 256:53-58.
http://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/dmcfarlane/bio145mcfarlane/PDFs/Nilsson%20and%20Pelger_eye%20evolution%20model%20ProcRoyalSoc_1994.pdf
This doesn't resolve all your complaints, but it does point the way. You
should at least read it.
Apparently it resolves all your complaints. What a joke!
"Even with a consistently pessimistic approach the time required becomes amazingly short: only a few hundred thousand years. When Charles Darwin (1859) presented his theory of evolution he anticipated that the eye would become a favourite target for
Simply amazing!
John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/23 5:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This
causes me to question. I've thought about random mutations and
natural selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity
comes to mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
What do you mean by "complete"? Amphibian lungs are much simpler than
mammalian lungs. Are they complete? Some amphibians (notably
plethodontids) have no lungs at all. Are those complete? This
objection is more a failure of your knowledge and imagination than
anything else.
In looking at the organisms in the cite, below, each organism depicted is "complete" a the stage of development it has reached. But to the stage
humans have reached there is a way to go. So, from an evolutionary
scheme no stage short of the human stage is complete.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended.
I get the feeling that you don't actually mean "allegorical". Is that
correct?
Would "presumed" instead allegorical been better?
But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync,
in an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
Isn't the limited time space around 500 million years or more? Do we
not see a lot of the intermediate steps in the fossil record and in
extant species? Not seeing the problem here.
I'm in reference to each stage in development between the worm, the
fish the rat to the tree liming monkey to the ape to you and me.
And you know this.
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop,
we would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to
be in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how
were beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
Nothing needs to be anticipated.
The light sensitive spot that over the millions of years to sighted
animals.
The light sensitive spot is anticipated in that it came about long before sighted organisms.
there just has to be variation in
random directions, as is observed in all populations. Some things
bigger, some smaller, and so on. A change in organ A makes a
corresponding change in organ B advantageous, s
How and why. Random mutations in the heart (A) does not maker a change
in lungs organ (B). This takes countless neutral and maybe some harmful mutations until a beneficial mutations just happens along.
o that variation is
selected. Rinse and repeat. Also, some developmental processes justIn the YouTube cite, there is considerable discussion about the evolution
adapt. For example, if you were a mutant such that your eyes moved
toward the side of your head, the optic nerve would move to match,
because the nerve is just arranged to grow in whatever direction it
finds the eyes in. If bones get longer, muscles, nerves, blood
vessels, etc. get longer to match.
of body structure, anatomy or morphology of each "Link" in the sequence between the single cell and human. But not a single word in respect to
the evolution of each of the organs and body parts at any stage of
evolution.
What I'm seeing here, from you is the same thing. I suspect there is reason for this omission.
The truth is there is only assumption, guessing, supposition, theorizing,
and just-so-stories: because nobody knows!
Design is the better option, unless there is reason for taking the position there is no designer in existence.
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more
common than believed.
No, it's just that what's beneficial changes over time. Selection also
takes advantage of existing variation. New mutations are needed only
in the very long term.
Between the worm to the fish; to the rat; to the tree climbing monkey,
many of the organs had to develop: such as the heart,; the lungs; the
kidney
to the liver to no fins to fins; from fins to legs etc etc etc. had to evolve
through random mutations and natural selection and countless beneficial mutations. And this compaired to purposeful design isn't close. This leaves the question of the existence of a designer, or a designer does not exist.
This answers nothing!
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are
rare, and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes.
https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
Yeah, that's gibberish. Known mutation rates already take repair
mechanisms into account. And this "rain" you propose is happening over
the entire Phanerozoic, so it could easily be a light drizzle at any
one time. Further, the frequency of beneficial mutations changes with
time, depending on how the environment changes, including the internal
environment. The rate of adaptive evolution observed in the fossil
record is actually much smaller than the rate observed in the present,
presumably because of frequent stasis.
John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/23 5:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This
causes me to question. I've thought about random mutations and
natural selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity
comes to mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
What do you mean by "complete"? Amphibian lungs are much simpler than
mammalian lungs. Are they complete? Some amphibians (notably
plethodontids) have no lungs at all. Are those complete? This
objection is more a failure of your knowledge and imagination than
anything else.
In looking at the organisms in the cite, below, each organism depicted is "complete" a the stage of development it has reached. But to the stage
humans have reached there is a way to go. So, from an evolutionary
scheme no stage short of the human stage is complete.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended.
I get the feeling that you don't actually mean "allegorical". Is that
correct?
Would "presumed" instead allegorical been better?
But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync,
in an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
Isn't the limited time space around 500 million years or more? Do we
not see a lot of the intermediate steps in the fossil record and in
extant species? Not seeing the problem here.
I'm in reference to each stage in development between the worm, the
fish the rat to the tree liming monkey to the ape to you and me.
And you know this.
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop,
we would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to
be in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how
were beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
Nothing needs to be anticipated.
The light sensitive spot that over the millions of years to sighted
animals.
The light sensitive spot is anticipated in that it came about long before sighted organisms.
there just has to be variation in
random directions, as is observed in all populations. Some things
bigger, some smaller, and so on. A change in organ A makes a
corresponding change in organ B advantageous, s
How and why. Random mutations in the heart (A) does not maker a change
in lungs organ (B). This takes countless neutral and maybe some harmful mutations until a beneficial mutations just happens along.
o that variation is
selected. Rinse and repeat. Also, some developmental processes justIn the YouTube cite, there is considerable discussion about the evolution
adapt. For example, if you were a mutant such that your eyes moved
toward the side of your head, the optic nerve would move to match,
because the nerve is just arranged to grow in whatever direction it
finds the eyes in. If bones get longer, muscles, nerves, blood
vessels, etc. get longer to match.
of body structure, anatomy or morphology of each "Link" in the sequence between the single cell and human. But not a single word in respect to
the evolution of each of the organs and body parts at any stage of
evolution.
What I'm seeing here, from you is the same thing. I suspect there is reason for this omission.
The truth is there is only assumption, guessing, supposition, theorizing,
and just-so-stories: because nobody knows!
Design is the better option, unless there is reason for taking the position there is no designer in existence.
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more
common than believed.
No, it's just that what's beneficial changes over time. Selection also
takes advantage of existing variation. New mutations are needed only
in the very long term.
Between the worm to the fish; to the rat; to the tree climbing monkey,
many of the organs had to develop: such as the heart,; the lungs; the
kidney
to the liver to no fins to fins; from fins to legs etc etc etc. had to evolve
through random mutations and natural selection and countless beneficial mutations. And this compaired to purposeful design isn't close. This leaves the question of the existence of a designer, or a designer does not exist.
This answers nothing!Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are
rare, and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes.
https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
Yeah, that's gibberish. Known mutation rates already take repair
mechanisms into account. And this "rain" you propose is happening over
the entire Phanerozoic, so it could easily be a light drizzle at any
one time. Further, the frequency of beneficial mutations changes with
time, depending on how the environment changes, including the internal
environment. The rate of adaptive evolution observed in the fossil
record is actually much smaller than the rate observed in the present,
presumably because of frequent stasis.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 8:51:02 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This causes
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in
an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we >> would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be
in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were
beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
"“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking,
. 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in
. — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have
. been made to have me in it!' " Douglas Adams
Yeah! People who accept evolution without ever questioning, is about as common
as thinking mud puddles.
The things you copied and pasted above question the series of steps that led to humans, as if we were a pre-ordained target, an objective.
Does that really make sense to you?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common >> than believed.
First off, than believed by whom?
Beneficial mutations could not be rare, considering the many organs and physicals
bodies that had to evolve from the worm or the rat like animal to humans.
Second off, of the total number of changes/mutations over the time periods involved, how many were beneficial, how many deleterious, how many lethal? I'll give you a hint. For the lethal ones, many never made it far past the egg
stage. But that's evolution for you, go ahead and lay many thousands of eggs
even if only two or so ultimately survive.
So what? That's no issue. and answers nothing.
I'll give you another hint.
Imagine a kidney. You likely know some little bit about kidneys. They help filter
blood in a manner that extracts out some stuff that gets excreted as urine.
Human kidneys have to do some fairly sophisticated filtering, more than a fish does. But the changes from a "primitive" kidney to a modern mammalian kidney had a long time to happen.
Yes, and countless mutations many of them beneficial. Or are you
claiming that
mutations and natural selection had nothing to do with the evolutionary changes
of kidneys from the primitive kidney up and through the multiple stages
of development
leading up to humans.
A thing to consider about the human kidneys, there are two after all, is that they
have an excess capacity. If one gets destroyed, it turns out that you can survive
pretty well off the one that remains. But kidneys do use a significant amount of
energy. Some might consider that to be wasteful. People who think that are seldom well informed biologists.
The less informed people do wonder why evolution would produce excess capacity. Why spend all that extra energy? Sure, you could design in excess..
capacity, but how do you evolve it? A biologist/physiologist who still recalls
basic chemistry (as 99% likely do, 100% of the physiologists) will immediately
think of buffering capacities. The solutions flow from there.
.
I often wish you asked these sorts of questions because they are at least more interesting. But the thing is, you don't seem to know enough biology to ask them, and instead you ask more mundane questions that have been answered many times.
I'm an unemployed, forcible retired because of a serious health issue.
So, I"ll
admit my biology terminology is quite lacking. But I tend to look at nature and living things from and engineer's prospective. I was an engineer
before I got fired.. Now, I'm just another unemployed man.
.
Think some on the puddle. Think some on the bit about viewing the natural history of the ancestors of humans, back to fish and before as if humans were a pre-ordained target. Understand how that is a fundamental logical mistaken way to think. Then ask a few questions.
In the YouTube cite I referenced I noted that the discussion from the single cell to the worm, to the fish to the mouse sized mammal to humans there
was considerable explaining, but nothing regarding the evolution of
internal organs. Why is that! Explaining the changes in morphology is
simple and easy explained and comprehended. But this cannot be said
about organs and body parts. And that I suspect is why evolution of organs is not talked about.
.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare, >> and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes.
https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 17:20:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
;
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Like all the other organisms since the origin of life.
Exactly what I meant. Thank you!
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 17:20:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
;
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Like all the other organisms since the origin of life.
Exactly what I meant. Thank you!
This causes
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to >>>>> mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
All beings have most of capabilities of their organism not exercisedHere you're describing "stasis". Does this mean the heart can remain
fully most of the time, because there is no need to. They are not
optimal fit to their environment but noticeably too good for it. Need
to use one or other capability to edge might arise only rarely, but that >>>> will matter on such occasions. If they actually have to struggle too
much then there is obvious pressure to improve.
;
in stasis
while the anatomy undergoes changes? How many of the numerous organs
can remain static while the physical body changes? At some point betweem >>> the worm and the fish anatomy the organs and body parts have to catch up, >>> bot to mention between the worm and the human form.
How then, can evolution occur?
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite justWhy in sync? Mutations are small, rare and usually do not matter at all, >>>> if these matter then these are more commonly crippling.
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in >>>>> an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
;
;During the hundreds of millions of years, organs has to be suited for the >>> animals physical form. If the kidney, heart, lungs don't evolve in sync
Few with some positive effect that matters however give better chance
to survive and to procreate. That chance makes their offspring slowly
to prevail. We talk about hundreds of millions generations. When
pressure is obvious like bear who likes to hunt seals towards polar bear >>>> then that goes tens of thousands times quicker.
;
the animal cannot survive and have offspring. This applies not only to
organs but each organ. The eye for example: Does a spot in the skin
become
light sensitive first. If so, there is no nerve endings to the brain,
nor is the
brain sensitive to the signals as they arrive. How is a blind spot
without nerves of benefit to the creature? If the spot on the skin just
happens and has no initial functionl, why would it be passed down
o offspring? Where is natural selection? Why is not deliberate,
purposeful design not the better explanation? And this applies to
each of the 100 or so organs and parts.
That might explain why, but nor how, considering the rarity of beneficial >>> mutations and the numerous organs involved. at some distance up the
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we >>>>> would not bePressure is when part of population struggles with something.
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be >>>>> in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were >>>>> beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
;
evolutionary path, up to the mouse sized animal, the heart, lungs,
kidneys,
liver and other essential organs necessary for survival, has to be
developed
to meet the requirements of survival. With the rarity of applicable
mutations, what are the odds, of these organs being sufficiently
developed
to meet the needs of survival? And especially considering the error
detection
and repair mechanisms the DNA possesses!
True, one or maybe a limited few, but never at one time, even 1% even 1% >>> of the people who buy lottery tickets.
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more
common
than believed.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare, >>>>> and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes.
https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
The beneficial mutations are rare like winning the lottery is rare. But >>>> someone wins lottery each year. Same way someone in large population
gets advantage.
;
;But at the end of our 800 generations 1% of the evolved organs will
not suffice.
IOW the critical organs must be passed down.
Demo on e-coli, generation length about 20 min, so 11 days is about 800 >>>> generations:And each generation has to receive and pass down newly evolved organs
;
and body parts.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8>
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 8:51:02?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This causes
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in
an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we
would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be
in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were
beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
"“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking,
. 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in
. — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have
. been made to have me in it!' " Douglas Adams
Yeah! People who accept evolution without ever questioning, is about as >common
as thinking mud puddles.
The things you copied and pasted above question the series of steps that
led to humans, as if we were a pre-ordained target, an objective.
Does that really make sense to you?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common >>> than believed.
First off, than believed by whom?
Beneficial mutations could not be rare, considering the many organs and >physicals
bodies that had to evolve from the worm or the rat like animal to humans.
Second off, of the total number of changes/mutations over the time periods >> involved, how many were beneficial, how many deleterious, how many lethal? >> I'll give you a hint. For the lethal ones, many never made it far past the egg
stage. But that's evolution for you, go ahead and lay many thousands of eggs >> even if only two or so ultimately survive.
So what? That's no issue. and answers nothing.
I'll give you another hint.
Imagine a kidney. You likely know some little bit about kidneys. They help filter
blood in a manner that extracts out some stuff that gets excreted as urine. >> Human kidneys have to do some fairly sophisticated filtering, more than a
fish does. But the changes from a "primitive" kidney to a modern mammalian >> kidney had a long time to happen.
Yes, and countless mutations many of them beneficial. Or are you
claiming that
mutations and natural selection had nothing to do with the evolutionary >changes
of kidneys from the primitive kidney up and through the multiple stages
of development
leading up to humans.
..
A thing to consider about the human kidneys, there are two after all, is that they
have an excess capacity. If one gets destroyed, it turns out that you can survive
pretty well off the one that remains. But kidneys do use a significant amount of
energy. Some might consider that to be wasteful. People who think that are >> seldom well informed biologists.
The less informed people do wonder why evolution would produce excess
capacity. Why spend all that extra energy? Sure, you could design in excess >> capacity, but how do you evolve it? A biologist/physiologist who still recalls
basic chemistry (as 99% likely do, 100% of the physiologists) will immediately
think of buffering capacities. The solutions flow from there.
.
I often wish you asked these sorts of questions because they are at least
more interesting. But the thing is, you don't seem to know enough biology
to ask them, and instead you ask more mundane questions that have been
answered many times.
I'm an unemployed, forcible retired because of a serious health issue.
So, I"ll
admit my biology terminology is quite lacking. But I tend to look at nature >and living things from and engineer's prospective. I was an engineer
before I got fired.. Now, I'm just another unemployed man.
.
Think some on the puddle. Think some on the bit about viewing the natural
history of the ancestors of humans, back to fish and before as if humans
were a pre-ordained target. Understand how that is a fundamental logical
mistaken way to think. Then ask a few questions.
In the YouTube cite I referenced I noted that the discussion from the single >cell to the worm, to the fish to the mouse sized mammal to humans there
was considerable explaining, but nothing regarding the evolution of
internal organs. Why is that! Explaining the changes in morphology is
simple and easy explained and comprehended. But this cannot be said
about organs and body parts. And that I suspect is why evolution of organs
is not talked about.
.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare,
and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes.
https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 16:58:54 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> >wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 8:51:02?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Yeah! People who accept evolution without ever questioning, is about as >>common
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This causes >>>> me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in
an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we >>>> would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be >>>> in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were
beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
"“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking,
. 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in
. — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have
. been made to have me in it!' " Douglas Adams
as thinking mud puddles.
Beneficial mutations could not be rare, considering the many organs and >>physicals
The things you copied and pasted above question the series of steps that >>> led to humans, as if we were a pre-ordained target, an objective.
Does that really make sense to you?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common >>>> than believed.
First off, than believed by whom?
bodies that had to evolve from the worm or the rat like animal to humans. >>
Second off, of the total number of changes/mutations over the time periods >>> involved, how many were beneficial, how many deleterious, how many lethal? >>> I'll give you a hint. For the lethal ones, many never made it far past the eggSo what? That's no issue. and answers nothing.
stage. But that's evolution for you, go ahead and lay many thousands of eggs
even if only two or so ultimately survive.
Yes, and countless mutations many of them beneficial. Or are you
I'll give you another hint.
Imagine a kidney. You likely know some little bit about kidneys. They help filter
blood in a manner that extracts out some stuff that gets excreted as urine. >>> Human kidneys have to do some fairly sophisticated filtering, more than a >>> fish does. But the changes from a "primitive" kidney to a modern mammalian >>> kidney had a long time to happen.
claiming that
mutations and natural selection had nothing to do with the evolutionary >>changes
of kidneys from the primitive kidney up and through the multiple stages
of development
leading up to humans.
..
A thing to consider about the human kidneys, there are two after all, is that they
have an excess capacity. If one gets destroyed, it turns out that you can survive
pretty well off the one that remains. But kidneys do use a significant amount of
energy. Some might consider that to be wasteful. People who think that are >>> seldom well informed biologists.
The less informed people do wonder why evolution would produce excess
capacity. Why spend all that extra energy? Sure, you could design in excess >>> capacity, but how do you evolve it? A biologist/physiologist who still recalls
basic chemistry (as 99% likely do, 100% of the physiologists) will immediately
think of buffering capacities. The solutions flow from there.
.
I often wish you asked these sorts of questions because they are at least >>> more interesting. But the thing is, you don't seem to know enough biology >>> to ask them, and instead you ask more mundane questions that have been
answered many times.
I'm an unemployed, forcible retired because of a serious health issue.
So, I"ll
admit my biology terminology is quite lacking. But I tend to look at nature >>and living things from and engineer's prospective. I was an engineer >>before I got fired.. Now, I'm just another unemployed man.
.In the YouTube cite I referenced I noted that the discussion from the single >>cell to the worm, to the fish to the mouse sized mammal to humans there
Think some on the puddle. Think some on the bit about viewing the natural >>> history of the ancestors of humans, back to fish and before as if humans >>> were a pre-ordained target. Understand how that is a fundamental logical >>> mistaken way to think. Then ask a few questions.
was considerable explaining, but nothing regarding the evolution of >>internal organs. Why is that! Explaining the changes in morphology is >>simple and easy explained and comprehended. But this cannot be said
about organs and body parts. And that I suspect is why evolution of organs >>is not talked about.
Based on these and previous comments, it appears that you feel that >evolutionary forces are not capable of producing certain changes in living >organisms we observe, so you've decided that an unknown designer, using an >unknown method, is a more likely answer.
How did you determine then, that evolutionary forces are not adequate to >produce the changes?
I just don't see any barriers to evoutionary change that would inhibit >development of variations needed to produce the variety of life we observe.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare, >>>> and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes.
https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 16:58:54 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 8:51:02?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This causes >>> me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in >>> an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we >>> would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be >>> in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were >>> beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
"“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking,
. 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in
. — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have
. been made to have me in it!' " Douglas Adams
Yeah! People who accept evolution without ever questioning, is about as >common
as thinking mud puddles.
The things you copied and pasted above question the series of steps that >> led to humans, as if we were a pre-ordained target, an objective.
Does that really make sense to you?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common >>> than believed.
First off, than believed by whom?
Beneficial mutations could not be rare, considering the many organs and >physicals
bodies that had to evolve from the worm or the rat like animal to humans.
Second off, of the total number of changes/mutations over the time periods
involved, how many were beneficial, how many deleterious, how many lethal?
I'll give you a hint. For the lethal ones, many never made it far past the egg
stage. But that's evolution for you, go ahead and lay many thousands of eggs
even if only two or so ultimately survive.
So what? That's no issue. and answers nothing.
I'll give you another hint.
Imagine a kidney. You likely know some little bit about kidneys. They help filter
blood in a manner that extracts out some stuff that gets excreted as urine.
Human kidneys have to do some fairly sophisticated filtering, more than a >> fish does. But the changes from a "primitive" kidney to a modern mammalian
kidney had a long time to happen.
Yes, and countless mutations many of them beneficial. Or are you
claiming that
mutations and natural selection had nothing to do with the evolutionary >changes
of kidneys from the primitive kidney up and through the multiple stages
of development
leading up to humans.
..
A thing to consider about the human kidneys, there are two after all, is that they
have an excess capacity. If one gets destroyed, it turns out that you can survive
pretty well off the one that remains. But kidneys do use a significant amount of
energy. Some might consider that to be wasteful. People who think that are
seldom well informed biologists.
The less informed people do wonder why evolution would produce excess
capacity. Why spend all that extra energy? Sure, you could design in excess
capacity, but how do you evolve it? A biologist/physiologist who still recalls
basic chemistry (as 99% likely do, 100% of the physiologists) will immediately
think of buffering capacities. The solutions flow from there.
.
I often wish you asked these sorts of questions because they are at least >> more interesting. But the thing is, you don't seem to know enough biology >> to ask them, and instead you ask more mundane questions that have been
answered many times.
I'm an unemployed, forcible retired because of a serious health issue.
So, I"ll
admit my biology terminology is quite lacking. But I tend to look at nature >and living things from and engineer's prospective. I was an engineer >before I got fired.. Now, I'm just another unemployed man.
.
Think some on the puddle. Think some on the bit about viewing the natural >> history of the ancestors of humans, back to fish and before as if humans >> were a pre-ordained target. Understand how that is a fundamental logical >> mistaken way to think. Then ask a few questions.
In the YouTube cite I referenced I noted that the discussion from the single
cell to the worm, to the fish to the mouse sized mammal to humans there >was considerable explaining, but nothing regarding the evolution of >internal organs. Why is that! Explaining the changes in morphology is >simple and easy explained and comprehended. But this cannot be said
about organs and body parts. And that I suspect is why evolution of organs >is not talked about.
Based on these and previous comments, it appears that you feel that evolutionary forces are not capable of producing certain changes in living organisms we observe, so you've decided that an unknown designer, using an unknown method, is a more likely answer.
How did you determine then, that evolutionary forces are not adequate to produce the changes?
I just don't see any barriers to evoutionary change that would inhibit development of variations needed to produce the variety of life we observe.
On Monday, 7 August 2023 at 05:36:06 UTC+3, Ralph Page wrote:<snip to subject>
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 16:58:54 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com>
In the YouTube cite I referenced I noted that the discussion from the single
cell to the worm, to the fish to the mouse sized mammal to humans there
was considerable explaining, but nothing regarding the evolution of
internal organs. Why is that! Explaining the changes in morphology is
simple and easy explained and comprehended. But this cannot be said
about organs and body parts. And that I suspect is why evolution of organs >> >is not talked about.
Based on these and previous comments, it appears that you feel thatThe barriers to evolutionary processes are actually quite obvious and massive. >Single mutations can do only very small changes but all the mid-way steps have >to be useful for there to be pressure to improve. Individuals carrying the change
evolutionary forces are not capable of producing certain changes in living >> organisms we observe, so you've decided that an unknown designer, using an >> unknown method, is a more likely answer.
How did you determine then, that evolutionary forces are not adequate to
produce the changes?
I just don't see any barriers to evoutionary change that would inhibit
development of variations needed to produce the variety of life we observe. >>
have to be winners in every step. Therefore superior for some purpose part (of >any level: section of polymer, specialised cell, organ, set of organs) has to >evolve from already existing part that is already beneficially useful (just not too
good or bit too wasteful) for said purpose.
Because of such barriers evolution can not produce very lot of changes.
For example horses with wings or seals with gills. Horse has no organs that >are already helping at least to glide in air a bit and seal has no organs that >are already helping to pick up oxygen dissolved in water.
Such developments also haven't been shown happening. Instead of horses
with wings or seals with gills we see that horses liked to live in environment >where flying gives no much advantage but seals increased amount of
myoglobin in body for to be capable to stay longer underwater without >breathing.
Intelligent design advocate Michael Behe claims that there are some such
big changes in nature of reaching some beneficial usage without mid way
steps being useful. But he has never shown concrete case that it happened.
He hopefully searches for evidence of such case. Lot of other ID proponents >only limit to groundless denial.
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 3:51:03 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/23 5:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:In looking at the organisms in the cite, below, each organism depicted is
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This
causes me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural >>>> selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
What do you mean by "complete"? Amphibian lungs are much simpler than
mammalian lungs. Are they complete? Some amphibians (notably
plethodontids) have no lungs at all. Are those complete? This objection
is more a failure of your knowledge and imagination than anything else.
"complete" a the stage of development it has reached. But to the stage
humans have reached there is a way to go. So, from an evolutionary
scheme no stage short of the human stage is complete.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
Why do you think on the heart of a worm from the perspective of a human?
Why not from the perspective of a squirrel, or a sparrow, or a bull frog,
or a large mouth bass?
where an arrow hit the side of a barn and calling that a target?
You are taking the tip of one twig, on one branch, and imagining that the whole tree must have been designed to purpose in order to have produced
the tip of a twig in that precise spot.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 3:51:03 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/23 5:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:In looking at the organisms in the cite, below, each organism depicted is >> "complete" a the stage of development it has reached. But to the stage
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This
causes me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural >>>> selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to >>>> mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole >>>> animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
What do you mean by "complete"? Amphibian lungs are much simpler than >>> mammalian lungs. Are they complete? Some amphibians (notably
plethodontids) have no lungs at all. Are those complete? This objection >>> is more a failure of your knowledge and imagination than anything else. >>>
humans have reached there is a way to go. So, from an evolutionary
scheme no stage short of the human stage is complete.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
Why do you think on the heart of a worm from the perspective of a human?
It it could be any stage from the single cell stage to the wor or if you prefer over
any state over other. The fish has has two cha,bered heart whereas
humans have
a four chambered heart. So while the heart is evolving, what about the kidneys,
liver, lungs and the other organs essential for survival. Each stage
between the
fish and humans is continuous, and to a degree, has to have reached a parallel
stage of evolution for each organ and body part. Each stage of development of each essential organ has to be fitted and functional at the stage of evolution
that has been reached.
Why not from the perspective of a squirrel, or a sparrow, or a bull frog, or a large mouth bass?
It does not matter which stage of development you choose. It's the same. While the physical body is evolving, the essential organs have to evolve
in a degree of parrallelism in order to be functional to the evolving physical
body and indeed to other organs.For example: the heart and lungs, the
eye,
the nerve paths and the brain. .
What makes sense about drawing a bullseye around
where an arrow hit the side of a barn and calling that a target?
This indicates you do not understand the issue I raised.
You are taking the tip of one twig, on one branch, and imagining that the whole tree must have been designed to purpose in order to have produced the tip of a twig in that precise spot.
No! that in no way even touches the issue I've raised.
By complete, I mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development
at the present.
Maybe, there will be further evolution in the future. who
knows? In the evolutionary pathway from the single cell to humans, the fish is not complete. Even thought the fish was complete, at its point in time.
On 8/5/23 12:48 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/23 5:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:In looking at the organisms in the cite, below, each organism depicted is
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This
causes me to question. I've thought about random mutations and
natural selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity
comes to mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
What do you mean by "complete"? Amphibian lungs are much simpler than
mammalian lungs. Are they complete? Some amphibians (notably
plethodontids) have no lungs at all. Are those complete? This
objection is more a failure of your knowledge and imagination than
anything else.
;
"complete" a the stage of development it has reached. But to the stage
humans have reached there is a way to go. So, from an evolutionary
scheme no stage short of the human stage is complete.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
I'm not going to look at random videos, sorry. But if only humans are "complete", that's a weird definition of the term, and it obscures the
point that intermediate stages are in fact viable and do in fact exist.
Would "presumed" instead allegorical been better?In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended.
I get the feeling that you don't actually mean "allegorical". Is that
correct?
;
Slightly. But of course we can't actually know if any fossil species is ancestral to any other species. We can at most say that it looks like
what the ancestor ought to have looked like.
I'm in reference to each stage in development between the worm, theBut there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync,
in an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
Isn't the limited time space around 500 million years or more? Do we
not see a lot of the intermediate steps in the fossil record and in
extant species? Not seeing the problem here.
;
fish the rat to the tree liming monkey to the ape to you and me.
And you know this.
No, I don't until you tell me. Of course these are all living taxa, so presumably they're only stand-ins for ancestors that would have looked somewhat like them. Still, there would be many millions of years between steps, right? Fish to rat especially. What makes you think there weren't sufficient millions of years?
The light sensitive spot that over the millions of years to sightedIf for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop,
we would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to
be in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how
were beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
Nothing needs to be anticipated.
;
animals.
The light sensitive spot is anticipated in that it came about long before
sighted organisms.
Not true. The light sensitive spot would have fulfilled a perfectly good function by itself, as simple eyes do for many organisms today.
there just has to be variation in
random directions, as is observed in all populations. Some thingsHow and why. Random mutations in the heart (A) does not maker a change
bigger, some smaller, and so on. A change in organ A makes a
corresponding change in organ B advantageous, s
;
in lungs organ (B). This takes countless neutral and maybe some harmful
mutations until a beneficial mutations just happens along.
You seem to be thinking in terms of a single lineage, but evolution
happens in populations. Most harmful and neutral mutations just
disappear within a few generations, while beneficial ones are preserved
and passed on. Changes in the heart don't change the lungs, with certain caveats about developmental processes resulting in some coordination
among parts. But a small change in one can make a small change in the
other beneficial.
o that variation is
selected. Rinse and repeat. Also, some developmental processes justIn the YouTube cite, there is considerable discussion about the evolution
adapt. For example, if you were a mutant such that your eyes moved
toward the side of your head, the optic nerve would move to match,
because the nerve is just arranged to grow in whatever direction it
finds the eyes in. If bones get longer, muscles, nerves, blood
vessels, etc. get longer to match.
of body structure, anatomy or morphology of each "Link" in the sequence >> between the single cell and human. But not a single word in respect to
the evolution of each of the organs and body parts at any stage of
evolution.
Not my problem. If you want to know about the evolution of various
parts, consult the scientific literature or perhaps a comparative
anatomy textbook.
What I'm seeing here, from you is the same thing. I suspect there is
reason
for this omission.
Sounds like you're accusing me of omission with intent to deceive again.
Was that on purpose?
The truth is there is only assumption, guessing, supposition, theorizing,
and just-so-stories: because nobody knows!
Design is the better option, unless there is reason for taking the
position there is no designer in existence.
But nobody knows how design would have worked. How is that better? Not
sure what you think is only assumption, guessing, etc. Do you in fact
have any specific questions?
Between the worm to the fish; to the rat; to the tree climbing monkey,Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more
common than believed.
No, it's just that what's beneficial changes over time. Selection
also takes advantage of existing variation. New mutations are needed
only in the very long term.
;
many of the organs had to develop: such as the heart,; the lungs; the
kidney
to the liver to no fins to fins; from fins to legs etc etc etc. had
to evolve
through random mutations and natural selection and countless beneficial
mutations. And this compaired to purposeful design isn't close. This
leaves
the question of the existence of a designer, or a designer does not
exist.
I'm sure it would be easy for a designer, especially an omnipotent one,
to poof a worm into a human in one go. But that isn't what we see in the history of life. We do indeed see a fairly gradual series of changes.
Now, in fossils it's almost entirely changes in bones. For soft parts,
we mostly have to rely on extant organisms for intermediates. But they
still exist. Why do you deny that?
In between the "worm", whatever you mean by that, and the fish, thereThe worm was called water worm in the cite I referenced. I'm not denying
are quite a few fossil intermediates: early chordates, early Cambrian vertebrates, conodont animals, "jawless fish", and so on. Same for the
other transitions.
I'm not looking at the video, but if it doesn't show any of that, it
seems a very bad source of information, and you should seek elsewhere.
Was it in fact a creationist video?
This answers nothing!Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are
rare, and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes.
https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
Yeah, that's gibberish. Known mutation rates already take repair
mechanisms into account. And this "rain" you propose is happening
over the entire Phanerozoic, so it could easily be a light drizzle at
any one time. Further, the frequency of beneficial mutations changes
with time, depending on how the environment changes, including the
internal environment. The rate of adaptive evolution observed in the
fossil record is actually much smaller than the rate observed in the
present, presumably because of frequent stasis.
It answers your claim that the necessary rate of evolution is not
credible. You really need to stop citing creationist sources. They
aren't good science.
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 16:58:54 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 8:51:02?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Yeah! People who accept evolution without ever questioning, is about as
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This causes >>>> me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in
an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we >>>> would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be >>>> in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were
beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
"“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking,
. 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in
. — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have
. been made to have me in it!' " Douglas Adams
common
as thinking mud puddles.
Beneficial mutations could not be rare, considering the many organs and
The things you copied and pasted above question the series of steps that >>> led to humans, as if we were a pre-ordained target, an objective.
Does that really make sense to you?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common >>>> than believed.
First off, than believed by whom?
physicals
bodies that had to evolve from the worm or the rat like animal to humans. >>
Second off, of the total number of changes/mutations over the time periods >>> involved, how many were beneficial, how many deleterious, how many lethal? >>> I'll give you a hint. For the lethal ones, many never made it far past the eggSo what? That's no issue. and answers nothing.
stage. But that's evolution for you, go ahead and lay many thousands of eggs
even if only two or so ultimately survive.
Yes, and countless mutations many of them beneficial. Or are you
I'll give you another hint.
Imagine a kidney. You likely know some little bit about kidneys. They help filter
blood in a manner that extracts out some stuff that gets excreted as urine. >>> Human kidneys have to do some fairly sophisticated filtering, more than a >>> fish does. But the changes from a "primitive" kidney to a modern mammalian >>> kidney had a long time to happen.
claiming that
mutations and natural selection had nothing to do with the evolutionary
changes
of kidneys from the primitive kidney up and through the multiple stages
of development
leading up to humans.
..
A thing to consider about the human kidneys, there are two after all, is that they
have an excess capacity. If one gets destroyed, it turns out that you can survive
pretty well off the one that remains. But kidneys do use a significant amount of
energy. Some might consider that to be wasteful. People who think that are >>> seldom well informed biologists.
The less informed people do wonder why evolution would produce excess
capacity. Why spend all that extra energy? Sure, you could design in excess >>> capacity, but how do you evolve it? A biologist/physiologist who still recalls
basic chemistry (as 99% likely do, 100% of the physiologists) will immediately
think of buffering capacities. The solutions flow from there.
.
I often wish you asked these sorts of questions because they are at least >>> more interesting. But the thing is, you don't seem to know enough biology >>> to ask them, and instead you ask more mundane questions that have been
answered many times.
I'm an unemployed, forcible retired because of a serious health issue.
So, I"ll
admit my biology terminology is quite lacking. But I tend to look at nature >> and living things from and engineer's prospective. I was an engineer
before I got fired.. Now, I'm just another unemployed man.
.In the YouTube cite I referenced I noted that the discussion from the single >> cell to the worm, to the fish to the mouse sized mammal to humans there
Think some on the puddle. Think some on the bit about viewing the natural >>> history of the ancestors of humans, back to fish and before as if humans >>> were a pre-ordained target. Understand how that is a fundamental logical >>> mistaken way to think. Then ask a few questions.
was considerable explaining, but nothing regarding the evolution of
internal organs. Why is that! Explaining the changes in morphology is
simple and easy explained and comprehended. But this cannot be said
about organs and body parts. And that I suspect is why evolution of organs >> is not talked about.
Based on these and previous comments, it appears that you feel that evolutionary forces are not capable of producing certain changes in living organisms we observe, so you've decided that an unknown designer, using an unknown method, is a more likely answer.
How did you determine then, that evolutionary forces are not adequate to produce the changes?
I just don't see any barriers to evolutionary change that would inhibit development of variations needed to produce the variety of life we observe.
.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare, >>>> and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes.
https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
On 2023-08-05 19:54:48 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 17:20:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:Exactly what I meant. Thank you!
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
;
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Like all the other organisms since the origin of life.
;
You say that because you haven't understood. "Not fully developed" is gibberish, and I doubt whether any serious biologist would say that of
any organism adapted to its environment. It was the "still evolving"
that all of the organisms since the origin of life have been doing. So
it is not exactly what you meant unless yiu expressed exactly what you
meant very badly.
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 11:41:04 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:criticism."
On 8/5/23 10:20 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:Nilsson D., Pelger S. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Here you're describing "stasis". Does this mean the heart can remain inThis causesAll beings have most of capabilities of their organism not exercised
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to >>>>> mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
fully most of the time, because there is no need to. They are not
optimal fit to their environment but noticeably too good for it. Need
to use one or other capability to edge might arise only rarely, but that >>>> will matter on such occasions. If they actually have to struggle too
much then there is obvious pressure to improve.
stasis
while the anatomy undergoes changes? How many of the numerous organs
can remain static while the physical body changes? At some point betweem >>> the worm and the fish anatomy the organs and body parts have to catch up, >>> bot to mention between the worm and the human form.
How then, can evolution occur?
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite justWhy in sync? Mutations are small, rare and usually do not matter at all, >>>> if these matter then these are more commonly crippling.
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in >>>>> an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
During the hundreds of millions of years, organs has to be suited for the >>> animals physical form. If the kidney, heart, lungs don't evolve in sync
Few with some positive effect that matters however give better chance
to survive and to procreate. That chance makes their offspring slowly
to prevail. We talk about hundreds of millions generations. When
pressure is obvious like bear who likes to hunt seals towards polar bear >>>> then that goes tens of thousands times quicker.
the animal cannot survive and have offspring. This applies not only to
organs but each organ. The eye for example: Does a spot in the skin become >>> light sensitive first. If so, there is no nerve endings to the brain,
nor is the
brain sensitive to the signals as they arrive. How is a blind spot
without nerves of benefit to the creature? If the spot on the skin just
happens and has no initial functionl, why would it be passed down
o offspring? Where is natural selection? Why is not deliberate,
purposeful design not the better explanation? And this applies to
each of the 100 or so organs and parts.
eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B
1994; 256:53-58.
http://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/dmcfarlane/bio145mcfarlane/PDFs/Nilsson%20and%20Pelger_eye%20evolution%20model%20ProcRoyalSoc_1994.pdf
This doesn't resolve all your complaints, but it does point the way. You
should at least read it.
Apparently it resolves all your complaints. What a joke!
"Even with a consistently pessimistic approach the time required becomes amazingly short: only a few hundred thousand years. When Charles Darwin (1859) presented his theory of evolution he anticipated that the eye would become a favorite target for
Simply amazing!
Ralph Page wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 16:58:54 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 8:51:02?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Yeah! People who accept evolution without ever questioning, is about as >> common
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This causes >>>> me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to >>>> mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole >>>> animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in >>>> an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we >>>> would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be >>>> in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were >>>> beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
"“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking,
. 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in
. — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have
. been made to have me in it!' " Douglas Adams
as thinking mud puddles.
Beneficial mutations could not be rare, considering the many organs and >> physicals
The things you copied and pasted above question the series of steps that >>> led to humans, as if we were a pre-ordained target, an objective.
Does that really make sense to you?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common
than believed.
First off, than believed by whom?
bodies that had to evolve from the worm or the rat like animal to humans. >>
Second off, of the total number of changes/mutations over the time periodsSo what? That's no issue. and answers nothing.
involved, how many were beneficial, how many deleterious, how many lethal?
I'll give you a hint. For the lethal ones, many never made it far past the egg
stage. But that's evolution for you, go ahead and lay many thousands of eggs
even if only two or so ultimately survive.
Yes, and countless mutations many of them beneficial. Or are you
I'll give you another hint.
Imagine a kidney. You likely know some little bit about kidneys. They help filter
blood in a manner that extracts out some stuff that gets excreted as urine.
Human kidneys have to do some fairly sophisticated filtering, more than a
fish does. But the changes from a "primitive" kidney to a modern mammalian
kidney had a long time to happen.
claiming that
mutations and natural selection had nothing to do with the evolutionary >> changes
of kidneys from the primitive kidney up and through the multiple stages >> of development
leading up to humans.
..
A thing to consider about the human kidneys, there are two after all, is that they
have an excess capacity. If one gets destroyed, it turns out that you can survive
pretty well off the one that remains. But kidneys do use a significant amount of
energy. Some might consider that to be wasteful. People who think that are
seldom well informed biologists.
The less informed people do wonder why evolution would produce excess >>> capacity. Why spend all that extra energy? Sure, you could design in excess
capacity, but how do you evolve it? A biologist/physiologist who still recalls
basic chemistry (as 99% likely do, 100% of the physiologists) will immediately
think of buffering capacities. The solutions flow from there.
.
I often wish you asked these sorts of questions because they are at least
more interesting. But the thing is, you don't seem to know enough biology
to ask them, and instead you ask more mundane questions that have been >>> answered many times.
I'm an unemployed, forcible retired because of a serious health issue.
So, I"ll
admit my biology terminology is quite lacking. But I tend to look at nature
and living things from and engineer's prospective. I was an engineer
before I got fired.. Now, I'm just another unemployed man.
.In the YouTube cite I referenced I noted that the discussion from the single
Think some on the puddle. Think some on the bit about viewing the natural
history of the ancestors of humans, back to fish and before as if humans >>> were a pre-ordained target. Understand how that is a fundamental logical >>> mistaken way to think. Then ask a few questions.
cell to the worm, to the fish to the mouse sized mammal to humans there >> was considerable explaining, but nothing regarding the evolution of
internal organs. Why is that! Explaining the changes in morphology is
simple and easy explained and comprehended. But this cannot be said
about organs and body parts. And that I suspect is why evolution of organs
is not talked about.
Based on these and previous comments, it appears that you feel that evolutionary forces are not capable of producing certain changes in living organisms we observe, so you've decided that an unknown designer, using an unknown method, is a more likely answer.
An unknown designer using unknown methods, in reality has no bearing on
the issue I raised. The issue stands. The fact is when organism evolve from one stage of development through the many stages of body forms between the water worm; to the fish; to the rodent; to the tree climbing monkey; to
the ape;
to us, each stage there must have adequate changes in the essential
internal
organs in order to functions to meet the requirements of survival for each organism at it's step in the evolution between the water worm or the
fish and us.
Ralph Page wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 16:58:54 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 8:51:02?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Yeah! People who accept evolution without ever questioning, is about as
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This causes >>>>> me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to >>>>> mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in >>>>> an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we >>>>> would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be >>>>> in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were >>>>> beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
"“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking,
. 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in
. — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have
. been made to have me in it!' " Douglas Adams
common
as thinking mud puddles.
Beneficial mutations could not be rare, considering the many organs and >>> physicals
The things you copied and pasted above question the series of steps that >>>> led to humans, as if we were a pre-ordained target, an objective.
Does that really make sense to you?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common >>>>> than believed.
First off, than believed by whom?
bodies that had to evolve from the worm or the rat like animal to humans. >>>
Second off, of the total number of changes/mutations over the time periodsSo what? That's no issue. and answers nothing.
involved, how many were beneficial, how many deleterious, how many lethal? >>>> I'll give you a hint. For the lethal ones, many never made it far past the egg
stage. But that's evolution for you, go ahead and lay many thousands of eggs
even if only two or so ultimately survive.
Yes, and countless mutations many of them beneficial. Or are you
I'll give you another hint.
Imagine a kidney. You likely know some little bit about kidneys. They help filter
blood in a manner that extracts out some stuff that gets excreted as urine.
Human kidneys have to do some fairly sophisticated filtering, more than a >>>> fish does. But the changes from a "primitive" kidney to a modern mammalian >>>> kidney had a long time to happen.
claiming that
mutations and natural selection had nothing to do with the evolutionary
changes
of kidneys from the primitive kidney up and through the multiple stages
of development
leading up to humans.
..
A thing to consider about the human kidneys, there are two after all, is that they
have an excess capacity. If one gets destroyed, it turns out that you can survive
pretty well off the one that remains. But kidneys do use a significant amount of
energy. Some might consider that to be wasteful. People who think that are >>>> seldom well informed biologists.
The less informed people do wonder why evolution would produce excess
capacity. Why spend all that extra energy? Sure, you could design in excess
capacity, but how do you evolve it? A biologist/physiologist who still recalls
basic chemistry (as 99% likely do, 100% of the physiologists) will immediately
think of buffering capacities. The solutions flow from there.
.
I often wish you asked these sorts of questions because they are at least >>>> more interesting. But the thing is, you don't seem to know enough biology >>>> to ask them, and instead you ask more mundane questions that have been >>>> answered many times.
I'm an unemployed, forcible retired because of a serious health issue.
So, I"ll
admit my biology terminology is quite lacking. But I tend to look at nature >>> and living things from and engineer's prospective. I was an engineer
before I got fired.. Now, I'm just another unemployed man.
.In the YouTube cite I referenced I noted that the discussion from the single
Think some on the puddle. Think some on the bit about viewing the natural >>>> history of the ancestors of humans, back to fish and before as if humans >>>> were a pre-ordained target. Understand how that is a fundamental logical >>>> mistaken way to think. Then ask a few questions.
cell to the worm, to the fish to the mouse sized mammal to humans there
was considerable explaining, but nothing regarding the evolution of
internal organs. Why is that! Explaining the changes in morphology is
simple and easy explained and comprehended. But this cannot be said
about organs and body parts. And that I suspect is why evolution of organs >>> is not talked about.
Based on these and previous comments, it appears that you feel that
evolutionary forces are not capable of producing certain changes in living >> organisms we observe, so you've decided that an unknown designer, using an >> unknown method, is a more likely answer.
An unknown designer using unknown methods, in reality has no bearing on
the issue I raised. The issue stands. The fact is when organism evolve from >one stage of development through the many stages of body forms between the >water worm; to the fish; to the rodent; to the tree climbing monkey; to
the ape;
to us, each stage there must have adequate changes in the essential
internal
organs in order to functions to meet the requirements of survival for each >organism at it's step in the evolution between the water worm or the
fish and us.
You explain how each essential internal organ, heart kidney lungs etc .etc
How did you determine then, that evolutionary forces are not adequate to
produce the changes?
I just don't see any barriers to evolutionary change that would inhibit
development of variations needed to produce the variety of life we observe. >>
was able to change to fit and function within each newly evolved body
for each stage between the first simple cell to you.
And in the sequence of body changes throughout evolution from the first >living cell to you, virtually nothing is said about the evolution of
internal
organs. The exception is the eye, as far as I've been able to determine.Why >is that?
.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare, >>>>> and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes.
https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 19:54:48 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 17:20:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:Exactly what I meant. Thank you!
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed, >>>>>> because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Like all the other organisms since the origin of life.
You say that because you haven't understood. "Not fully developed" is gibberish, and I doubt whether any serious biologist would say that of
any organism adapted to its environment. It was the "still evolving"
that all of the organisms since the origin of life have been doing. So
it is not exactly what you meant unless yiu expressed exactly what you meant very badly.
Each organism at its time and its stage of development is fully developed. However in long term evolutionary scenario the ape ancestor is not
fully developed in that is a intermediate link towards humans. The human
has reached the pentacle of evolutionary development at this point of
time.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 19:54:48 +0000, Ron Dean said:Each organism at its time and its stage of development is fully developed. >However in long term evolutionary scenario the ape ancestor is not
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 17:20:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:Exactly what I meant. Thank you!
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed, >>>>>>> because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
;
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Like all the other organisms since the origin of life.
;
You say that because you haven't understood. "Not fully developed" is
gibberish, and I doubt whether any serious biologist would say that of
any organism adapted to its environment. It was the "still evolving"
that all of the organisms since the origin of life have been doing. So
it is not exactly what you meant unless yiu expressed exactly what you
meant very badly.
fully developed in that is a intermediate link towards humans. The human
has reached the pentacle of evolutionary development at this point of
time.
Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 11:41:04 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/5/23 10:20 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:Nilsson D., Pelger S. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an >>> eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Here you're describing "stasis". Does this mean the heart can remain in >>>> stasisThis causesAll beings have most of capabilities of their organism not exercised >>>>> fully most of the time, because there is no need to. They are not
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to >>>>>> mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole >>>>>> animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
optimal fit to their environment but noticeably too good for it. Need >>>>> to use one or other capability to edge might arise only rarely, but
that
will matter on such occasions. If they actually have to struggle too >>>>> much then there is obvious pressure to improve.
while the anatomy undergoes changes? How many of the numerous organs
can remain static while the physical body changes? At some point
betweem
the worm and the fish anatomy the organs and body parts have to
catch up,
bot to mention between the worm and the human form.
How then, can evolution occur?
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just >>>>>> below, the multiple ofWhy in sync? Mutations are small, rare and usually do not matter at
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's >>>>>> absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in >>>>>> an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
all,
if these matter then these are more commonly crippling.
During the hundreds of millions of years, organs has to be suited
Few with some positive effect that matters however give better chance >>>>> to survive and to procreate. That chance makes their offspring slowly >>>>> to prevail. We talk about hundreds of millions generations. When
pressure is obvious like bear who likes to hunt seals towards polar
bear
then that goes tens of thousands times quicker.
for the
animals physical form. If the kidney, heart, lungs don't evolve in sync >>>> the animal cannot survive and have offspring. This applies not only to >>>> organs but each organ. The eye for example: Does a spot in the skin
become
light sensitive first. If so, there is no nerve endings to the brain,
nor is the
brain sensitive to the signals as they arrive. How is a blind spot
without nerves of benefit to the creature? If the spot on the skin just >>>> happens and has no initial functionl, why would it be passed down
o offspring? Where is natural selection? Why is not deliberate,
purposeful design not the better explanation? And this applies to
each of the 100 or so organs and parts.
1994; 256:53-58.
http://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/dmcfarlane/bio145mcfarlane/PDFs/Nilsson%20and%20Pelger_eye%20evolution%20model%20ProcRoyalSoc_1994.pdf
This doesn't resolve all your complaints, but it does point the way. You >>> should at least read it.
Apparently it resolves all your complaints. What a joke!
"Even with a consistently pessimistic approach the time required
becomes amazingly short: only a few hundred thousand years. When
Charles Darwin (1859) presented his theory of evolution he anticipated
that the eye would become a favorite target for criticism."
As I see it the eye is only one of the 100 or so organs, that must
change from the simple cell to the human. This is never discussed as far
as I've been able to determine. I wonder why.
John Harshman wrote:time.
On 8/5/23 12:48 PM, Ron Dean wrote:By complete, I mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development
John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/23 5:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:In looking at the organisms in the cite, below, each organism
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This
causes me to question. I've thought about random mutations and
natural selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity
comes to mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
What do you mean by "complete"? Amphibian lungs are much simpler
than mammalian lungs. Are they complete? Some amphibians (notably
plethodontids) have no lungs at all. Are those complete? This
objection is more a failure of your knowledge and imagination than
anything else.
depicted is
"complete" a the stage of development it has reached. But to the stage
humans have reached there is a way to go. So, from an evolutionary
scheme no stage short of the human stage is complete.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
I'm not going to look at random videos, sorry. But if only humans are
"complete", that's a weird definition of the term, and it obscures the
point that intermediate stages are in fact viable and do in fact exist.
at the present. Maybe, there will be further evolution in the future. who knows? In the evolutionary pathway from the single cell to humans, the
fish
is not complete. Even thought the fish was complete, at its point in
Hundreds of millions, in the case of fish and mouse. Now, what organsThat's not a position that I take. Why would you say that?Would "presumed" instead allegorical been better?In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended.
I get the feeling that you don't actually mean "allegorical". Is
that correct?
Slightly. But of course we can't actually know if any fossil species
is ancestral to any other species. We can at most say that it looks
like what the ancestor ought to have looked like.
I'm in reference to each stage in development between the worm, theBut there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync,
in an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
Isn't the limited time space around 500 million years or more? Do we
not see a lot of the intermediate steps in the fossil record and in
extant species? Not seeing the problem here.
fish the rat to the tree liming monkey to the ape to you and me.
And you know this.
No, I don't until you tell me. Of course these are all living taxa, so
presumably they're only stand-ins for ancestors that would have looked
somewhat like them. Still, there would be many millions of years
between steps, right? Fish to rat especially. What makes you think
there weren't sufficient millions of years?
Even with tens of millions of years between fish and mouse another 10s'of millions years between mouse and tree climbing monkey and additional
10's of millions from the mmokey to ape, at each step essential organ
had t
o be in in place for survival. This through immense numbers of useful mutations Via aimless, hazardous random mutations and natural selection. This takes faith!
We don't know, of course. Telling day from night? Spotting movementWhat function did it, in reality serve?The light sensitive spot that over the millions of years to sightedIf for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not
develop, we would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to
be in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how
were beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
Nothing needs to be anticipated.
animals.
The light sensitive spot is anticipated in that it came about long
before
sighted organisms.
Not true. The light sensitive spot would have fulfilled a perfectly
good function by itself, as simple eyes do for many organisms today.
This was before the nerve pathwaysYou know that many cells in the skin are connected to the brain by
to the brain: or did they evolve in a parallel?
Even here there had to beperson
countless random aimless mutations and natural selection and then the beneficial mutation,
And this had to happen an immense number of times and the spot on the
skin, the nerve pathways and the brain. I think this is something a
has a desire to believe. He must want to believe it.I think you think that, but you have no basis for such a notion. Again,
to beIt does not mean that the necessary evolutionary changes in each organthere just has to be variation in
random directions, as is observed in all populations. Some thingsHow and why. Random mutations in the heart (A) does not maker a change
bigger, some smaller, and so on. A change in organ A makes a
corresponding change in organ B advantageous, s
in lungs organ (B). This takes countless neutral and maybe some harmful
mutations until a beneficial mutations just happens along.
You seem to be thinking in terms of a single lineage, but evolution
happens in populations. Most harmful and neutral mutations just
disappear within a few generations, while beneficial ones are
preserved and passed on. Changes in the heart don't change the lungs,
with certain caveats about developmental processes resulting in some
coordination among parts. But a small change in one can make a small
change in the other beneficial.
and body part is not required were populations are concerned.
There are quite a few changes that had to occur in many different essential
organs and physical body parts. And at nearly the same time in order
functional at the time the next transitional form arose.You seem here to be talking about some kind of saltation. That's just
Ah, you don't know how science works either. "Hypothesis" and "theory"So, there is hypothesis, theories ad supposition. no one can know for ao that variation is
selected. Rinse and repeat. Also, some developmental processes justIn the YouTube cite, there is considerable discussion about the
adapt. For example, if you were a mutant such that your eyes moved
toward the side of your head, the optic nerve would move to match,
because the nerve is just arranged to grow in whatever direction it
finds the eyes in. If bones get longer, muscles, nerves, blood
vessels, etc. get longer to match.
evolution
of body structure, anatomy or morphology of each "Link" in the
sequence
between the single cell and human. But not a single word in respect to
the evolution of each of the organs and body parts at any stage of
evolution.
Not my problem. If you want to know about the evolution of various
parts, consult the scientific literature or perhaps a comparative
anatomy textbook.
fact
evolution ofAbsolutely not! I was not referring to you, but in general theWhat I'm seeing here, from you is the same thing. I suspect there is
reason
for this omission.
Sounds like you're accusing me of omission with intent to deceive
again. Was that on purpose?
organs from the water worm to the fish to the lizard like animal to the first mouse like mammal to the monkey to you and me. At each stageSo what did you mean by "I suspect there is reason for this omission"?
the organs had to fit the body form in order ti be fictional for that animal.
no knewThe truth is there is only assumption, guessing, supposition,
theorizing,
and just-so-stories: because nobody knows!
Design is the better option, unless there is reason for taking the
position there is no designer in existence.
But nobody knows how design would have worked. How is that better? Not
sure what you think is only assumption, guessing, etc. Do you in fact
have any specific questions?
The antikythera mechanism, for years after this device was found,
who designed it, considering the time period it came from, how it could suchpurpose.
a complicated device have been designed, and built, and for whats
If you apply this argument to the first living cell that was able to reproduce,This appears to be an abrupt change of subject from the evolution of multicellular organisms to the origin of life. What the heck?
how simple was it" Chances are it was just as complicated as any modern single
cell bacteria. No one knows I suspect the term simple cell is just a
concept
for no purpose other than for it to fit within the existing paradigm.
didn't.Between the worm to the fish; to the rat; to the tree climbing monkey,Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more
common than believed.
No, it's just that what's beneficial changes over time. Selection
also takes advantage of existing variation. New mutations are needed
only in the very long term.
many of the organs had to develop: such as the heart,; the lungs; the
kidney
to the liver to no fins to fins; from fins to legs etc etc etc. had
to evolve
through random mutations and natural selection and countless beneficial
mutations. And this compaired to purposeful design isn't close. This
leaves
the question of the existence of a designer, or a designer does not
exist.
I'm sure it would be easy for a designer, especially an omnipotent
one, to poof a worm into a human in one go. But that isn't what we see
in the history of life. We do indeed see a fairly gradual series of
changes. Now, in fossils it's almost entirely changes in bones. For
soft parts, we mostly have to rely on extant organisms for
intermediates. But they still exist. Why do you deny that?
Whether or not it could have, gone from worm to human in one go, it
Why deny? That has nothing to do with the issue I raised about some kindThis doesn't seem to be a response to what I said. You're just repeating
of co-ordination in order to fit necessary organs to fit and function in
the
newly evolved organisms along the pathway from the water worm to humans. This involved heart, lungs kidneys, liver, spleen, etc.etc.
These evolutionary changes required countless useful mutations. What are the odds of this occurring as needed and when needed with each essential organ whos function is needed for survival?
Yeah, as you know, as I've told you many times before but youIn between the "worm", whatever you mean by that, and the fish, thereThe worm was called water worm in the cite I referenced. I'm not denying that any of the organism you mentioned. But. you said nothing about the evolution of organs need for function in each or your mentioned organisms
are quite a few fossil intermediates: early chordates, early Cambrian
vertebrates, conodont animals, "jawless fish", and so on. Same for the
other transitions.
as they evolved. As I've stated before, there are numerable instances of
different body plans represented in the progression of evolution, but nothing
regarding the changes in organs essential for the survival of different stage of
evolutionary development.
Well, of course the messenger is writing the message in that case, andI'm not looking at the video, but if it doesn't show any of that, it
seems a very bad source of information, and you should seek elsewhere.
Was it in fact a creationist video?
No, it was from an evolutionary view. I know not to use creationist material.
The messenger is always shot!
You need to get out more. Looking at your link to answers.com, I seeI cited one source from YouTube, which was not a creationist website,.Everything else was strictly mine.This answers nothing!Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are
rare, and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes.
https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
Yeah, that's gibberish. Known mutation rates already take repair
mechanisms into account. And this "rain" you propose is happening
over the entire Phanerozoic, so it could easily be a light drizzle
at any one time. Further, the frequency of beneficial mutations
changes with time, depending on how the environment changes,
including the internal environment. The rate of adaptive evolution
observed in the fossil record is actually much smaller than the rate
observed in the present, presumably because of frequent stasis.
It answers your claim that the necessary rate of evolution is not
credible. You really need to stop citing creationist sources. They
aren't good science.
I question this issue has ever been brought up before by anyone either creationist, IDest or evolutionist. I've never seen this before. So,
I think thid has been ignored up until I introduced the issue.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:That would be "pinnacle"; pentacles have different
On 2023-08-05 19:54:48 +0000, Ron Dean said:Each organism at its time and its stage of development is fully developed. >However in long term evolutionary scenario the ape ancestor is not
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 17:20:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:Exactly what I meant. Thank you!
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed, >>>>>>> because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Like all the other organisms since the origin of life.
You say that because you haven't understood. "Not fully developed" is
gibberish, and I doubt whether any serious biologist would say that of
any organism adapted to its environment. It was the "still evolving"
that all of the organisms since the origin of life have been doing. So
it is not exactly what you meant unless yiu expressed exactly what you
meant very badly.
fully developed in that is a intermediate link towards humans. The human
has reached the pentacle of evolutionary development at this point of
time.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 19:54:48 +0000, Ron Dean said:Each organism at its time and its stage of development is fully developed. However in long term evolutionary scenario the ape ancestor is not
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 17:20:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:Exactly what I meant. Thank you!
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed, >>>>>>> because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
;
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Like all the other organisms since the origin of life.
;
You say that because you haven't understood. "Not fully developed" is
gibberish, and I doubt whether any serious biologist would say that of
any organism adapted to its environment. It was the "still evolving"
that all of the organisms since the origin of life have been doing. So
it is not exactly what you meant unless yiu expressed exactly what you
meant very badly.
fully developed in that is a intermediate link towards humans. The human
has reached the pentacle of evolutionary development at this point of time.
[ … ]
As I see it the eye is only one of the 100 or so organs, that must
change from the simple cell to the human. This is never discussed as
far as I've been able to determine. I wonder why.
Simply amazing!
Glenn wrote:criticism."
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 11:41:04 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/5/23 10:20 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:Nilsson D., Pelger S. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an >> eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed, >>>>> because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Here you're describing "stasis". Does this mean the heart can remain in >>> stasisThis causesAll beings have most of capabilities of their organism not exercised >>>> fully most of the time, because there is no need to. They are not
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to >>>>> mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole >>>>> animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
optimal fit to their environment but noticeably too good for it. Need >>>> to use one or other capability to edge might arise only rarely, but that
will matter on such occasions. If they actually have to struggle too >>>> much then there is obvious pressure to improve.
while the anatomy undergoes changes? How many of the numerous organs
can remain static while the physical body changes? At some point betweem >>> the worm and the fish anatomy the organs and body parts have to catch up,
bot to mention between the worm and the human form.
How then, can evolution occur?
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just >>>>> below, the multiple ofWhy in sync? Mutations are small, rare and usually do not matter at all,
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and >>>>> conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's >>>>> absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in >>>>> an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
if these matter then these are more commonly crippling.
During the hundreds of millions of years, organs has to be suited for the
Few with some positive effect that matters however give better chance >>>> to survive and to procreate. That chance makes their offspring slowly >>>> to prevail. We talk about hundreds of millions generations. When
pressure is obvious like bear who likes to hunt seals towards polar bear
then that goes tens of thousands times quicker.
animals physical form. If the kidney, heart, lungs don't evolve in sync >>> the animal cannot survive and have offspring. This applies not only to >>> organs but each organ. The eye for example: Does a spot in the skin become
light sensitive first. If so, there is no nerve endings to the brain, >>> nor is the
brain sensitive to the signals as they arrive. How is a blind spot
without nerves of benefit to the creature? If the spot on the skin just >>> happens and has no initial functionl, why would it be passed down
o offspring? Where is natural selection? Why is not deliberate,
purposeful design not the better explanation? And this applies to
each of the 100 or so organs and parts.
1994; 256:53-58.
http://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/dmcfarlane/bio145mcfarlane/PDFs/Nilsson%20and%20Pelger_eye%20evolution%20model%20ProcRoyalSoc_1994.pdf
This doesn't resolve all your complaints, but it does point the way. You >> should at least read it.
Apparently it resolves all your complaints. What a joke!
"Even with a consistently pessimistic approach the time required becomes amazingly short: only a few hundred thousand years. When Charles Darwin (1859) presented his theory of evolution he anticipated that the eye would become a favorite target for
As I see it the eye is only one of the 100 or so organs, that must
change from the simple cell to the human. This is never discussed as far
as I've been able to determine. I wonder why.
Simply amazing!
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 12:56:06?AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:criticism."
Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 11:41:04?AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/5/23 10:20 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:Nilsson D., Pelger S. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an >> >> eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Here you're describing "stasis". Does this mean the heart can remain in >> >>> stasisThis causesAll beings have most of capabilities of their organism not exercised >> >>>> fully most of the time, because there is no need to. They are not
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to >> >>>>> mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole >> >>>>> animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
optimal fit to their environment but noticeably too good for it. Need >> >>>> to use one or other capability to edge might arise only rarely, but that
will matter on such occasions. If they actually have to struggle too >> >>>> much then there is obvious pressure to improve.
while the anatomy undergoes changes? How many of the numerous organs
can remain static while the physical body changes? At some point betweem
the worm and the fish anatomy the organs and body parts have to catch up,
bot to mention between the worm and the human form.
How then, can evolution occur?
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite justWhy in sync? Mutations are small, rare and usually do not matter at all,
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in >> >>>>> an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
if these matter then these are more commonly crippling.
During the hundreds of millions of years, organs has to be suited for the
Few with some positive effect that matters however give better chance >> >>>> to survive and to procreate. That chance makes their offspring slowly >> >>>> to prevail. We talk about hundreds of millions generations. When
pressure is obvious like bear who likes to hunt seals towards polar bear
then that goes tens of thousands times quicker.
animals physical form. If the kidney, heart, lungs don't evolve in sync >> >>> the animal cannot survive and have offspring. This applies not only to >> >>> organs but each organ. The eye for example: Does a spot in the skin become
light sensitive first. If so, there is no nerve endings to the brain, >> >>> nor is the
brain sensitive to the signals as they arrive. How is a blind spot
without nerves of benefit to the creature? If the spot on the skin just >> >>> happens and has no initial functionl, why would it be passed down
o offspring? Where is natural selection? Why is not deliberate,
purposeful design not the better explanation? And this applies to
each of the 100 or so organs and parts.
1994; 256:53-58.
http://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/dmcfarlane/bio145mcfarlane/PDFs/Nilsson%20and%20Pelger_eye%20evolution%20model%20ProcRoyalSoc_1994.pdf
This doesn't resolve all your complaints, but it does point the way. You >> >> should at least read it.
Apparently it resolves all your complaints. What a joke!
"Even with a consistently pessimistic approach the time required becomes amazingly short: only a few hundred thousand years. When Charles Darwin (1859) presented his theory of evolution he anticipated that the eye would become a favorite target for
As I see it the eye is only one of the 100 or so organs, that must
change from the simple cell to the human. This is never discussed as far
as I've been able to determine. I wonder why.
Maybe because you did not look properly?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4348419/ >https://web.archive.org/web/20131212204529/http://physics.okstate.edu/axie/courses/4313/2012fall/C7_B2_reading-evolution-of-eye-2011.pdf
or for a very simple intro for laypeople, try to find in your library Glaser and Paulus, The Evolution of the Eye
Simply amazing!
John Harshman wrote:
[...]By complete, I mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development
I'm not going to look at random videos, sorry. But if only humans are
"complete", that's a weird definition of the term, and it obscures the
point that intermediate stages are in fact viable and do in fact exist.
at the present.
On 2023-08-07 23:52:33 +0000, Ron Dean said:
[ ]
As I see it the eye is only one of the 100 or so organs, that must
change from the simple cell to the human. This is never discussed as
far as I've been able to determine. I wonder why.
If it means anything it means that you haven't bothered to look at any >serious sources. There is plenty of discussion of the evolution of the
eye.
--
Simply amazing!
On 2023-08-07 23:52:33 +0000, Ron Dean said:
[ … ]
;As I see it the eye is only one of the 100 or so organs, that must
change from the simple cell to the human. This is never discussed as
far as I've been able to determine. I wonder why.
If it means anything it means that you haven't bothered to look at any serious sources. There is plenty of discussion of the evolution of the eye.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-07 23:52:33 +0000, Ron Dean said:I know! I used the eye as an example, in contrast with the complete list
[ … ]
;As I see it the eye is only one of the 100 or so organs, that must
change from the simple cell to the human. This is never discussed as
far as I've been able to determine. I wonder why.
If it means anything it means that you haven't bothered to look at any
serious sources. There is plenty of discussion of the evolution of the
eye.
of other
essential organs whose evolution which had to evolved to a degree in
parallel
order. This has been virtually ignored.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 7:16:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:This was in reference strictly to the supposed evolutionary line that
Ralph Page wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 16:58:54 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 8:51:02?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Yeah! People who accept evolution without ever questioning, is about as >>>> common
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This causes >>>>>> me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to >>>>>> mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole >>>>>> animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just >>>>>> below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's >>>>>> absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in >>>>>> an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we >>>>>> would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be >>>>>> in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were >>>>>> beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
"“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking,
. 'This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in
. — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have
. been made to have me in it!' " Douglas Adams
as thinking mud puddles.
Beneficial mutations could not be rare, considering the many organs and >>>> physicals
The things you copied and pasted above question the series of steps that >>>>> led to humans, as if we were a pre-ordained target, an objective.
Does that really make sense to you?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common >>>>>> than believed.
First off, than believed by whom?
bodies that had to evolve from the worm or the rat like animal to humans. >>>>
Second off, of the total number of changes/mutations over the time periodsSo what? That's no issue. and answers nothing.
involved, how many were beneficial, how many deleterious, how many lethal?
I'll give you a hint. For the lethal ones, many never made it far past the egg
stage. But that's evolution for you, go ahead and lay many thousands of eggs
even if only two or so ultimately survive.
Yes, and countless mutations many of them beneficial. Or are you
I'll give you another hint.
Imagine a kidney. You likely know some little bit about kidneys. They help filter
blood in a manner that extracts out some stuff that gets excreted as urine.
Human kidneys have to do some fairly sophisticated filtering, more than a >>>>> fish does. But the changes from a "primitive" kidney to a modern mammalian
kidney had a long time to happen.
claiming that
mutations and natural selection had nothing to do with the evolutionary >>>> changes
of kidneys from the primitive kidney up and through the multiple stages >>>> of development
leading up to humans.
..
A thing to consider about the human kidneys, there are two after all, is that they
have an excess capacity. If one gets destroyed, it turns out that you can survive
pretty well off the one that remains. But kidneys do use a significant amount of
energy. Some might consider that to be wasteful. People who think that are
seldom well informed biologists.
The less informed people do wonder why evolution would produce excess >>>>> capacity. Why spend all that extra energy? Sure, you could design in excess
capacity, but how do you evolve it? A biologist/physiologist who still recalls
basic chemistry (as 99% likely do, 100% of the physiologists) will immediately
think of buffering capacities. The solutions flow from there.
.
I often wish you asked these sorts of questions because they are at least >>>>> more interesting. But the thing is, you don't seem to know enough biology >>>>> to ask them, and instead you ask more mundane questions that have been >>>>> answered many times.
I'm an unemployed, forcible retired because of a serious health issue. >>>> So, I"ll
admit my biology terminology is quite lacking. But I tend to look at nature
and living things from and engineer's prospective. I was an engineer
before I got fired.. Now, I'm just another unemployed man.
.In the YouTube cite I referenced I noted that the discussion from the single
Think some on the puddle. Think some on the bit about viewing the natural >>>>> history of the ancestors of humans, back to fish and before as if humans >>>>> were a pre-ordained target. Understand how that is a fundamental logical >>>>> mistaken way to think. Then ask a few questions.
cell to the worm, to the fish to the mouse sized mammal to humans there >>>> was considerable explaining, but nothing regarding the evolution of
internal organs. Why is that! Explaining the changes in morphology is
simple and easy explained and comprehended. But this cannot be said
about organs and body parts. And that I suspect is why evolution of organs >>>> is not talked about.
Based on these and previous comments, it appears that you feel that
evolutionary forces are not capable of producing certain changes in living >>> organisms we observe, so you've decided that an unknown designer, using an >>> unknown method, is a more likely answer.
An unknown designer using unknown methods, in reality has no bearing on
the issue I raised. The issue stands. The fact is when organism evolve from >> one stage of development through the many stages of body forms between the >> water worm; to the fish; to the rodent; to the tree climbing monkey; to
the ape;
to us, each stage there must have adequate changes in the essential
internal
organs in order to functions to meet the requirements of survival for each >> organism at it's step in the evolution between the water worm or the
fish and us.
And again, the "to us" is a deeply flawed aspect of your thinking here.
You can permute the "us" to any existing organism, as they all have
natural histories. Humans are not, as you asserted elsewhere, some
pinnacle of evolution.
'
These various endpoints can be rats, or bats, or parasites, or starfish. Evolution has taken many turns. It has also not taken countless many
more turns that it might have taken.
is presuming that the turns taken were somehow targets,
was a "design" or purpose to get to what exists today. The is a pure assertion, unsupported by logic.
It is hard to properly conceive of the scale of bypassed pathways that
did not get taken. What about gliding carnivores? Why don't we have
two opposable thumbs on each hand? Why doesn't our eyesight extend
into the infrared and ultraviolet?
And your rhetoric keeps implying that "complete" somehow teases
up close to 'perfected'. Meanwhile, our immune systems over-react
and kill us at time, under-react and let infections destroy tissue, or
are fooled and let cancers kill us. Our livers struggle with some
of our diets, struggle with some toxins we routinely face. Our hearts
are frequently defective. It makes sense if we evolved to be this
way by a long series of "good enough for now" but if it was designed
than we ought to sue the designer.
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 01:04:46 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk>criticism."
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 12:56:06?AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 11:41:04?AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> On 8/5/23 10:20 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:Nilsson D., Pelger S. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an >>>>> eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed, >>>>>>>> because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Here you're describing "stasis". Does this mean the heart can remain in >>>>>> stasisThis causesAll beings have most of capabilities of their organism not exercised >>>>>>> fully most of the time, because there is no need to. They are not >>>>>>> optimal fit to their environment but noticeably too good for it. Need >>>>>>> to use one or other capability to edge might arise only rarely, but that
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural >>>>>>>> selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to >>>>>>>> mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the >>>>>>>> evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole >>>>>>>> animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
will matter on such occasions. If they actually have to struggle too >>>>>>> much then there is obvious pressure to improve.
while the anatomy undergoes changes? How many of the numerous organs >>>>>> can remain static while the physical body changes? At some point betweem >>>>>> the worm and the fish anatomy the organs and body parts have to catch up,
bot to mention between the worm and the human form.
How then, can evolution occur?
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just >>>>>>>> below, the multiple ofWhy in sync? Mutations are small, rare and usually do not matter at all,
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and >>>>>>>> conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's >>>>>>>> absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and >>>>>>>> natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in >>>>>>>> an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
if these matter then these are more commonly crippling.
During the hundreds of millions of years, organs has to be suited for the
Few with some positive effect that matters however give better chance >>>>>>> to survive and to procreate. That chance makes their offspring slowly >>>>>>> to prevail. We talk about hundreds of millions generations. When >>>>>>> pressure is obvious like bear who likes to hunt seals towards polar bear
then that goes tens of thousands times quicker.
animals physical form. If the kidney, heart, lungs don't evolve in sync >>>>>> the animal cannot survive and have offspring. This applies not only to >>>>>> organs but each organ. The eye for example: Does a spot in the skin become
light sensitive first. If so, there is no nerve endings to the brain, >>>>>> nor is the
brain sensitive to the signals as they arrive. How is a blind spot >>>>>> without nerves of benefit to the creature? If the spot on the skin just >>>>>> happens and has no initial functionl, why would it be passed down
o offspring? Where is natural selection? Why is not deliberate,
purposeful design not the better explanation? And this applies to
each of the 100 or so organs and parts.
1994; 256:53-58.
http://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/dmcfarlane/bio145mcfarlane/PDFs/Nilsson%20and%20Pelger_eye%20evolution%20model%20ProcRoyalSoc_1994.pdf
This doesn't resolve all your complaints, but it does point the way. You >>>>> should at least read it.
Apparently it resolves all your complaints. What a joke!
"Even with a consistently pessimistic approach the time required becomes amazingly short: only a few hundred thousand years. When Charles Darwin (1859) presented his theory of evolution he anticipated that the eye would become a favorite target for
As I see it the eye is only one of the 100 or so organs, that must
change from the simple cell to the human. This is never discussed as far >>> as I've been able to determine. I wonder why.
Maybe because you did not look properly?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4348419/
https://web.archive.org/web/20131212204529/http://physics.okstate.edu/axie/courses/4313/2012fall/C7_B2_reading-evolution-of-eye-2011.pdf
or for a very simple intro for laypeople, try to find in your library Glaser and Paulus, The Evolution of the Eye
Simply amazing!
R.Dean occasionally means something different from what he writes. The
above is a good example. It's reasonable to interpret his "this"
refers to the eye, as you do above. After reading all of his replies
which mention organ evolution, I'm pretty sure his "this" refers to
all organs but the eye.
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 09:23:30 +0200, the following appeared inI know there is theoretical explanations for the development of the eye.
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com>:
On 2023-08-07 23:52:33 +0000, Ron Dean said:
[ … ]
>
As I see it the eye is only one of the 100 or so organs, that must
change from the simple cell to the human. This is never discussed as
far as I've been able to determine. I wonder why.
If it means anything it means that you haven't bothered to look at any
serious sources. There is plenty of discussion of the evolution of the
eye.
...and of everything else.
Simply amazing!
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-07 23:52:33 +0000, Ron Dean said:
[ … ]
As I see it the eye is only one of the 100 or so organs, that must
change from the simple cell to the human. This is never discussed as
far as I've been able to determine. I wonder why.
If it means anything it means that you haven't bothered to look at any serious sources. There is plenty of discussion of the evolution of the eye.
I know! I used the eye as an example, in contrast with the complete list
of other
essential organs whose evolution which had to evolved to a degree in parallel
order. This has been virtually ignored.
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 12:56:06 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:SNIP>
Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 11:41:04 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 8/5/23 10:20 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed, >>>>>>> because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Here you're describing "stasis". Does this mean the heart can remain in >>>>> stasisThis causesAll beings have most of capabilities of their organism not exercised >>>>>> fully most of the time, because there is no need to. They are not
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to >>>>>>> mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the >>>>>>> evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole >>>>>>> animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
optimal fit to their environment but noticeably too good for it. Need >>>>>> to use one or other capability to edge might arise only rarely, but that >>>>>> will matter on such occasions. If they actually have to struggle too >>>>>> much then there is obvious pressure to improve.
while the anatomy undergoes changes? How many of the numerous organs >>>>> can remain static while the physical body changes? At some point betweem >>>>> the worm and th
As I see it the eye is only one of the 100 or so organs, that must
change from the simple cell to the human. This is never discussed as far
as I've been able to determine. I wonder why.
Maybe because you did not look properly?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4348419/ https://web.archive.org/web/20131212204529/http://physics.okstate.edu/axie/courses/4313/2012fall/C7_B2_reading-evolution-of-eye-2011.pdf
or for a very simple intro for laypeople, try to find in your library Glaser and Paulus, The Evolution of the Eye
Simply amazing!
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:36:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
snip
By complete, I mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development
at the present.
No. That is absolute nonsense.
Your initial premise is hopelessly flawed and without any support.
The myriad things you further deduce from this nonsensical premise
wander further into unfounded musings. Chasing them down after
such a bizarre start is a fools errand.
Maybe, there will be further evolution in the future. who
knows? In the evolutionary pathway from the single cell to humans, the fish >> is not complete. Even thought the fish was complete, at its point in time.
The above is more gibberish, precisely because your whole notion of "complete" is founded on your deeply flawed premise that humans
somehow represent some current pinnacle of evolution. We aren't
No sensible biologist would argue that. You cannot provide a
sensible support for your assertion.
On 2023-08-05 17:20:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
;
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Like all the other organisms since the origin of life.
Here you're describing "stasis". Does this mean the heart can remain
This causesAll beings have most of capabilities of their organism not exercised
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
fully most of the time, because there is no need to. They are not
optimal fit to their environment but noticeably too good for it. Need
to use one or other capability to edge might arise only rarely, but that >>> will matter on such occasions. If they actually have to struggle too
much then there is obvious pressure to improve.
;
in stasis
while the anatomy undergoes changes? How many of the numerous organs
can remain static while the physical body changes? At some point betweem
the worm and the fish anatomy the organs and body parts have to catch up,
bot to mention between the worm and the human form.
How then, can evolution occur?
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite justWhy in sync? Mutations are small, rare and usually do not matter at all, >>> if these matter then these are more commonly crippling.
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in
an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
;
;During the hundreds of millions of years, organs has to be suited for the
Few with some positive effect that matters however give better chance
to survive and to procreate. That chance makes their offspring slowly
to prevail. We talk about hundreds of millions generations. When
pressure is obvious like bear who likes to hunt seals towards polar bear >>> then that goes tens of thousands times quicker.
;
animals physical form. If the kidney, heart, lungs don't evolve in sync
the animal cannot survive and have offspring. This applies not only to
organs but each organ. The eye for example: Does a spot in the skin
become
light sensitive first. If so, there is no nerve endings to the brain,
nor is the
brain sensitive to the signals as they arrive. How is a blind spot
without nerves of benefit to the creature? If the spot on the skin just
happens and has no initial functionl, why would it be passed down
o offspring? Where is natural selection? Why is not deliberate,
purposeful design not the better explanation? And this applies to
each of the 100 or so organs and parts.
That might explain why, but nor how, considering the rarity of beneficial
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we >>>> would not bePressure is when part of population struggles with something.
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be >>>> in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were
beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
;
mutations and the numerous organs involved. at some distance up the
evolutionary path, up to the mouse sized animal, the heart, lungs,
kidneys,
liver and other essential organs necessary for survival, has to be
developed
to meet the requirements of survival. With the rarity of applicable
mutations, what are the odds, of these organs being sufficiently
developed
to meet the needs of survival? And especially considering the error
detection
and repair mechanisms the DNA possesses!
True, one or maybe a limited few, but never at one time, even 1% even 1%
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more
common
than believed.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare, >>>> and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes.
https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
The beneficial mutations are rare like winning the lottery is rare. But
someone wins lottery each year. Same way someone in large population
gets advantage.
;
of the people who buy lottery tickets.
;But at the end of our 800 generations 1% of the evolved organs will
not suffice.
IOW the critical organs must be passed down.
Demo on e-coli, generation length about 20 min, so 11 days is about 800And each generation has to receive and pass down newly evolved organs
generations:
;
and body parts.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8>
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 19:45:23 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 19:54:48 +0000, Ron Dean said:Each organism at its time and its stage of development is fully developed. >> However in long term evolutionary scenario the ape ancestor is not
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 17:20:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:Exactly what I meant. Thank you!
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed, >>>>>>>> because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
t;
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Like all the other organisms since the origin of life.
t;
You say that because you haven't understood. "Not fully developed" is
gibberish, and I doubt whether any serious biologist would say that of
any organism adapted to its environment. It was the "still evolving"
that all of the organisms since the origin of life have been doing. So
it is not exactly what you meant unless yiu expressed exactly what you
meant very badly.
fully developed in that is a intermediate link towards humans. The human
has reached the pentacle of evolutionary development at this point of
time.
Every single living organism on Earth has been evolving exactly the
same amount of time as all other living organisms - every single one.
There are zero objective reasons to presume any one of them represents
the *pinnacle* of evolution.
presume humans are, is because you are one, a very common yet very
incorrect expression of species chauvinism.
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 09:23:30 +0200, the following appeared inI know there is theoretical explanations for the development of the eye.
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com>:
On 2023-08-07 23:52:33 +0000, Ron Dean said:
[ ]
>
As I see it the eye is only one of the 100 or so organs, that must
change from the simple cell to the human. This is never discussed as
far as I've been able to determine. I wonder why.
If it means anything it means that you haven't bothered to look at any
serious sources. There is plenty of discussion of the evolution of the
eye.
I used the eye in contrast with the dozens or so other essential organs
which
had to evolve in order to be functional in many links in human evolution. >>>
...and of everything else.
I have and there is virtually no essential internal organs necessary for >humans to survive, in the single cell simple cell. They had to originate
and evolve in some what of a parallel pattern and fitted for functioning '
in the sequences of evolutionary links leading to humans. And do so in a >aimless, mindless random series of mutations and then rely on natural >election to chose the useful(beneficial) mutations. When beneficial >mutations are so few, the odds against useful mutations _when_needed_
is virtually impossible. And if this is true, evolution is falsified.
There is almost nothing on this.--
Simply amazing!
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:36:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
snip
By complete, I mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development
at the present.
No. That is absolute nonsense.
Your initial premise is hopelessly flawed and without any support.
The myriad things you further deduce from this nonsensical premise
wander further into unfounded musings. Chasing them down after
such a bizarre start is a fools errand.
You completely fail to understand the issue I raised. In the linage that
led to humans, what do you propose is more entitled to the term pentacle than humans? It certainly could not have been the fish, or the tree
climbing
monkey, or the ape, are at the pentacle of development. In this chain of development leading to humans. Humans today, are at the pentacle of evolutionary development.
.Maybe, there will be further evolution in the future. who
knows? In the evolutionary pathway from the single cell to humans, the fish
is not complete. Even thought the fish was complete, at its point in time.
The above is more gibberish, precisely because your whole notion of "complete" is founded on your deeply flawed premise that humans
somehow represent some current pinnacle of evolution. We aren't
No sensible biologist would argue that. You cannot provide a
sensible support for your assertion.
What is your IQ? Is it above 60?.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:36:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
snip
By complete, I mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development
at the present.
No. That is absolute nonsense.
Your initial premise is hopelessly flawed and without any support.
The myriad things you further deduce from this nonsensical premise
wander further into unfounded musings. Chasing them down after
such a bizarre start is a fools errand.
You completely fail to understand the issue I raised. In the linage that
led to humans, what do you propose is more entitled to the term pentacle than humans? It certainly could not have been the fish, or the tree
climbing
monkey, or the ape, are at the pentacle of development. In this chain of development leading to humans. Humans today, are at the pentacle of evolutionary development.
Maybe, there will be further evolution in the future. who
knows? In the evolutionary pathway from the single cell to humans, the fish
is not complete. Even thought the fish was complete, at its point in time.
The above is more gibberish, precisely because your whole notion of "complete" is founded on your deeply flawed premise that humans
somehow represent some current pinnacle of evolution. We aren't
No sensible biologist would argue that. You cannot provide a
sensible support for your assertion.
What is your IQ? Is it above 60?
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:36:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
snip
By complete, I mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development
at the present.
No. That is absolute nonsense.
Your initial premise is hopelessly flawed and without any support.
The myriad things you further deduce from this nonsensical premise
wander further into unfounded musings. Chasing them down after
such a bizarre start is a fools errand.
You completely fail to understand the issue I raised. In the linage that
led to humans, what do you propose is more entitled to the term pentacle
than humans? It certainly could not have been the fish, or the tree climbing
monkey, or the ape, are at the pentacle of development. In this chain of development leading to humans. Humans today, are at the pentacle of evolutionary development.
What is your IQ? Is it above 60?Maybe, there will be further evolution in the future. who
knows? In the evolutionary pathway from the single cell to humans,
the fish
is not complete. Even thought the fish was complete, at its point in
time.
The above is more gibberish, precisely because your whole notion of
"complete" is founded on your deeply flawed premise that humans
somehow represent some current pinnacle of evolution. We aren't
No sensible biologist would argue that. You cannot provide a
sensible support for your assertion.
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 19:45:23 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:That would be "pinnacle"; pentacles have different
On 2023-08-05 19:54:48 +0000, Ron Dean said:Each organism at its time and its stage of development is fully developed. >> However in long term evolutionary scenario the ape ancestor is not
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 17:20:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:Exactly what I meant. Thank you!
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed, >>>>>>>> because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
t;
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Like all the other organisms since the origin of life.
t;
You say that because you haven't understood. "Not fully developed" is
gibberish, and I doubt whether any serious biologist would say that of
any organism adapted to its environment. It was the "still evolving"
that all of the organisms since the origin of life have been doing. So
it is not exactly what you meant unless yiu expressed exactly what you
meant very badly.
fully developed in that is a intermediate link towards humans. The human
has reached the pentacle of evolutionary development at this point of
time.
connotations.
today is the same, *including the ones in the process ofI knew the word, but I misspelled it. My spell corrector chose pentacle
going extinct*. Think about that, and about why it makes
your argument specious.
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 2:21:07 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:36:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:You completely fail to understand the issue I raised. In the linage that
snip
By complete, I mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development
at the present.
No. That is absolute nonsense.
Your initial premise is hopelessly flawed and without any support.
The myriad things you further deduce from this nonsensical premise
wander further into unfounded musings. Chasing them down after
such a bizarre start is a fools errand.
led to humans, what do you propose is more entitled to the term pentacle
than humans? It certainly could not have been the fish, or the tree
climbing
monkey, or the ape, are at the pentacle of development. In this chain of
development leading to humans. Humans today, are at the pentacle of
evolutionary development.
I have been trying to point out the problems in the logical structure required for your "points" to be "issues" of concern. But you don't
seem to understand the structure of your own claims.
For example, in the line you want to focus on, 'worm' to human,
you want to treat all of the steps as on __the__ path to humans.
Then you want to treat that path as leading the a pinnacle.
(note: if you are going to try to insult someone's intelligence,
don't keep using "pentacle" when the context shows you
are trying to make a claim about pinnacle)
But back up that "line" about 100 million years. It branches.
Do you suppose that each terminal is also a pinnacle? Or
do you just propose that humans are a pinnacle. Maybe,
possibly but unlikely, you don't actually want to label humans
as very special among all the other termini. But pre-darwin,
and even today, many have tried to make that very claim.
It's rather ubiquitous and it's hard to imagine you haven't
seen it. And having seen it, any mildly responsible person
would make sure they avoid that connotation.
And why the word pinnacle anyway? It's another bad
premise buried in your argument that evolution is always
__improving__ things. That's false. And so it appears
that your argument is flawed (yet again) on that front.
At the same time, it all reads like you don't even begin
to grasp all of the hidden premises implied in your language.
You imply targets, then protest that's not what you meant.
You'll likely protest that you didn't mean that evolution was
always "improving" things, but you attempted to use the
term "pinnacle".
Ultimately, the most forgiving interpretation of what you
are writing suggests a series of flawed premises, and false
claims (nobody discusses organs or co-evolution, for example).
.Maybe, there will be further evolution in the future. whoThe above is more gibberish, precisely because your whole notion of
knows? In the evolutionary pathway from the single cell to humans, the fish
is not complete. Even thought the fish was complete, at its point in time. >>>
"complete" is founded on your deeply flawed premise that humans
somehow represent some current pinnacle of evolution. We aren't
No sensible biologist would argue that. You cannot provide a
sensible support for your assertion.
What is your IQ? Is it above 60?
.
And we still are left unsure if it's just your poor writing skills,
your poor arguing skills, your misconceptions about evolution
and biology or (most likely) a confluence of all of these
behind your latest salvo.
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 19:45:23 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 19:54:48 +0000, Ron Dean said:Each organism at its time and its stage of development is fully developed. >>> However in long term evolutionary scenario the ape ancestor is not
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 17:20:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:Exactly what I meant. Thank you!
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed, >>>>>>>>> because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"? >>>>>>> >
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Like all the other organisms since the origin of life.
t;
You say that because you haven't understood. "Not fully developed" is
gibberish, and I doubt whether any serious biologist would say that of >>>> any organism adapted to its environment. It was the "still evolving"
that all of the organisms since the origin of life have been doing. So >>>> it is not exactly what you meant unless yiu expressed exactly what you >>>> meant very badly.
fully developed in that is a intermediate link towards humans. The human >>> has reached the pentacle of evolutionary development at this point of
time.
Every single living organism on Earth has been evolving exactly the
same amount of time as all other living organisms - every single one.
There are zero objective reasons to presume any one of them represents
the *pinnacle* of evolution. It's almost certain the reason you
presume humans are, is because you are one, a very common yet very
incorrect expression of species chauvinism.
Jill, I was not in reference to any line of evolution _except_ the supposed >line leading from the first simple cell to humans. Of this linage at this >point in time (today), humans are, at the pentacle of evolutionary >development.
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 19:45:23 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 19:54:48 +0000, Ron Dean said:Each organism at its time and its stage of development is fully developed.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 17:20:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:Exactly what I meant. Thank you!
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed, >>>>>>>> because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"? >>>>>> >
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Like all the other organisms since the origin of life.
You say that because you haven't understood. "Not fully developed" is >>> gibberish, and I doubt whether any serious biologist would say that of >>> any organism adapted to its environment. It was the "still evolving"
that all of the organisms since the origin of life have been doing. So >>> it is not exactly what you meant unless yiu expressed exactly what you >>> meant very badly.
However in long term evolutionary scenario the ape ancestor is not
fully developed in that is a intermediate link towards humans. The human >> has reached the pentacle of evolutionary development at this point of
time.
Every single living organism on Earth has been evolving exactly the
same amount of time as all other living organisms - every single one. There are zero objective reasons to presume any one of them represents
the *pinnacle* of evolution.
Jill, I was not in reference to any line of evolution _except_ the supposed line leading from the first simple cell to humans. Of this linage at this point in time (today), humans are, at the pentacle of evolutionary development.
It's almost certain the reason you
presume humans are, is because you are one, a very common yet very incorrect expression of species chauvinism.
Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 12:56:06 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:SNIP>
Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 11:41:04 AM UTC-7, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 8/5/23 10:20 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed, >>>>>>> because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Here you're describing "stasis". Does this mean the heart can remain inThis causesAll beings have most of capabilities of their organism not exercised >>>>>> fully most of the time, because there is no need to. They are not >>>>>> optimal fit to their environment but noticeably too good for it. Need >>>>>> to use one or other capability to edge might arise only rarely, but that
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural >>>>>>> selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to >>>>>>> mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the >>>>>>> evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole >>>>>>> animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
will matter on such occasions. If they actually have to struggle too >>>>>> much then there is obvious pressure to improve.
stasis
while the anatomy undergoes changes? How many of the numerous organs >>>>> can remain static while the physical body changes? At some point betweem
the worm and th
As I see it the eye is only one of the 100 or so organs, that must
change from the simple cell to the human. This is never discussed as far >> as I've been able to determine. I wonder why.
Maybe because you did not look properly?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4348419/ https://web.archive.org/web/20131212204529/http://physics.okstate.edu/axie/courses/4313/2012fall/C7_B2_reading-evolution-of-eye-2011.pdf
or for a very simple intro for laypeople, try to find in your library Glaser and Paulus, The Evolution of the Eye
I used the eye as a contrast. I knew that from Darwin onward the eye has been theorized as to how it arose from a light sensitive spot on the
skin. Still there is the question of the sequence of eye evolution. What part of the eye was first to evolve? considering the anatomy of the eye itself there
are numerous parts, IE the iris, the cornea, the blood vessels, lens, caruncle etc.etc. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/anatomy-of-the-eye
I realize what is depicted in this cite, is not the first primitive eye
or even the light sensitive
spot on skin. In what sequence or order did the eye evolve? Could the
nerve pathway to the
brain come next or was the next in the series of eye development the
signal reception area
of the brain. in the series was the iris beginning to appear or was it
the primitive anterIor
chamber ? Do anyone know what happens next? I know the theory claims,
that if there is
a beneficial mutation within an organism, natural selection does not
come into play. But
this could be simply a device to head off any question about how the mutation is beneficial.
If the nerves leading to the brain has no function since the brain
signal receptor is not at the
point of receiving signals. Or maybe there is parallel evolution which
could explain the
developing primitive eye. Which then leads from the primitive eye to the human eye.
What exactly causes the many parts of the eye to undergo the numerous
stages of development
in more of less in a simultaneous order? IF not simultaneous order then
in what order?
Simply amazing!
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 2:21:07 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:crows, or to mushrooms.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:36:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:You completely fail to understand the issue I raised. In the linage that
snip
By complete, I mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development
at the present.
No. That is absolute nonsense.
Your initial premise is hopelessly flawed and without any support.
The myriad things you further deduce from this nonsensical premise
wander further into unfounded musings. Chasing them down after
such a bizarre start is a fools errand.
led to humans, what do you propose is more entitled to the term pentacle
than humans? It certainly could not have been the fish, or the tree
climbing
monkey, or the ape, are at the pentacle of development. In this chain of
development leading to humans. Humans today, are at the pentacle of
evolutionary development.
I love the word "pentacle" but I think you mean pinnacle.
Well, in the evolutionary sequence leading to humans, humans are the "pinnacle," sure, but that's only because you decided to talk about the evolutionary sequence leading to humans, as opposed to the evolutionary sequence leading to sperm whales, or to
<snip unfortunate insult>
Maybe, there will be further evolution in the future. whoThe above is more gibberish, precisely because your whole notion of
knows? In the evolutionary pathway from the single cell to humans, the fish
is not complete. Even thought the fish was complete, at its point in time. >>>
"complete" is founded on your deeply flawed premise that humans
somehow represent some current pinnacle of evolution. We aren't
No sensible biologist would argue that. You cannot provide a
sensible support for your assertion.
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 19:45:23 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com>:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:That would be "pinnacle"; pentacles have different
On 2023-08-05 19:54:48 +0000, Ron Dean said:Each organism at its time and its stage of development is fully developed.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 17:20:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:Exactly what I meant. Thank you!
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed, >>>>>>>> because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"? >>>>>> >
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Like all the other organisms since the origin of life.
You say that because you haven't understood. "Not fully developed" is >>> gibberish, and I doubt whether any serious biologist would say that of >>> any organism adapted to its environment. It was the "still evolving"
that all of the organisms since the origin of life have been doing. So >>> it is not exactly what you meant unless yiu expressed exactly what you >>> meant very badly.
However in long term evolutionary scenario the ape ancestor is not
fully developed in that is a intermediate link towards humans. The human >> has reached the pentacle of evolutionary development at this point of
time.
connotations.
You are right. Thank you!
That said, every single species which exists
today is the same, *including the ones in the process ofI knew the word, but I misspelled it. My spell corrector chose pentacle
going extinct*. Think about that, and about why it makes
your argument specious.
and I went with it. I thought it meant the same thing as apex or peak.
I should have checked the meaning of the word. Here, I failed.
I'm glad you caught this - thanks, again!
Again, I was not in reference to every species. I was in reference _only_
to the linkage that supposed to have led up to humans, the pinnacle
of that particular linage, at this point in time (today) is human.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:36:06?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
snip
By complete, I mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development
at the present.
No. That is absolute nonsense.
Your initial premise is hopelessly flawed and without any support.
The myriad things you further deduce from this nonsensical premise
wander further into unfounded musings. Chasing them down after
such a bizarre start is a fools errand.
You completely fail to understand the issue I raised. In the linage that
led to humans, what do you propose is more entitled to the term pentacle
than humans? It certainly could not have been the fish, or the tree >climbing
monkey, or the ape, are at the pentacle of development. In this chain of >development leading to humans. Humans today, are at the pentacle of >evolutionary development.
What is your IQ? Is it above 60?Maybe, there will be further evolution in the future. whoThe above is more gibberish, precisely because your whole notion of
knows? In the evolutionary pathway from the single cell to humans, the fish >>> is not complete. Even thought the fish was complete, at its point in time. >>
"complete" is founded on your deeply flawed premise that humans
somehow represent some current pinnacle of evolution. We aren't
No sensible biologist would argue that. You cannot provide a
sensible support for your assertion.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:to crows, or to mushrooms.
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 2:21:07 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:36:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:You completely fail to understand the issue I raised. In the linage that >> led to humans, what do you propose is more entitled to the term pentacle >> than humans? It certainly could not have been the fish, or the tree
snip
By complete, I mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development >>>> at the present.
No. That is absolute nonsense.
Your initial premise is hopelessly flawed and without any support.
The myriad things you further deduce from this nonsensical premise
wander further into unfounded musings. Chasing them down after
such a bizarre start is a fools errand.
climbing
monkey, or the ape, are at the pentacle of development. In this chain of >> development leading to humans. Humans today, are at the pentacle of
evolutionary development.
I love the word "pentacle" but I think you mean pinnacle.
Well, in the evolutionary sequence leading to humans, humans are the "pinnacle," sure, but that's only because you decided to talk about the evolutionary sequence leading to humans, as opposed to the evolutionary sequence leading to sperm whales, or
.........<snip unfortunate insult>
Maybe, there will be further evolution in the future. who
knows? In the evolutionary pathway from the single cell to humans, the fish
is not complete. Even thought the fish was complete, at its point in time.
The above is more gibberish, precisely because your whole notion of
"complete" is founded on your deeply flawed premise that humans
somehow represent some current pinnacle of evolution. We aren't
No sensible biologist would argue that. You cannot provide a
sensible support for your assertion.
Why is a human more complete than a sea bass? The only reason I can
imagine would be if humans were the goal of evolution and sea bass were
only a by product, but why would you think that? and if you thought
that, how would you prove it?
Our supposedly fish ancestor was complete at its _point_in_time. But it
was intermediary in the
particular linage leading to humans, which today is the apex of
evolutionary development.
On 8/7/23 3:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[...]By complete, I mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development
I'm not going to look at random videos, sorry. But if only humans are
"complete", that's a weird definition of the term, and it obscures
the point that intermediate stages are in fact viable and do in fact
exist.
at the present.
(I assume you mean "pinnacle", and are not alluding to symbols in a
tarot deck.)
One prominent aspect of humans is having brains that enable and
prioritize social living. One aspect of that is our innate tendency to categorize others as either "us" or "them". This leads to tribal
conflict and, as populations and organization increase, war.
you say humans are complete, and you (in other posts) says they are
designed, you are saying that war is part of that pinnacle of design.
How depressing.
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 19:45:23 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:That would be "pinnacle"; pentacles have different
On 2023-08-05 19:54:48 +0000, Ron Dean said:Each organism at its time and its stage of development is fully developed. >>> However in long term evolutionary scenario the ape ancestor is not
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 17:20:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:Exactly what I meant. Thank you!
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed, >>>>>>>>> because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"? >>>>>>> >
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Like all the other organisms since the origin of life.
;
You say that because you haven't understood. "Not fully developed" is
gibberish, and I doubt whether any serious biologist would say that of >>>> any organism adapted to its environment. It was the "still evolving"
that all of the organisms since the origin of life have been doing. So >>>> it is not exactly what you meant unless yiu expressed exactly what you >>>> meant very badly.
fully developed in that is a intermediate link towards humans. The human >>> has reached the pentacle of evolutionary development at this point of
time.
connotations.
You are right. Thank you!
That said, every single species which exists
today is the same, *including the ones in the process ofI knew the word, but I misspelled it. My spell corrector chose pentacle
going extinct*. Think about that, and about why it makes
your argument specious.
and I went with it. I thought it meant the same thing as apex or peak.
I should have checked the meaning of the word. Here, I failed.
I'm glad you caught this - thanks, again!
Again, I was not in reference to every species. I was in reference _only_
to the linkage that supposed to have led up to humans, the pinnacle
of that particular linage, at this point in time (today) is human.
On Sun, 06 Aug 2023 19:31:32 -0700, Ralph Page <rp@SOCKSralphpage.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 16:58:54 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> >>wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 8:51:02?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Yeah! People who accept evolution without ever questioning, is about as >>>common
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This causes >>>>> me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to >>>>> mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's
absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in >>>>> an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we >>>>> would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be >>>>> in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were >>>>> beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
"?his is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking,
. 'This is an interesting world I find myself in ?an interesting hole I find myself in
. ?fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have
. been made to have me in it!' " Douglas Adams
as thinking mud puddles.
Beneficial mutations could not be rare, considering the many organs and >>>physicals
The things you copied and pasted above question the series of steps that >>>> led to humans, as if we were a pre-ordained target, an objective.
Does that really make sense to you?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common >>>>> than believed.
First off, than believed by whom?
bodies that had to evolve from the worm or the rat like animal to humans. >>>
Second off, of the total number of changes/mutations over the time periodsSo what? That's no issue. and answers nothing.
involved, how many were beneficial, how many deleterious, how many lethal? >>>> I'll give you a hint. For the lethal ones, many never made it far past the egg
stage. But that's evolution for you, go ahead and lay many thousands of eggs
even if only two or so ultimately survive.
Yes, and countless mutations many of them beneficial. Or are you >>>claiming that
I'll give you another hint.
Imagine a kidney. You likely know some little bit about kidneys. They help filter
blood in a manner that extracts out some stuff that gets excreted as urine.
Human kidneys have to do some fairly sophisticated filtering, more than a >>>> fish does. But the changes from a "primitive" kidney to a modern mammalian >>>> kidney had a long time to happen.
mutations and natural selection had nothing to do with the evolutionary >>>changes
of kidneys from the primitive kidney up and through the multiple stages >>>of development
leading up to humans.
..
A thing to consider about the human kidneys, there are two after all, is that they
have an excess capacity. If one gets destroyed, it turns out that you can survive
pretty well off the one that remains. But kidneys do use a significant amount of
energy. Some might consider that to be wasteful. People who think that are >>>> seldom well informed biologists.
The less informed people do wonder why evolution would produce excess
capacity. Why spend all that extra energy? Sure, you could design in excess
capacity, but how do you evolve it? A biologist/physiologist who still recalls
basic chemistry (as 99% likely do, 100% of the physiologists) will immediately
think of buffering capacities. The solutions flow from there.
.
I often wish you asked these sorts of questions because they are at least >>>> more interesting. But the thing is, you don't seem to know enough biology >>>> to ask them, and instead you ask more mundane questions that have been >>>> answered many times.
I'm an unemployed, forcible retired because of a serious health issue. >>>So, I"ll
admit my biology terminology is quite lacking. But I tend to look at nature >>>and living things from and engineer's prospective. I was an engineer >>>before I got fired.. Now, I'm just another unemployed man.
.In the YouTube cite I referenced I noted that the discussion from the single >>>cell to the worm, to the fish to the mouse sized mammal to humans there >>>was considerable explaining, but nothing regarding the evolution of >>>internal organs. Why is that! Explaining the changes in morphology is >>>simple and easy explained and comprehended. But this cannot be said
Think some on the puddle. Think some on the bit about viewing the natural >>>> history of the ancestors of humans, back to fish and before as if humans >>>> were a pre-ordained target. Understand how that is a fundamental logical >>>> mistaken way to think. Then ask a few questions.
about organs and body parts. And that I suspect is why evolution of organs >>>is not talked about.
Based on these and previous comments, it appears that you feel that >>evolutionary forces are not capable of producing certain changes in living >>organisms we observe, so you've decided that an unknown designer, using an >>unknown method, is a more likely answer.
How did you determine then, that evolutionary forces are not adequate to >>produce the changes?
I just don't see any barriers to evoutionary change that would inhibit >>development of variations needed to produce the variety of life we observe.
You ask above a good question, and raise a good point. Here's hoping
you get an equally good response.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare, >>>>> and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes.
https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
No! I mean, from the simple single cell through the intermediate
linkages. At this point in time (today), humans are the apex of
evolutionary development.
I've made no claims, nor have I inferred anything regarding design as
the pinnacle. In one point, I did say I believe that design is the
better explanation for the the changes required for dozens of essential organs in order to be functional for the new body plans in the pathway
from the simple cell to humans through billions of years and countless numbers of intermediate steps leading to humans. The pinnacle of evolutionary development.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 2:21:07 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:<snip unfortunate insult>
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:36:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:You completely fail to understand the issue I raised. In the linage that >>> led to humans, what do you propose is more entitled to the term pentacle >>> than humans? It certainly could not have been the fish, or the tree
snip
By complete, I mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development >>>>> at the present.
No. That is absolute nonsense.
Your initial premise is hopelessly flawed and without any support.
The myriad things you further deduce from this nonsensical premise
wander further into unfounded musings. Chasing them down after
such a bizarre start is a fools errand.
climbing
monkey, or the ape, are at the pentacle of development. In this chain of >>> development leading to humans. Humans today, are at the pentacle of
evolutionary development.
I love the word "pentacle" but I think you mean pinnacle.
Well, in the evolutionary sequence leading to humans, humans are the
"pinnacle," sure, but that's only because you decided to talk about
the evolutionary sequence leading to humans, as opposed to the
evolutionary sequence leading to sperm whales, or to crows, or to
mushrooms.
Maybe, there will be further evolution in the future. who
knows? In the evolutionary pathway from the single cell to humans,
the fish
is not complete. Even thought the fish was complete, at its point
in time.
The above is more gibberish, precisely because your whole notion of
"complete" is founded on your deeply flawed premise that humans
somehow represent some current pinnacle of evolution. We aren't
No sensible biologist would argue that. You cannot provide a
sensible support for your assertion.
Why is a human more complete than a sea bass? The only reason I can
imagine would be if humans were the goal of evolution and sea bass were
only a by product, but why would you think that? and if you thought
that, how would you prove it?
Our supposedly fish ancestor was complete at its _point_in_time. But it
was intermediary in the
particular linage leading to humans, which today is the apex of
evolutionary development.
On 8/8/23 12:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 2:21:07 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:<snip unfortunate insult>
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:36:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:You completely fail to understand the issue I raised. In the linage that >>> led to humans, what do you propose is more entitled to the term pentacle >>> than humans? It certainly could not have been the fish, or the tree
snip
By complete, I mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development >>>>> at the present.
No. That is absolute nonsense.
Your initial premise is hopelessly flawed and without any support.
The myriad things you further deduce from this nonsensical premise
wander further into unfounded musings. Chasing them down after
such a bizarre start is a fools errand.
climbing
monkey, or the ape, are at the pentacle of development. In this chain of >>> development leading to humans. Humans today, are at the pentacle of
evolutionary development.
I love the word "pentacle" but I think you mean pinnacle.
Well, in the evolutionary sequence leading to humans, humans are the
"pinnacle," sure, but that's only because you decided to talk about
the evolutionary sequence leading to humans, as opposed to the
evolutionary sequence leading to sperm whales, or to crows, or to
mushrooms.
Maybe, there will be further evolution in the future. who
knows? In the evolutionary pathway from the single cell to humans, >>>>> the fish
is not complete. Even thought the fish was complete, at its point >>>>> in time.
The above is more gibberish, precisely because your whole notion of >>>> "complete" is founded on your deeply flawed premise that humans
somehow represent some current pinnacle of evolution. We aren't
No sensible biologist would argue that. You cannot provide a
sensible support for your assertion.
Why is a human more complete than a sea bass? The only reason I can imagine would be if humans were the goal of evolution and sea bass were only a by product, but why would you think that? and if you thought
that, how would you prove it?
Our supposedly fish ancestor was complete at its _point_in_time. But it was intermediary in the
particular linage leading to humans, which today is the apex of evolutionary development.
Don't you mean it's the apogee of evolutionary development? Or the pentagram, or something.
On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 04:55:09 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 06 Aug 2023 19:31:32 -0700, Ralph Page <rp@SOCKSralphpage.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 16:58:54 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 8:51:02?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Yeah! People who accept evolution without ever questioning, is about as >>>> common
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This causes >>>>>> me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to >>>>>> mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole >>>>>> animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just >>>>>> below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's >>>>>> absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in >>>>>> an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we >>>>>> would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be >>>>>> in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were >>>>>> beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
"?his is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking,
. 'This is an interesting world I find myself in ?an interesting hole I find myself in
. ?fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have
. been made to have me in it!' " Douglas Adams
as thinking mud puddles.
Beneficial mutations could not be rare, considering the many organs and >>>> physicals
The things you copied and pasted above question the series of steps that >>>>> led to humans, as if we were a pre-ordained target, an objective.
Does that really make sense to you?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the
transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common >>>>>> than believed.
First off, than believed by whom?
bodies that had to evolve from the worm or the rat like animal to humans.
Second off, of the total number of changes/mutations over the time periodsSo what? That's no issue. and answers nothing.
involved, how many were beneficial, how many deleterious, how many lethal?
I'll give you a hint. For the lethal ones, many never made it far past the egg
stage. But that's evolution for you, go ahead and lay many thousands of eggs
even if only two or so ultimately survive.
Yes, and countless mutations many of them beneficial. Or are you
I'll give you another hint.
Imagine a kidney. You likely know some little bit about kidneys. They help filter
blood in a manner that extracts out some stuff that gets excreted as urine.
Human kidneys have to do some fairly sophisticated filtering, more than a >>>>> fish does. But the changes from a "primitive" kidney to a modern mammalian
kidney had a long time to happen.
claiming that
mutations and natural selection had nothing to do with the evolutionary >>>> changes
of kidneys from the primitive kidney up and through the multiple stages >>>> of development
leading up to humans.
..
A thing to consider about the human kidneys, there are two after all, is that they
have an excess capacity. If one gets destroyed, it turns out that you can survive
pretty well off the one that remains. But kidneys do use a significant amount of
energy. Some might consider that to be wasteful. People who think that are
seldom well informed biologists.
The less informed people do wonder why evolution would produce excess >>>>> capacity. Why spend all that extra energy? Sure, you could design in excess
capacity, but how do you evolve it? A biologist/physiologist who still recalls
basic chemistry (as 99% likely do, 100% of the physiologists) will immediately
think of buffering capacities. The solutions flow from there.
.
I often wish you asked these sorts of questions because they are at least >>>>> more interesting. But the thing is, you don't seem to know enough biology >>>>> to ask them, and instead you ask more mundane questions that have been >>>>> answered many times.
I'm an unemployed, forcible retired because of a serious health issue. >>>> So, I"ll
admit my biology terminology is quite lacking. But I tend to look at nature
and living things from and engineer's prospective. I was an engineer
before I got fired.. Now, I'm just another unemployed man.
.In the YouTube cite I referenced I noted that the discussion from the single
Think some on the puddle. Think some on the bit about viewing the natural >>>>> history of the ancestors of humans, back to fish and before as if humans >>>>> were a pre-ordained target. Understand how that is a fundamental logical >>>>> mistaken way to think. Then ask a few questions.
cell to the worm, to the fish to the mouse sized mammal to humans there >>>> was considerable explaining, but nothing regarding the evolution of
internal organs. Why is that! Explaining the changes in morphology is
simple and easy explained and comprehended. But this cannot be said
about organs and body parts. And that I suspect is why evolution of organs >>>> is not talked about.
Based on these and previous comments, it appears that you feel that
evolutionary forces are not capable of producing certain changes in living >>> organisms we observe, so you've decided that an unknown designer, using an >>> unknown method, is a more likely answer.
How did you determine then, that evolutionary forces are not adequate to >>> produce the changes?
I just don't see any barriers to evoutionary change that would inhibit
development of variations needed to produce the variety of life we observe. >>
You ask above a good question, and raise a good point. Here's hoping
you get an equally good response.
Well, we can still hope for next time.The problem is, not about barriers. But rather it's about the numerous transitional organisms on the evolutionary pathway between ancestor and decedents, such as between the first simple cell to the fish, or from
'
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each >>>>>> organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare, >>>>>> and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes. >>>>>> https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/7/23 3:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
[...]By complete, I mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development
I'm not going to look at random videos, sorry. But if only humans
are "complete", that's a weird definition of the term, and it
obscures the point that intermediate stages are in fact viable and
do in fact exist.
at the present.
(I assume you mean "pinnacle", and are not alluding to symbols in a
tarot deck.)
Yes, I did and I've been called on this by several people.
One prominent aspect of humans is having brains that enable and
prioritize social living. One aspect of that is our innate tendency
to categorize others as either "us" or "them". This leads to tribal
conflict and, as populations and organization increase, war.
I have no idea where this came from.
So when
you say humans are complete, and you (in other posts) says they are
designed, you are saying that war is part of that pinnacle of design.
I fail to understand where this comes from. It seems to me that you are reading meaning into my words that I did not intend. And this placing
blinds in my arguments.
No! I mean, from the simple single cell through the intermediate
linkages. At this point in time (today), humans are the apex of
evolutionary development.
I've made no claims, nor have I inferred anything regarding design as
the pinnacle. In one point, I did say I believe that design is the
better explanation for the the changes required for dozens of essential organs in order to be functional for the new body plans in the pathway
from the simple cell to humans through billions of years and countless numbers of intermediate steps leading to humans. The pinnacle of
evolutionary development.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:36:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
snip
By complete, I mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development
at the present.
No. That is absolute nonsense.
Your initial premise is hopelessly flawed and without any support.
The myriad things you further deduce from this nonsensical premise
wander further into unfounded musings. Chasing them down after
such a bizarre start is a fools errand.
You completely fail to understand the issue I raised. In the linage that
led to humans, what do you propose is more entitled to the term pentacle
than humans? It certainly could not have been the fish, or the tree climbing monkey, or the ape, are at the pentacle of development. In this chain of development leading to humans. Humans today, are at the pentacle of evolutionary development.
What is your IQ? Is it above 60?
Maybe, there will be further evolution in the future. whoThe above is more gibberish, precisely because your whole notion of
knows? In the evolutionary pathway from the single cell to humans, the fish >>> is not complete. Even thought the fish was complete, at its point in time. >>
"complete" is founded on your deeply flawed premise that humans
somehow represent some current pinnacle of evolution. We aren't
No sensible biologist would argue that. You cannot provide a
sensible support for your assertion.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 2:21:07 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:<snip unfortunate insult>
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:36:06 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:You completely fail to understand the issue I raised. In the linage that >>> led to humans, what do you propose is more entitled to the term pentacle >>> than humans? It certainly could not have been the fish, or the tree
snip
By complete, I mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development >>>>> at the present.
No. That is absolute nonsense.
Your initial premise is hopelessly flawed and without any support.
The myriad things you further deduce from this nonsensical premise
wander further into unfounded musings. Chasing them down after
such a bizarre start is a fools errand.
climbing
monkey, or the ape, are at the pentacle of development. In this chain of >>> development leading to humans. Humans today, are at the pentacle of
evolutionary development.
I love the word "pentacle" but I think you mean pinnacle.
Well, in the evolutionary sequence leading to humans, humans are the
"pinnacle," sure, but that's only because you decided to talk about the
evolutionary sequence leading to humans, as opposed to the evolutionary
sequence leading to sperm whales, or to crows, or to mushrooms.
Maybe, there will be further evolution in the future. who
knows? In the evolutionary pathway from the single cell to humans, the fish
is not complete. Even thought the fish was complete, at its point in time.
The above is more gibberish, precisely because your whole notion of
"complete" is founded on your deeply flawed premise that humans
somehow represent some current pinnacle of evolution. We aren't
No sensible biologist would argue that. You cannot provide a
sensible support for your assertion.
Why is a human more complete than a sea bass?
The only reason I can imagine would ebe if humans were the goal of evolution
and sea bass were only a by product, but why would you think that? and
if you thought that, how would you prove it?
Our supposedly fish ancestor was complete at its _point_in_time. But it
was intermediary in the
particular linage leading to humans, which today is the apex of
evolutionary development.
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This causes
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to
mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the
evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole
animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just
below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and
conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and
natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in
an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be
in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common than believed.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each
organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare,
and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes. https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 03:56:08 UTC+3, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/8/23 12:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:> > broger...@gmail.com wrote:> >>Aren't apogee, apex and pinnacle synonyms? The pentacle was typo caused
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 2:21:07 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:> >>>
Lawyer Daggett wrote:> >>>> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:36:06 PM
UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:> >>>>> >>>> snip> >>>>> >>>>> By complete, I
mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development> >>>>> at the
present.> >>>>> >>>> No. That is absolute nonsense.> >>>> Your initial
premise is hopelessly flawed and without any support.> >>>> The myriad
things you further deduce from this nonsensical premise> >>>> wander
further into unfounded musings. Chasing them down after> >>>> such a
bizarre start is a fools errand.> >>>>> >>> You completely fail to
understand the issue I raised. In the linage that> >>> led to humans,
what do you propose is more entitled to the term pentacle> >>> than
humans? It certainly could not have been the fish, or the tree> >>>
climbing> >>> monkey, or the ape, are at the pentacle of development.
In this chain of> >>> development leading to humans. Humans today, are
at the pentacle of> >>> evolutionary development.> >>> >> I love the
word "pentacle" but I think you mean pinnacle.> >> Well, in the
evolutionary sequence leading to humans, humans are the> >> "pinnacle,"
sure, but that's only because you decided to talk about> >> the
evolutionary sequence leading to humans, as opposed to the> >>
evolutionary sequence leading to sperm whales, or to crows, or to> >>
mushrooms.> >>>>> >>>>> Maybe, there will be further evolution in the
future. who> >>>>> knows? In the evolutionary pathway from the single
cell to humans,> >>>>> the fish> >>>>> is not complete. Even thought
the fish was complete, at its point> >>>>> in time.> >>>>> >>>> The
above is more gibberish, precisely because your whole notion of> >>>>
"complete" is founded on your deeply flawed premise that humans> >>>>
somehow represent some current pinnacle of evolution. We aren't> >>>>
No sensible biologist would argue that. You cannot provide a> >>>>
sensible support for your assertion.> > <snip unfortunate insult>> >> >
Why is a human more complete than a sea bass? The only reason I can> >
imagine would be if humans were the goal of evolution and sea bass
were> > only a by product, but why would you think that? and if you
thought> > that, how would you prove it?> >>> > Our supposedly fish
ancestor was complete at its _point_in_time. But it> > was intermediary
in the> > particular linage leading to humans, which today is the apex
Don't you mean it's the apogee of evolutionary development? Or the>evolutionary development.> >
pentagram, or something.
by spelling corrector IIUC.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 17:20:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
;
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Like all the other organisms since the origin of life.
Yes according to theory. But then, what, about "living fossils"?
They remain is stasis.
On 2023-08-09 02:41:24 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 03:56:08 UTC+3, John Harshman wrote:You think so? So why did he repeat it several times?
On 8/8/23 12:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:> > broger...@gmail.com wrote:> >>Aren't apogee, apex and pinnacle synonyms? The pentacle was typo caused
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 2:21:07 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:> >>>
Lawyer Daggett wrote:> >>>> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:36:06 PM
UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:> >>>>> >>>> snip> >>>>> >>>>> By complete, I
mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development> >>>>> at the
present.> >>>>> >>>> No. That is absolute nonsense.> >>>> Your initial
premise is hopelessly flawed and without any support.> >>>> The myriad
things you further deduce from this nonsensical premise> >>>> wander
further into unfounded musings. Chasing them down after> >>>> such a
bizarre start is a fools errand.> >>>>> >>> You completely fail to
understand the issue I raised. In the linage that> >>> led to humans,
what do you propose is more entitled to the term pentacle> >>> than
humans? It certainly could not have been the fish, or the tree> >>>
climbing> >>> monkey, or the ape, are at the pentacle of development.
In this chain of> >>> development leading to humans. Humans today, are
at the pentacle of> >>> evolutionary development.> >>> >> I love the
word "pentacle" but I think you mean pinnacle.> >> Well, in the
evolutionary sequence leading to humans, humans are the> >> "pinnacle," >> sure, but that's only because you decided to talk about> >> the
evolutionary sequence leading to humans, as opposed to the> >>
evolutionary sequence leading to sperm whales, or to crows, or to> >>
mushrooms.> >>>>> >>>>> Maybe, there will be further evolution in the
future. who> >>>>> knows? In the evolutionary pathway from the single
cell to humans,> >>>>> the fish> >>>>> is not complete. Even thought
the fish was complete, at its point> >>>>> in time.> >>>>> >>>> The
above is more gibberish, precisely because your whole notion of> >>>>
"complete" is founded on your deeply flawed premise that humans> >>>>
somehow represent some current pinnacle of evolution. We aren't> >>>>
No sensible biologist would argue that. You cannot provide a> >>>>
sensible support for your assertion.> > <snip unfortunate insult>> >> > >> Why is a human more complete than a sea bass? The only reason I can> >
imagine would be if humans were the goal of evolution and sea bass
were> > only a by product, but why would you think that? and if you
thought> > that, how would you prove it?> >>> > Our supposedly fish
ancestor was complete at its _point_in_time. But it> > was intermediary >> in the> > particular linage leading to humans, which today is the apex
Don't you mean it's the apogee of evolutionary development? Or the>evolutionary development.> >
pentagram, or something.
by spelling corrector IIUC.
Also, "pinnacle" is a more everyday word than "pentacle",
a spelling corrector, even one designed by Micro$oft, correct
"pinnacle" to "pentacle"?
--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 8:56:08 AM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-09 02:41:24 +0000, Öö Tiib said:>> > On Wednesday, 9 AugustWe obviously move in very different social circles :o)
2023 at 03:56:08 UTC+3, John Harshman wrote:> >> On 8/8/23 12:41 PM,
Ron Dean wrote:> > broger...@gmail.com wrote:> >>> >> On Tuesday,
August 8, 2023 at 2:21:07 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:> >>>> >> Lawyer
Daggett wrote:> >>>> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:36:06 PM> >> UTC-4,
Ron Dean wrote:> >>>>> >>>> snip> >>>>> >>>>> By complete, I> >> mean,
humans have reached the pentacle of development> >>>>> at the> >>
present.> >>>>> >>>> No. That is absolute nonsense.> >>>> Your initial>
myriad> >> things you further deduce from this nonsensical premise>premise is hopelessly flawed and without any support.> >>>> The
after> >>>> such a> >> bizarre start is a fools errand.> >>>>> >>> Youwander> >> further into unfounded musings. Chasing them down
completely fail to> >> understand the issue I raised. In the linage
that> >>> led to humans,> >> what do you propose is more entitled to
the term pentacle> >>> than> >> humans? It certainly could not have
been the fish, or the tree> >>>> >> climbing> >>> monkey, or the ape,
are at the pentacle of development.> >> In this chain of> >>>
development leading to humans. Humans today, are> >> at the pentacle
"pentacle" but I think you mean pinnacle.> >> Well, in the> >>evolutionary development.> >>> >> I love the> >> word
evolutionary sequence leading to humans, humans are the> >>
"pinnacle,"> >> sure, but that's only because you decided to talk
about> >> the> >> evolutionary sequence leading to humans, as opposed
to the> >>> >> evolutionary sequence leading to sperm whales, or to
crows, or to> >>> >> mushrooms.> >>>>> >>>>> Maybe, there will be
further evolution in the> >> future. who> >>>>> knows? In the
evolutionary pathway from the single> >> cell to humans,> >>>>> the
fish> >>>>> is not complete. Even thought> >> the fish was complete, at
its point> >>>>> in time.> >>>>> >>>> The> >> above is more gibberish,
precisely because your whole notion of> >>>>> >> "complete" is founded
on your deeply flawed premise that humans> >>>>> >> somehow represent
some current pinnacle of evolution. We aren't> >>>>> >> No sensible
biologist would argue that. You cannot provide a> >>>>> >> sensible
support for your assertion.> > <snip unfortunate insult>> >> >> >> Why
is a human more complete than a sea bass? The only reason I can> >> >>
imagine would be if humans were the goal of evolution and sea bass> >>
were> > only a by product, but why would you think that? and if you> >>
thought> > that, how would you prove it?> >>> > Our supposedly fish> >>
ancestor was complete at its _point_in_time. But it> > was
intermediary> >> in the> > particular linage leading to humans, which
today is the apex> >> of> > evolutionary development.> >> >> Don't you
mean it's the apogee of evolutionary development? Or the>> >>
pentagram, or something.> >>> > Aren't apogee, apex and pinnacle
synonyms? The pentacle was typo caused> > by spelling corrector IIUC.
You think so? So why did he repeat it several times?>> Also, "pinnacle"
is a more everyday word than "pentacle",
so why would> a spelling corrector, even one designed by Micro$oft,
correct> "pinnacle" to "pentacle"?
Have you ever read, for example, Eldredge and Gould 1972? (Eldredge N.,
Gould S.J. Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism.
In: Schopf T.J.M. editor. Models of Paleobiology, 1972. p. 82-115.)
As for the actual quote, here:
T]ransitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions
are not common -- and should not be, according to our understanding of >evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as >creationists often claim. [He then discusses two examples: therapsid >intermediaries between reptiles and mammals, and the half-dozen human
species - found as of 1981 - that appear in an unbroken temporal
sequence of progressively more modern features.]
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of
their own position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to >buttress their rhetorical claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am
-- for I have become a major target of these practices.
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or
episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my >colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated >equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record
-- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change >thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory,
not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small
isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of >speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of >time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological
microsecond . . .
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether
through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the
fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are >generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between
larger groups.
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth
and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W.
W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 04:55:09 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 06 Aug 2023 19:31:32 -0700, Ralph Page <r...@SOCKSralphpage.com> >> wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 16:58:54 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 8:51:02?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Yeah! People who accept evolution without ever questioning, is about as >>>> common
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed, >>>>>> because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This causes
me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural >>>>>> selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to >>>>>> mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the >>>>>> evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole >>>>>> animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just >>>>>> below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and >>>>>> conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's >>>>>> absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and >>>>>> natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in >>>>>> an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we
would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be
in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were >>>>>> beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
"?his is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking,
. 'This is an interesting world I find myself in ?an interesting hole I find myself in
. ?fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have
. been made to have me in it!' " Douglas Adams
as thinking mud puddles.
Beneficial mutations could not be rare, considering the many organs and >>>> physicals
The things you copied and pasted above question the series of steps that
led to humans, as if we were a pre-ordained target, an objective. >>>>> Does that really make sense to you?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the >>>>>> transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common
than believed.
First off, than believed by whom?
bodies that had to evolve from the worm or the rat like animal to humans.
Second off, of the total number of changes/mutations over the time periodsSo what? That's no issue. and answers nothing.
involved, how many were beneficial, how many deleterious, how many lethal?
I'll give you a hint. For the lethal ones, many never made it far past the egg
stage. But that's evolution for you, go ahead and lay many thousands of eggs
even if only two or so ultimately survive.
Yes, and countless mutations many of them beneficial. Or are you
I'll give you another hint.
Imagine a kidney. You likely know some little bit about kidneys. They help filter
blood in a manner that extracts out some stuff that gets excreted as urine.
Human kidneys have to do some fairly sophisticated filtering, more than a
fish does. But the changes from a "primitive" kidney to a modern mammalian
kidney had a long time to happen.
claiming that
mutations and natural selection had nothing to do with the evolutionary >>>> changes
of kidneys from the primitive kidney up and through the multiple stages >>>> of development
leading up to humans.
..
A thing to consider about the human kidneys, there are two after all, is that they
have an excess capacity. If one gets destroyed, it turns out that you can survive
pretty well off the one that remains. But kidneys do use a significant amount of
energy. Some might consider that to be wasteful. People who think that are
seldom well informed biologists.
The less informed people do wonder why evolution would produce excess >>>>> capacity. Why spend all that extra energy? Sure, you could design in excess
capacity, but how do you evolve it? A biologist/physiologist who still recalls
basic chemistry (as 99% likely do, 100% of the physiologists) will immediately
think of buffering capacities. The solutions flow from there.
.
I often wish you asked these sorts of questions because they are at least
more interesting. But the thing is, you don't seem to know enough biology
to ask them, and instead you ask more mundane questions that have been >>>>> answered many times.
I'm an unemployed, forcible retired because of a serious health issue. >>>> So, I"ll
admit my biology terminology is quite lacking. But I tend to look at nature
and living things from and engineer's prospective. I was an engineer >>>> before I got fired.. Now, I'm just another unemployed man.
.In the YouTube cite I referenced I noted that the discussion from the single
Think some on the puddle. Think some on the bit about viewing the natural
history of the ancestors of humans, back to fish and before as if humans
were a pre-ordained target. Understand how that is a fundamental logical
mistaken way to think. Then ask a few questions.
cell to the worm, to the fish to the mouse sized mammal to humans there >>>> was considerable explaining, but nothing regarding the evolution of >>>> internal organs. Why is that! Explaining the changes in morphology is >>>> simple and easy explained and comprehended. But this cannot be said >>>> about organs and body parts. And that I suspect is why evolution of organs
is not talked about.
Based on these and previous comments, it appears that you feel that
evolutionary forces are not capable of producing certain changes in living
organisms we observe, so you've decided that an unknown designer, using an
unknown method, is a more likely answer.
How did you determine then, that evolutionary forces are not adequate to >>> produce the changes?
I just don't see any barriers to evoutionary change that would inhibit >>> development of variations needed to produce the variety of life we observe.
You ask above a good question, and raise a good point. Here's hoping
you get an equally good response.
Well, we can still hope for next time.The problem is, not about barriers. But rather it's about the numerous transitional organisms on the evolutionary pathway between ancestor and decedents, such as between the first simple cell to the fish, or from
'
the fish to the tree climbing monkey, to apes, to humans. But more specifically, it's about the evolution of vital internal organs. It's
rather easy to explain or depict the evolution of humans as the cite
below demonstrates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
But there is absolutely _nothing_ about the evolution of vital organs essential to fit into and function within the bodies of these
transitional body forms. Within the human body there is 100 or so, and
there are several vital organs such as Skeletal (bones) Muscular
(smooth, cardiac, and skeletal muscles) Circulatory (heart, arteries,
veins) Respiratory (lungs, diaphragm, larynx) Digestive (stomach, intestines, liver) Urinary (kidneys, ureters, bladder) Immune (lymph
nodes, bone marrow, thymus) Nervous (brain, spinal cord, nerves)
Endocrine (pituitary gland, thyroid, adrenals)Reproductive, heart,
kidneys lungs, liver etc,etc. all necessary for survival.
The way organs evolve to fit the new body form is through aimless,
mindless, random mutations and natural selection. It's possible to
assume that random mutations by some stroke of luck, just happened to
cause the necessary and useful mutations which changed organs to fit and function
inside the newly evolved transitional body form.
Of course, is possible that for a relative short time one or more organs
my remain in stasis. But
as evolution continues, organs is stasis cannot remain in stasis. Furthermore, there has to be
evolution in the vital organs in tandem at different points in time, in order for newly
evolved transitional animals to survive
I think this is impossible. Some kind of guidance seems necessary.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each >>>>>> organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare,
and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes. >>>>>> https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
On 2023-08-09 02:41:24 +0000, Öö Tiib said:
On Wednesday, 9 August 2023 at 03:56:08 UTC+3, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/8/23 12:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:> > broger...@gmail.com wrote:> >>Aren't apogee, apex and pinnacle synonyms? The pentacle was typo caused
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 2:21:07?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:> >>>
Lawyer Daggett wrote:> >>>> On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 6:36:06?PM
UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:> >>>>> >>>> snip> >>>>> >>>>> By complete, I
mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development> >>>>> at the
present.> >>>>> >>>> No. That is absolute nonsense.> >>>> Your initial
premise is hopelessly flawed and without any support.> >>>> The myriad
things you further deduce from this nonsensical premise> >>>> wander
further into unfounded musings. Chasing them down after> >>>> such a
bizarre start is a fools errand.> >>>>> >>> You completely fail to
understand the issue I raised. In the linage that> >>> led to humans,
what do you propose is more entitled to the term pentacle> >>> than
humans? It certainly could not have been the fish, or the tree> >>>
climbing> >>> monkey, or the ape, are at the pentacle of development.
In this chain of> >>> development leading to humans. Humans today, are
at the pentacle of> >>> evolutionary development.> >>> >> I love the
word "pentacle" but I think you mean pinnacle.> >> Well, in the
evolutionary sequence leading to humans, humans are the> >> "pinnacle," >>> sure, but that's only because you decided to talk about> >> the
evolutionary sequence leading to humans, as opposed to the> >>
evolutionary sequence leading to sperm whales, or to crows, or to> >>
mushrooms.> >>>>> >>>>> Maybe, there will be further evolution in the
future. who> >>>>> knows? In the evolutionary pathway from the single
cell to humans,> >>>>> the fish> >>>>> is not complete. Even thought
the fish was complete, at its point> >>>>> in time.> >>>>> >>>> The
above is more gibberish, precisely because your whole notion of> >>>>
"complete" is founded on your deeply flawed premise that humans> >>>>
somehow represent some current pinnacle of evolution. We aren't> >>>>
No sensible biologist would argue that. You cannot provide a> >>>>
sensible support for your assertion.> > <snip unfortunate insult>> >> > >>> Why is a human more complete than a sea bass? The only reason I can> >
imagine would be if humans were the goal of evolution and sea bass
were> > only a by product, but why would you think that? and if you
thought> > that, how would you prove it?> >>> > Our supposedly fish
ancestor was complete at its _point_in_time. But it> > was intermediary >>> in the> > particular linage leading to humans, which today is the apex
Don't you mean it's the apogee of evolutionary development? Or the>evolutionary development.> >
pentagram, or something.
by spelling corrector IIUC.
You think so? So why did he repeat it several times?
Also, "pinnacle" is a more everyday word than "pentacle", so why would
a spelling corrector, even one designed by Micro$oft, correct
"pinnacle" to "pentacle"?
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 04:55:09 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>The problem is, not about barriers. But rather it's about the numerous >transitional organisms on the evolutionary pathway between ancestor and >decedents, such as between the first simple cell to the fish, or from
wrote:
On Sun, 06 Aug 2023 19:31:32 -0700, Ralph Page <rp@SOCKSralphpage.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 16:58:54 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 8:51:02?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Yeah! People who accept evolution without ever questioning, is about as >>>>> common
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed, >>>>>>> because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This causes >>>>>>> me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to >>>>>>> mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the >>>>>>> evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole >>>>>>> animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just >>>>>>> below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and >>>>>>> conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's >>>>>>> absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and >>>>>>> natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in >>>>>>> an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we >>>>>>> would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be >>>>>>> in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were >>>>>>> beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
"?his is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking,
. 'This is an interesting world I find myself in ?an interesting hole I find myself in
. ?fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have
. been made to have me in it!' " Douglas Adams
as thinking mud puddles.
Beneficial mutations could not be rare, considering the many organs and >>>>> physicals
The things you copied and pasted above question the series of steps that >>>>>> led to humans, as if we were a pre-ordained target, an objective.
Does that really make sense to you?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the >>>>>>> transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common
than believed.
First off, than believed by whom?
bodies that had to evolve from the worm or the rat like animal to humans.
Second off, of the total number of changes/mutations over the time periodsSo what? That's no issue. and answers nothing.
involved, how many were beneficial, how many deleterious, how many lethal?
I'll give you a hint. For the lethal ones, many never made it far past the egg
stage. But that's evolution for you, go ahead and lay many thousands of eggs
even if only two or so ultimately survive.
Yes, and countless mutations many of them beneficial. Or are you
I'll give you another hint.
Imagine a kidney. You likely know some little bit about kidneys. They help filter
blood in a manner that extracts out some stuff that gets excreted as urine.
Human kidneys have to do some fairly sophisticated filtering, more than a
fish does. But the changes from a "primitive" kidney to a modern mammalian
kidney had a long time to happen.
claiming that
mutations and natural selection had nothing to do with the evolutionary >>>>> changes
of kidneys from the primitive kidney up and through the multiple stages >>>>> of development
leading up to humans.
..
A thing to consider about the human kidneys, there are two after all, is that they
have an excess capacity. If one gets destroyed, it turns out that you can survive
pretty well off the one that remains. But kidneys do use a significant amount of
energy. Some might consider that to be wasteful. People who think that are
seldom well informed biologists.
The less informed people do wonder why evolution would produce excess >>>>>> capacity. Why spend all that extra energy? Sure, you could design in excess
capacity, but how do you evolve it? A biologist/physiologist who still recalls
basic chemistry (as 99% likely do, 100% of the physiologists) will immediately
think of buffering capacities. The solutions flow from there.
.
I often wish you asked these sorts of questions because they are at least
more interesting. But the thing is, you don't seem to know enough biology
to ask them, and instead you ask more mundane questions that have been >>>>>> answered many times.
I'm an unemployed, forcible retired because of a serious health issue. >>>>> So, I"ll
admit my biology terminology is quite lacking. But I tend to look at nature
and living things from and engineer's prospective. I was an engineer >>>>> before I got fired.. Now, I'm just another unemployed man.
.In the YouTube cite I referenced I noted that the discussion from the single
Think some on the puddle. Think some on the bit about viewing the natural
history of the ancestors of humans, back to fish and before as if humans >>>>>> were a pre-ordained target. Understand how that is a fundamental logical >>>>>> mistaken way to think. Then ask a few questions.
cell to the worm, to the fish to the mouse sized mammal to humans there >>>>> was considerable explaining, but nothing regarding the evolution of
internal organs. Why is that! Explaining the changes in morphology is >>>>> simple and easy explained and comprehended. But this cannot be said
about organs and body parts. And that I suspect is why evolution of organs
is not talked about.
Based on these and previous comments, it appears that you feel that
evolutionary forces are not capable of producing certain changes in living >>>> organisms we observe, so you've decided that an unknown designer, using an >>>> unknown method, is a more likely answer.
How did you determine then, that evolutionary forces are not adequate to >>>> produce the changes?
I just don't see any barriers to evoutionary change that would inhibit >>>> development of variations needed to produce the variety of life we observe.
You ask above a good question, and raise a good point. Here's hoping
you get an equally good response.
Well, we can still hope for next time.
'
the fish to the tree climbing monkey, to apes, to humans. But more >specifically, it's about the evolution of vital internal organs. It's
rather easy to explain or depict the evolution of humans as the cite
below demonstrates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
But there is absolutely _nothing_ about the evolution of vital organs >essential to fit into and function within the bodies of these
transitional body forms. Within the human body there is 100 or so, and >there are several vital organs such as Skeletal (bones) Muscular
(smooth, cardiac, and skeletal muscles) Circulatory (heart, arteries,
veins) Respiratory (lungs, diaphragm, larynx) Digestive (stomach, >intestines, liver) Urinary (kidneys, ureters, bladder) Immune (lymph
nodes, bone marrow, thymus) Nervous (brain, spinal cord, nerves)
Endocrine (pituitary gland, thyroid, adrenals)Reproductive, heart,
kidneys lungs, liver etc,etc. all necessary for survival.
The way organs evolve to fit the new body form is through aimless, >mindless, random mutations and natural selection. It's possible to
assume that random mutations by some stroke of luck, just happened to
cause the necessary and useful mutations which changed organs to fit and >function
inside the newly evolved transitional body form.
Of course, is possible that for a relative short time one or more organs
my remain in stasis. But
as evolution continues, organs is stasis cannot remain in stasis. >Furthermore, there has to be
evolution in the vital organs in tandem at different points in time, in >order for newly
evolved transitional animals to survive
I think this is impossible. Some kind of guidance seems necessary.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each >>>>>>> organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare, >>>>>>> and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes. >>>>>>> https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
On 2023-08-09 10:31:01 +0000, Burkhard said:
[...]
We obviously move in very different social circles :o)
so why would> a spelling corrector, even one designed by Micro$oft,
correct> "pinnacle" to "pentacle"?
I've thought more about this. I think that Ron Dean is American, and therefore may pronounce "pinnacle" almost exactly the same as
"pentacle", whereas for me they are quite different: clearly different
vowels in the first syllables, and I pronounce the t in "pentacle".
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 07 Aug 2023 04:55:09 -0400, jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>The problem is, not about barriers. But rather it's about the numerous >transitional organisms on the evolutionary pathway between ancestor and >decedents, such as between the first simple cell to the fish, or from
wrote:
On Sun, 06 Aug 2023 19:31:32 -0700, Ralph Page <rp@SOCKSralphpage.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 16:58:54 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 4, 2023 at 8:51:02?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Yeah! People who accept evolution without ever questioning, is about as >>>>> common
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed, >>>>>>> because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving. This causes >>>>>>> me to question. I've thought about random mutations and natural
selection and a concept analogous to irreducible complexity comes to >>>>>>> mind. That Is:
In order for each transitional form the function and survive the >>>>>>> evolution of essential organs must
be complete, and in functioning order to be in service to the whole >>>>>>> animal body.of the animal
at each evolutionary stage of development.
In the sequence of allegorical human predecessors in the cite just >>>>>>> below, the multiple of
shifts in body the many body form is easily represented and
comprehended. But there is
plethora of internal organs and body parts that has to evolve and >>>>>>> conform to each of the
many altered transitional body forms represented. However, there's >>>>>>> absolutely nothing
that explains how aimless, mindless, blind, random mutations and >>>>>>> natural selection just
evolve by chance to fit each of the many organs and parts in sync, in >>>>>>> an ordered
co-ordination and in near parallel with a limited time space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
If for whatever reason s few of the required organs did not develop, we >>>>>>> would not be
here, so what controlled and caused each of the essential organs to be >>>>>>> in order and
co-ordination of countless numbers beneficial mutations? And how were >>>>>>> beneficial
mutations in sequential order anticipated?
"?his is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking,
. 'This is an interesting world I find myself in ?an interesting hole I find myself in
. ?fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have
. been made to have me in it!' " Douglas Adams
as thinking mud puddles.
Beneficial mutations could not be rare, considering the many organs and >>>>> physicals
The things you copied and pasted above question the series of steps that >>>>>> led to humans, as if we were a pre-ordained target, an objective.
Does that really make sense to you?
Considering the 100 more, organs had to evolve to fit each of the >>>>>>> transitional forms
pictured in the above cite, beneficial mutations must be far more common
than believed.
First off, than believed by whom?
bodies that had to evolve from the worm or the rat like animal to humans.
Second off, of the total number of changes/mutations over the time periodsSo what? That's no issue. and answers nothing.
involved, how many were beneficial, how many deleterious, how many lethal?
I'll give you a hint. For the lethal ones, many never made it far past the egg
stage. But that's evolution for you, go ahead and lay many thousands of eggs
even if only two or so ultimately survive.
Yes, and countless mutations many of them beneficial. Or are you
I'll give you another hint.
Imagine a kidney. You likely know some little bit about kidneys. They help filter
blood in a manner that extracts out some stuff that gets excreted as urine.
Human kidneys have to do some fairly sophisticated filtering, more than a
fish does. But the changes from a "primitive" kidney to a modern mammalian
kidney had a long time to happen.
claiming that
mutations and natural selection had nothing to do with the evolutionary >>>>> changes
of kidneys from the primitive kidney up and through the multiple stages >>>>> of development
leading up to humans.
..
A thing to consider about the human kidneys, there are two after all, is that they
have an excess capacity. If one gets destroyed, it turns out that you can survive
pretty well off the one that remains. But kidneys do use a significant amount of
energy. Some might consider that to be wasteful. People who think that are
seldom well informed biologists.
The less informed people do wonder why evolution would produce excess >>>>>> capacity. Why spend all that extra energy? Sure, you could design in excess
capacity, but how do you evolve it? A biologist/physiologist who still recalls
basic chemistry (as 99% likely do, 100% of the physiologists) will immediately
think of buffering capacities. The solutions flow from there.
.
I often wish you asked these sorts of questions because they are at least
more interesting. But the thing is, you don't seem to know enough biology
to ask them, and instead you ask more mundane questions that have been >>>>>> answered many times.
I'm an unemployed, forcible retired because of a serious health issue. >>>>> So, I"ll
admit my biology terminology is quite lacking. But I tend to look at nature
and living things from and engineer's prospective. I was an engineer >>>>> before I got fired.. Now, I'm just another unemployed man.
.In the YouTube cite I referenced I noted that the discussion from the single
Think some on the puddle. Think some on the bit about viewing the natural
history of the ancestors of humans, back to fish and before as if humans >>>>>> were a pre-ordained target. Understand how that is a fundamental logical >>>>>> mistaken way to think. Then ask a few questions.
cell to the worm, to the fish to the mouse sized mammal to humans there >>>>> was considerable explaining, but nothing regarding the evolution of
internal organs. Why is that! Explaining the changes in morphology is >>>>> simple and easy explained and comprehended. But this cannot be said
about organs and body parts. And that I suspect is why evolution of organs
is not talked about.
Based on these and previous comments, it appears that you feel that
evolutionary forces are not capable of producing certain changes in living >>>> organisms we observe, so you've decided that an unknown designer, using an >>>> unknown method, is a more likely answer.
How did you determine then, that evolutionary forces are not adequate to >>>> produce the changes?
I just don't see any barriers to evoutionary change that would inhibit >>>> development of variations needed to produce the variety of life we observe.
You ask above a good question, and raise a good point. Here's hoping
you get an equally good response.
Well, we can still hope for next time.
'
the fish to the tree climbing monkey, to apes, to humans. But more >specifically, it's about the evolution of vital internal organs. It's
rather easy to explain or depict the evolution of humans as the cite
below demonstrates.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
But there is absolutely _nothing_ about the evolution of vital organs >essential to fit into and function within the bodies of these
transitional body forms. Within the human body there is 100 or so, and
there are several vital organs such as Skeletal (bones) Muscular
(smooth, cardiac, and skeletal muscles) Circulatory (heart, arteries,
veins) Respiratory (lungs, diaphragm, larynx) Digestive (stomach,
intestines, liver) Urinary (kidneys, ureters, bladder) Immune (lymph
nodes, bone marrow, thymus) Nervous (brain, spinal cord, nerves)
Endocrine (pituitary gland, thyroid, adrenals)Reproductive, heart,
kidneys lungs, liver etc,etc. all necessary for survival.
The way organs evolve to fit the new body form is through aimless,
mindless, random mutations and natural selection. It's possible to
assume that random mutations by some stroke of luck, just happened to
cause the necessary and useful mutations which changed organs to fit and >function
inside the newly evolved transitional body form.
Of course, is possible that for a relative short time one or more organs
my remain in stasis. But
as evolution continues, organs is stasis cannot remain in stasis. >Furthermore, there has to be
evolution in the vital organs in tandem at different points in time, in
order for newly
evolved transitional animals to survive
I think this is impossible. Some kind of guidance seems necessary.
Such mutations must have almost "rained" down independently on each >>>>>>> organ and body
part and natural had its work to do. But beneficial mutations are rare, >>>>>>> and there
are detect and repair functions in place within the genetic codes. >>>>>>> https://www.answers.com/biology/Why_are_mutations_rare
On 8/8/23 1:19 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/7/23 3:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Yes, I did and I've been called on this by several people.
John Harshman wrote:
[...]By complete, I mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development
I'm not going to look at random videos, sorry. But if only humans
are "complete", that's a weird definition of the term, and it
obscures the point that intermediate stages are in fact viable and
do in fact exist.
at the present.
(I assume you mean "pinnacle", and are not alluding to symbols in a
tarot deck.)
;
I have no idea where this came from.
One prominent aspect of humans is having brains that enable and
prioritize social living. One aspect of that is our innate tendency
to categorize others as either "us" or "them". This leads to tribal
conflict and, as populations and organization increase, war.
;
;So when
you say humans are complete, and you (in other posts) says they areI fail to understand where this comes from. It seems to me that you
designed, you are saying that war is part of that pinnacle of design.
;
are reading meaning into my words that I did not intend. And this
placing blinds in my arguments.
No! I mean, from the simple single cell through the intermediate
linkages. At this point in time (today), humans are the apex of
evolutionary development.
I've made no claims, nor have I inferred anything regarding design as
the pinnacle. In one point, I did say I believe that design is the
better explanation for the the changes required for dozens of
essential organs in order to be functional for the new body plans in
the pathway from the simple cell to humans through billions of years
and countless numbers of intermediate steps leading to humans. The
pinnacle of evolutionary development.
So are you using "pinnacle" to mean "something that still has lots and
lots of room for improvement (not to mention other possible changes)"?
And, as someone else noted, how about sea bass? Or western poison oak?
Or scabies mites? Are they at the pinnacle, too? Why or why not?
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 16:19:09 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip for much-needed focus>
No! I mean, from the simple single cell through the intermediate
linkages. At this point in time (today), humans are the apex of
evolutionary development.
Whatever word you use, it doesn't alter the fatal flaw in your
comments above. You keep asserting this, but you make no effort to
identify any objective basis for it. Why is that?
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 4:21:08 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
heavy snip for focusing
I've made no claims, nor have I inferred anything regarding design as
the pinnacle. In one point, I did say I believe that design is the
better explanation for the the changes required for dozens of essential >> organs in order to be functional for the new body plans in the pathway
from the simple cell to humans through billions of years and countless
numbers of intermediate steps leading to humans. The pinnacle of
evolutionary development.
It is confusing. You're now using pinnacle in a different way.
But to focus in on one small thing: "the changes required ... for a new body plan".
The way it's written, it's as if the organs huddled up and the Quarter Back
said, "let's evolve to walk on land, everybody, on two, ready Break."
The evolution of the "body plan" didn't anticipate a need. The 'body plan' was never a target. It's a result brokered by chance and opportunity.
A subpopulation of a species might begin to exploit a new niche. The differences in environment in the new niche can possibly favor some
rare phenotypes in the founders. If so, by differential reproductive success the rare phenotypes become less rare. Adaption has then
occurred. Most often, the new subpopulation fails and goes extinct. Thousands of novel phenotypes were tried out but turned out to be inadequate. Only rarely will some turn out to provide, either alone or
in combination, sufficient changes to allow successful exploitation
of a new niche.
Are the useful mutations rare? Yes. Are hundreds or thousands of
variants given try-outs? Yes. Most get cut. But natural selection
is admittedly wasteful. More variants keep getting made and tossed
into the deep end of the pool to see who can swim. The rare ones
that can go on to make thousands upon millions of new variants
and toss those into the deep end. The overwhelming majority
of lineages go extinct. You do understand this? If so, where
is the problem in multiple organs slowly adapting to cope
with evolving circumstances? (and always playing catch up).
At different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple
vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at one
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must "move along"
he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving functional to the series
of intermediates along the path. These vital organs must evolve, to be functional for survival: kidneys, the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,
skeleton, intestines pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move
along"
the pathway to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom mutations and natural selection is not up to the task. There has to be a strong measure of faith to believe everything was jut accidental.
Again I think design is the better explanation. The only objection,
would be the absence of a designer. I see nothing that suggest the
absence of a designer.
On 2023-08-08 18:29:16 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 17:20:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:Yes according to theory. But then, what, about "living fossils"?
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed,
because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"?
;
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Like all the other organisms since the origin of life.
;
They remain is stasis.
Not true. At the biochemical level (specifically the enzyme
glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase) coelacanths are just as
advanced as you and me. They haven't changed their body structure much because the one they have serves their needs perfectly well. Living
fossils exist only in the minds of popular science writers.
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 4:21:08 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
heavy snip for focusing
I've made no claims, nor have I inferred anything regarding design as
the pinnacle. In one point, I did say I believe that design is the
better explanation for the the changes required for dozens of essential
organs in order to be functional for the new body plans in the pathway
from the simple cell to humans through billions of years and countless
numbers of intermediate steps leading to humans. The pinnacle of
evolutionary development.
It is confusing. You're now using pinnacle in a different way.
But to focus in on one small thing: "the changes required ... for a new body plan".
The way it's written, it's as if the organs huddled up and the Quarter Back said, "let's evolve to walk on land, everybody, on two, ready Break."
The evolution of the "body plan" didn't anticipate a need. The 'body plan' was never a target. It's a result brokered by chance and opportunity.
A subpopulation of a species might begin to exploit a new niche. The differences in environment in the new niche can possibly favor some
rare phenotypes in the founders. If so, by differential reproductive
success the rare phenotypes become less rare. Adaption has then
occurred. Most often, the new subpopulation fails and goes extinct.
Thousands of novel phenotypes were tried out but turned out to be
inadequate. Only rarely will some turn out to provide, either alone or
in combination, sufficient changes to allow successful exploitation
of a new niche.
Are the useful mutations rare? Yes. Are hundreds or thousands of
variants given try-outs? Yes. Most get cut. But natural selection
is admittedly wasteful. More variants keep getting made and tossed
into the deep end of the pool to see who can swim. The rare ones
that can go on to make thousands upon millions of new variants
and toss those into the deep end. The overwhelming majority
of lineages go extinct. You do understand this? If so, where
is the problem in multiple organs slowly adapting to cope
with evolving circumstances? (and always playing catch up).
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 16:19:09 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip for much-needed focus>
No! I mean, from the simple single cell through the intermediate
linkages. At this point in time (today), humans are the apex of
evolutionary development.
Whatever word you use, it doesn't alter the fatal flaw in your
comments above. You keep asserting this, but you make no effort to identify any objective basis for it. Why is that?
It stands to reason, since humans at present are the top of the chain of evolutionary links, there is nothing that came after humans. So we are
at the apex of the links that led to us.
If you disagree, why - Please explain. >
On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 9:31:08 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 16:19:09 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip for much-needed focus>
No! I mean, from the simple single cell through the intermediate
linkages. At this point in time (today), humans are the apex of
evolutionary development.
Whatever word you use, it doesn't alter the fatal flaw in your
comments above. You keep asserting this, but you make no effort to identify any objective basis for it. Why is that?
It stands to reason, since humans at present are the top of the chain of evolutionary links, there is nothing that came after humans. So we aredogs evolved (split into a species) after humans, just as one example.
at the apex of the links that led to us.
If you disagree, why - Please explain. >
The notion that we are at the "top of a chain" and nothing came after us just makes no sense in terms of the theory of evolution. It is a branching tree
not a single line.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/8/23 1:19 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 8/7/23 3:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Yes, I did and I've been called on this by several people.
John Harshman wrote:
[...]By complete, I mean, humans have reached the pentacle of development >>>>> at the present.
I'm not going to look at random videos, sorry. But if only humans
are "complete", that's a weird definition of the term, and it
obscures the point that intermediate stages are in fact viable and >>>>>> do in fact exist.
(I assume you mean "pinnacle", and are not alluding to symbols in a
tarot deck.)
;
I have no idea where this came from.
One prominent aspect of humans is having brains that enable and
prioritize social living. One aspect of that is our innate tendency
to categorize others as either "us" or "them". This leads to tribal
conflict and, as populations and organization increase, war.
;
;So when
you say humans are complete, and you (in other posts) says they areI fail to understand where this comes from. It seems to me that you
designed, you are saying that war is part of that pinnacle of design.
;
are reading meaning into my words that I did not intend. And this
placing blinds in my arguments.
No! I mean, from the simple single cell through the intermediate
linkages. At this point in time (today), humans are the apex of
evolutionary development.
I've made no claims, nor have I inferred anything regarding design as
the pinnacle. In one point, I did say I believe that design is the
better explanation for the the changes required for dozens of
essential organs in order to be functional for the new body plans in
the pathway from the simple cell to humans through billions of years
and countless numbers of intermediate steps leading to humans. The
pinnacle of evolutionary development.
So are you using "pinnacle" to mean "something that still has lots and
lots of room for improvement (not to mention other possible changes)"?
No, I mean in the pathway that led to us, today the human is at the
apex of
evolution,
i
In evolutionary pathway that led to them, I would say yes, today they
And, as someone else noted, how about sea bass? Or western poison
oak? Or scabies mites? Are they at the pinnacle, too? Why or why not?
are at
the pinnacle of their evolution. Next year or 100,000 years from now,
no: they
will have reached an new pinnacle.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 4:21:08 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
heavy snip for focusing
I've made no claims, nor have I inferred anything regarding design as
the pinnacle. In one point, I did say I believe that design is the
better explanation for the the changes required for dozens of essential >> organs in order to be functional for the new body plans in the pathway
from the simple cell to humans through billions of years and countless
numbers of intermediate steps leading to humans. The pinnacle of
evolutionary development.
It is confusing. You're now using pinnacle in a different way.
But to focus in on one small thing: "the changes required ... for a new body plan".
The way it's written, it's as if the organs huddled up and the Quarter Back
said, "let's evolve to walk on land, everybody, on two, ready Break."
The evolution of the "body plan" didn't anticipate a need. The 'body plan' was never a target. It's a result brokered by chance and opportunity.
A subpopulation of a species might begin to exploit a new niche. The differences in environment in the new niche can possibly favor some
rare phenotypes in the founders. If so, by differential reproductive success the rare phenotypes become less rare. Adaption has then
occurred. Most often, the new subpopulation fails and goes extinct. Thousands of novel phenotypes were tried out but turned out to be inadequate. Only rarely will some turn out to provide, either alone or
in combination, sufficient changes to allow successful exploitation
of a new niche.
Are the useful mutations rare? Yes. Are hundreds or thousands of
variants given try-outs? Yes. Most get cut. But natural selection
is admittedly wasteful. More variants keep getting made and tossed
into the deep end of the pool to see who can swim. The rare ones
that can go on to make thousands upon millions of new variants
and toss those into the deep end. The overwhelming majority
of lineages go extinct. You do understand this? If so, where
is the problem in multiple organs slowly adapting to cope
with evolving circumstances? (and always playing catch up).
At different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple
vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at one
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must "move along"
he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving functional to the series
of intermediates along the path.
These vital organs must evolve, to be
functional for survival: kidneys, the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,
skeleton, intestines pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move
along"
the pathway to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom mutations and natural selection is not up to the task.
There has to be a
strong measure of faith to believe everything was jut accidental.
Again I think design is the better explanation. The only objection,
would be the absence of a designer. I see nothing that suggest the
absence of a designer.
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 16:19:09 -0400, Ron DeanIt stands to reason, since humans at present are the top of the chain of evolutionary links, there is nothing that came after humans.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip for much-needed focus>
No! I mean, from the simple single cell through the intermediate
linkages. At this point in time (today), humans are the apex of
evolutionary development.
Whatever word you use, it doesn't alter the fatal flaw in your
comments above. You keep asserting this, but you make no effort to
identify any objective basis for it. Why is that?
So we are
at the apex of the links that led to us.
If you disagree, why - Please explain. >
[ … ]
At different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple
vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at one
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must "move along"
he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving functional to the series
of intermediates along the path. These vital organs must evolve, to be functional for survival: kidneys, the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,
skeleton, intestines pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along" the pathway to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom mutations and natural selection is not up to the task.
There has to be a
strong measure of faith to believe everything was jut accidental.
Again I think design is the better explanation. The only objection,
would be the absence of a designer. I see nothing that suggest the
absence of a designer.
On 2023-08-09 20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:
[ … ]
At different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at one and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must "move along"This is just the armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your
he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving functional to the series
of intermediates along the path. These vital organs must evolve, to be functional for survival: kidneys, the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,
skeleton, intestines pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along" the pathway to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom mutations and natural selection is not up to the task.
armchair, without bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you can't think of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.
Consider this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few
years virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor naval power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the War of the Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this was captured by
the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest navies go to war in
wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the amazing coincidence that everyone made the same change at more or less the same time?
Closer to your argument, an ironclad warship could not overcome a
wooden sailing ship if that were the only change. It needed an engine (sailing ships don't need engines), but that would be useless without a propeller (sailing ships don't need propellers) to convert the power
from the engine into motion, but both would be useless without a way of preventing the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships
don't need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship commanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads to
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes (including
ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to imagine all these adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we need to see the hand
of God in all this.
There has to be a--
strong measure of faith to believe everything was jut accidental.
Again I think design is the better explanation. The only objection,
would be the absence of a designer. I see nothing that suggest the
absence of a designer.
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 15:27:13 -0400, the following appeared in--
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:And that matters...why? As noted by several, including
On Mon, 7 Aug 2023 19:45:23 -0400, the following appeared inYou are right. Thank you!
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:That would be "pinnacle"; pentacles have different
On 2023-08-05 19:54:48 +0000, Ron Dean said:Each organism at its time and its stage of development is fully developed. >>>> However in long term evolutionary scenario the ape ancestor is not
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-05 17:20:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:Exactly what I meant. Thank you!
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Saturday, 5 August 2023 at 03:51:02 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I've heard it argued that all organism are never fully developed, >>>>>>>>>> because they are constantly in a state of flux - evolving.
From where you heard it and what even means "fully developed"? >>>>>>>> >
Not fully developed,means they are still evolving.
Like all the other organisms since the origin of life.
;
You say that because you haven't understood. "Not fully developed" is >>>>> gibberish, and I doubt whether any serious biologist would say that of >>>>> any organism adapted to its environment. It was the "still evolving" >>>>> that all of the organisms since the origin of life have been doing. So >>>>> it is not exactly what you meant unless yiu expressed exactly what you >>>>> meant very badly.
fully developed in that is a intermediate link towards humans. The human >>>> has reached the pentacle of evolutionary development at this point of >>>> time.
connotations.
That said, every single species which exists
today is the same, *including the ones in the process ofI knew the word, but I misspelled it. My spell corrector chose pentacle
going extinct*. Think about that, and about why it makes
your argument specious.
and I went with it. I thought it meant the same thing as apex or peak.
I should have checked the meaning of the word. Here, I failed.
I'm glad you caught this - thanks, again!
Again, I was not in reference to every species. I was in reference _only_ >>to the linkage that supposed to have led up to humans, the pinnacle
of that particular linage, at this point in time (today) is human.
myself, every single species extant is the "pinnacle" of its
own line of evolution, and none are more "evolved" than any
others. And *all* are direct descendants of the unicellular
creature which was the LCA (last common ancestor) of *all*
multicellular life on Earth. Humans are in no way "special"
in this respect, and are only special to you because you are
one; I suspect that kangaroos (or herring gulls, or ants,
or...), if they were capable of abstract thought, would feel
the same regarding their own species.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-09 20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:
This is just the armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your
[ … ]
At different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple
vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at one
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must "move along"
he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving functional to the series
of intermediates along the path. These vital organs must evolve, to be
functional for survival: kidneys, the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,
skeleton, intestines pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along" >>> the pathway to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom
mutations and natural selection is not up to the task.
armchair, without bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you
can't think of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.
Consider this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few
years virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor naval
power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the War of the
Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this was captured by
the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest navies go to war in
wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the amazing coincidence that
everyone made the same change at more or less the same time?
Closer to your argument, an ironclad warship could not overcome a
wooden sailing ship if that were the only change. It needed an engine
(sailing ships don't need engines), but that would be useless without a
propeller (sailing ships don't need propellers) to convert the power
from the engine into motion, but both would be useless without a way of
preventing the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships
don't need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship
commanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads to
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes (including
ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to imagine all these
adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we need to see the hand
of God in all this.
That's... not a very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if someone is in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure all these things are there
together
What makes the ship example very different
from evolution is the one thing you said first, and I thought that was the way
you were going - that the same design idea was copied immediately by everybody. And they scrapped the old and brought in the new - so Peru did
not try to put ironclad armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.
So no path dependency the way we find with biological organisms, but radical restarts by everybody.
There has to be a--
strong measure of faith to believe everything was jut accidental.
Again I think design is the better explanation. The only objection,
would be the absence of a designer. I see nothing that suggest the
absence of a designer.
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-09 20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:
This is just the armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your
[ … ]
At different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple >>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at one >>> and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must "move along" >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving functional to the series >>> of intermediates along the path. These vital organs must evolve, to be >>> functional for survival: kidneys, the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,
skeleton, intestines pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"
the pathway to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom
mutations and natural selection is not up to the task.
armchair, without bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you >> can't think of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.
Consider this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few
years virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor naval >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the War of the
Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this was captured by
the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest navies go to war in
wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the amazing coincidence that
everyone made the same change at more or less the same time?
Closer to your argument, an ironclad warship could not overcome a
wooden sailing ship if that were the only change. It needed an engine
(sailing ships don't need engines), but that would be useless without a >> propeller (sailing ships don't need propellers) to convert the power
from the engine into motion, but both would be useless without a way of >> preventing the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships
don't need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship
commanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads to >> be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes (including
ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to imagine all these >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we need to see the hand
of God in all this.
That's... not a very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if someone is
in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure all these things are there
together
What makes the ship example very differentI will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads, including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added armor
from evolution is the one thing you said first, and I thought that was the way
you were going - that the same design idea was copied immediately by everybody. And they scrapped the old and brought in the new - so Peru did not try to put ironclad armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.
So no path dependency the way we find with biological organisms, but radical
restarts by everybody.
and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion in
addition to her sails.
There has to be a--
strong measure of faith to believe everything was jut accidental.
Again I think design is the better explanation. The only objection,
would be the absence of a designer. I see nothing that suggest the
absence of a designer.
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans provingvital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in theyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible tocommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything >>>>> was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better
explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a
designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.> >>>>> >> --> >> Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:.
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans provingvital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at >> one> >>> and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations >> and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in theyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible tocommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads >> to> >> be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we >> need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same >> design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad >> armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repairYes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
It stands to reason, since humans at present are the top of the chain ofdogs evolved (split into a species) after humans, just as one example.
evolutionary links, there is nothing that came after humans. So we are
at the apex of the links that led to us.
If you disagree, why - Please explain. >
On 09/08/2023 21:54, Burkhard wrote:The thing is, Ron bounces back and forth between the position that humans are the pinnacle of evolution (pretty clearly false) and that humans are the pinnacle of the evolutionary pathway leading to humans (trivially true, but, mutatis mutandis equally
It stands to reason, since humans at present are the top of the chain of >> evolutionary links, there is nothing that came after humans. So we aredogs evolved (split into a species) after humans, just as one example.
at the apex of the links that led to us.
If you disagree, why - Please explain. >
Possibly not the best example - current opinion tends to sink Canis familiaris in Canus lupus. One the other hand Wikipedia cites the
American Society of Mammalologists as recognising Canis familiaris. On
the gripping hand there's the theory that the domestic dog evolved from
an extinct south east to south and east Asian species morphologically similar to pariah dogs, which would make the species older than domestication. (I don't know off hand how well that theory has survived subsequent molecular studies.)
There is also the question of how widely one draws Homo sapiens. For narrower conceptions I expect that it is one of the younger mammal
species (though I expect one could find younger ones). For broader conceptions I'd guesstimate humaanity in the middle of the pack. If move outside mammals there are young species like the "big bird" ground
finch, the Catacol whitebeam (and most of the other European apomictic whitebeams), the Scottish crossbill, bread wheat, Scottish monkey
flower, Welsh groundsel, York groundsel, ...
I did once seem a (tongue in check I presumed) claim that dandelions are
the pinnacle of creation, based on recency.
--
alias Ernest Major
[ … ]
I did once seem a (tongue in check I presumed) claim that dandelions
are the pinnacle of creation, based on recency.
On 2023-08-10 22:35:40 +0000, Ernest Major said:
[ … ]
I did once seem a (tongue in check I presumed) claim that dandelions
are the pinnacle of creation, based on recency.
The New York Academy of Sciences used to publish a magazine called, I
think, The Sciences. In it I read (probably nearly 40 years ago) that
there were only four or five separate dandelion individuals in the
entire USA, each flower just being one offshoot of a huge individual connected through the ground. I've never seen that confirmed by any
other source.
On 11/08/2023 07:59, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-10 22:35:40 +0000, Ernest Major said:
[ … ]
I did once seem a (tongue in check I presumed) claim that dandelions
are the pinnacle of creation, based on recency.
The New York Academy of Sciences used to publish a magazine called, I
think, The Sciences. In it I read (probably nearly 40 years ago) that
there were only four or five separate dandelion individuals in the
entire USA, each flower just being one offshoot of a huge individual
connected through the ground. I've never seen that confirmed by any
other source.
I've seen something along those lines somewhere.
I expect "connected through the ground" is a misrecollection on your
part - dandelions aren't like aspens.
I've a rough idea how the claim originated, but it contains some errors.
1) it requires ignoring the native species of Taraxacum - T.
californicum and T. ceratophorum in the (western) Lower 48, and some
other species in Alaska. (In the report the USA may have meant the
Lower 48.)
2) FNA (and presumably earlier US floras followed a similar lumping)
draws broad conceptions of Taraxacum species, recognising 6 species of
4 sections of European dandelions.
3) Most European dandelions, including the species introduced to North America, are clonal (apomictic) When referring to the clones as a
single individual a non-vernacular definition (genet) of individual is
used. Most everybody would identify the ramet as the individual in
dandelion apomicts.
4) Finally, the broad species conceptions of North American usage are incorrectly equated to the narrow species conceptions of European
usage. While I expect that only a subset of European microspecies have
been introduced to the US, I also expect that several of the species recognised in US floras include multiple microspecies (clones),
especially the T. officinale and T. latilobum of sect. Ruderalia. I'm surprised to find sect. Hamata absent, but perhaps a different
sectional classification is in use, and T. latilobum represents the
sect. Hamata of British authors.
http://beta.floranorthamerica.org/Taraxacum
In a similar vein I've seen a statement that Narcissus 'Carlton' is the world's largest (by mass) organism. "King Alfred" is commoner, but is a collection of near-indistinguishable cultivars. Nowadays, in Britain
I'd say that 'Ice Follies' would outweigh it; also perhaps
'Tete-a-Tete', but that's a smaller plant by some margin, and there may
not be sufficient extra individuals to compensate. Also, the people who
made the claim might have been unaware of Pando - it takes a lot of
daffodils to outweigh a multi-acre aspen grove.
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 16:19:09 -0400, Ron DeanIt stands to reason, since humans at present are the top of the chain of >evolutionary links, there is nothing that came after humans. So we are
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip for much-needed focus>
No! I mean, from the simple single cell through the intermediate
linkages. At this point in time (today), humans are the apex of
evolutionary development.
Whatever word you use, it doesn't alter the fatal flaw in your
comments above. You keep asserting this, but you make no effort to
identify any objective basis for it. Why is that?
at the apex of the links that led to us.
If you disagree, why - Please explain. >
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote: >>> On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At >>> different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans provingvital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at >>> one> >>> and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations >>> and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the >>> War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when thisyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship> >>> >> commanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times> >>> >> removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads >>> to> >> be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we >>> need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same >>> design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad >>> armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything >>>>>> was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better
explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a
designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.> >>>>>> >> --> >> Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
On 8/9/23 4:47 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-09 10:31:01 +0000, Burkhard said:
[...]
We obviously move in very different social circles :o)
so why would> a spelling corrector, even one designed by Micro$oft,
correct> "pinnacle" to "pentacle"?
I've thought more about this. I think that Ron Dean is American, and
therefore may pronounce "pinnacle" almost exactly the same as
"pentacle", whereas for me they are quite different: clearly different
vowels in the first syllables, and I pronounce the t in "pentacle".
Speaking as an American, "pinnacle" is closer in pronunciation to both "binnacle" and "pinochle" than to "pentacle."
But I can see how, if someone wrote "pennacle", it would be a coin flip
for the spelling checker to correct to either word, if it's not smart
enough to consider context.
(My phone's spelling checker changes "its" to "it's", even when the
former is correct. Not really relevant here, but I need to gripe about
it.)
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at >>>> 3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At >>>> different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple> >>>>>>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at >>>> one> >>> and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys, >>>> the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines >>>> pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway >>>> to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations >>>> and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >> >>>> British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few> >>>>>> years virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the >>>> War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing >>>> the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship> >>>>>> commanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times> >>>>>> removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads >>>> to> >> be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we >>>> need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same >>>> design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad >>>> armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the >>>> way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything >>>>>>> was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better
explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a
designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.> >>>>>>>>> --> >> Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >>>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at >>>> 3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09 >>>> 20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple> >>>>>>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at >>>> one> >>> and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These >>>> vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys, >>>> the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines >>>> pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway >>>> to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations >>>> and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without >>>> bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think >>>> of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider >>>> this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >> >>>> British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few> >>>>>> years virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the >>>> War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this >>>> was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest >>>> navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or >>>> less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the >>>> only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing >>>> ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine >>>> into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing >>>> the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't >>>> need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to >>>> imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we >>>> need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a >>>> very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >commanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times> >>>>>> removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads >>>> to> >> be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure >>>> all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same >>>> design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped >>>> the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad >>>> armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the >>>> way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,> >>>> including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion >>>> in> addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything >>>>>>> was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better
explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >>>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
And other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at >>>>> 3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09 >>>>> 20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At >>>>> different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple> >>>>>>>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at >>>>> one> >>> and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These >>>>> vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys, >>>>> the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines >>>>> pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway >>>>> to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations >>>>> and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without >>>>> bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think >>>>> of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider >>>>> this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >> >>>>> British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few> >>>>>>> years virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the >>>>> War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this >>>>> was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest >>>>> navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or >>>>> less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the >>>>> only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing >>>>> ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine >>>>> into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing >>>>> the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't >>>>> need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship> >>>>>>> commanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times> >>>>>>> removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads >>>>> to> >> be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to >>>>> imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we >>>>> need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a >>>>> very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure >>>>> all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same >>>>> design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped >>>>> the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad >>>>> armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the >>>>> way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,> >>>>> including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion >>>>> in> addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything >>>>>>>> was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better
explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.> >>>>>>>>>> --> >> Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >>>>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at >> >>>> 3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09 >> >>>> 20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple> >> >>>>>>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at >> >>>> one> >>> and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These >> >>>> vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys, >> >>>> the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines >> >>>> pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway >> >>>> to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without >> >>>> bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think >> >>>> of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider >> >>>> this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >> >> >>>> British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few> >> >>>>>> years virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this >> >>>> was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest >> >>>> navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or >> >>>> less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the >> >>>> only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing >> >>>> ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine >> >>>> into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing >> >>>> the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't >> >>>> need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to >> >>>> imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, wecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times> >> >>>>>> removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads >> >>>> to> >> be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a >> >>>> very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure >> >>>> all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped >> >>>> the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the >> >>>> way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,> >> >>>> including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion >> >>>> in> addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better
explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a
designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >> >>>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
Yes, the evolution of ships is not a very good analogy for the evolution of organisms.
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>> On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at >>>>>> 3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At >>>>>> different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple> >>>>>>>>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at >>>>>> one> >>> and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These >>>>>> vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys, >>>>>> the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines >>>>>> pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway >>>>>> to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations >>>>>> and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without >>>>>> bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think >>>>>> of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider >>>>>> this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >> >>>>>> British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few> >>>>>>>> years virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >>>>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the >>>>>> War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this >>>>>> was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest >>>>>> navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >>>>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or >>>>>> less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the >>>>>> only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing >>>>>> ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine >>>>>> into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing >>>>>> the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't >>>>>> need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship> >>>>>>>> commanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times> >>>>>>>> removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads >>>>>> to> >> be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to >>>>>> imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we >>>>>> need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a >>>>>> very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure >>>>>> all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same >>>>>> design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped >>>>>> the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad >>>>>> armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the >>>>>> way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,> >>>>>> including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion >>>>>> in> addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything >>>>>>>>> was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better
explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.> >>>>>>>>>>> --> >> Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >>>>>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known
to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't
illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 07:46:44 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at >>>>>> 3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09 >>>>>> 20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At >>>>>> different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple> >>>>>>>>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestinesand the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These >>>>>> vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without >>>>>> bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think >>>>>> of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider >>>>>> this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing >>>>>> ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine >>>>>> into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventingyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >>>>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the >>>>>> War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this >>>>>> was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest >>>>>> navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >>>>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or >>>>>> less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the >>>>>> only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't >>>>>> need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a >>>>>> very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure >>>>>> all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the samecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times> >>>>>>>> removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to >>>>>> imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped >>>>>> the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,> >>>>>> including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion >>>>>> in> addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the >>>> points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could >>>> do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >>>>>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of >>> relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW >>> the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known
to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't >illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
Specifically (and critically) which don't reproduce
themselves *while conserving advantages and discarding
disadvantages in each generation, with no influence other
than by the nonsentient environment*.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09 >>>> 20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple> >>>>>>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These >>>> vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without >>>> bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think >>>> of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider >>>> this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this >>>> was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest >>>> navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or >>>> less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironcladyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the >>>> only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing >>>> ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine >>>> into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't >>>> need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to >>>> imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, wecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a >>>> very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure >>>> all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped >>>> the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,> >>>> including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion >>>> in> addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could >> do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >>>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW the advantage depends on the environment.
And other point. It was not random mutations and natural selectionYes, the evolution of ships is not a very good analogy for the evolution of organisms.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at >>>>>> 3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09 >>>>>> 20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple> >>>>>>>>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at >>>>>> one> >>> and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These >>>>>> vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys, >>>>>> the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines >>>>>> pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway >>>>>> to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations >>>>>> and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without >>>>>> bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think >>>>>> of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider >>>>>> this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >> >>>>>> British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few> >>>>>>>> years virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >>>>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the >>>>>> War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this >>>>>> was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest >>>>>> navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >>>>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or >>>>>> less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the >>>>>> only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing >>>>>> ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine >>>>>> into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing >>>>>> the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't >>>>>> need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship> >>>>>>>> commanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times> >>>>>>>> removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads >>>>>> to> >> be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to >>>>>> imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we >>>>>> need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a >>>>>> very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure >>>>>> all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same >>>>>> design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped >>>>>> the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad >>>>>> armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the >>>>>> way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,> >>>>>> including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion >>>>>> in> addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything >>>>>>>>> was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better
explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.> >>>>>>>>>>> --> >> Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >>>>>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
Yes, the evolution of ships is not a very good analogy for the evolution of organisms.
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at >>>>>> 3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09 >>>>>> 20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple> >>>>>>>>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at >>>>>> one> >>> and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These >>>>>> vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys, >>>>>> the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines >>>>>> pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway >>>>>> to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations >>>>>> and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without >>>>>> bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think >>>>>> of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider >>>>>> this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >> >>>>>> British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few> >>>>>>>> years virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >>>>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the >>>>>> War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this >>>>>> was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest >>>>>> navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >>>>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or >>>>>> less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the >>>>>> only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing >>>>>> ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine >>>>>> into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing >>>>>> the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't >>>>>> need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship> >>>>>>>> commanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times> >>>>>>>> removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads >>>>>> to> >> be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to >>>>>> imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we >>>>>> need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a >>>>>> very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure >>>>>> all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same >>>>>> design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped >>>>>> the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad >>>>>> armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the >>>>>> way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,> >>>>>> including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion >>>>>> in> addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything >>>>>>>>> was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better
explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.> >>>>>>>>>>> --> >> Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >>>>>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known
to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't
illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09 >>>>>> 20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple> >>>>>>>>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestinesand the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These >>>>>> vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without >>>>>> bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think >>>>>> of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider >>>>>> this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this >>>>>> was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest >>>>>> navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >>>>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or >>>>>> less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the >>>>>> only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't needyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >>>>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing >>>>>> ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine >>>>>> into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't >>>>>> need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a >>>>>> very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure >>>>>> all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the samecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to >>>>>> imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped >>>>>> the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,> >>>>>> including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion >>>>>> in> addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the >>>> points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could >>>> do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >>>>>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of >>> relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW >>> the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
.Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known
to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
Complex, purposeful design is usually obvious. An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years.
was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain
who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several
decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the
Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build
such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent movements of planets in the solar system. > --
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 12:15:11?PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 07:46:44 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanSpecifically (and critically) which don't reproduce
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10?PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10?PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At >> >>>>>> different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple> >> >>>>>>>>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These >> >>>>>> vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >> >>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without >> >>>>>> bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider >> >>>>>> this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironcladyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >> >>>>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the >> >>>>>> War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this >> >>>>>> was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest >> >>>>>> navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >> >>>>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing >> >>>>>> ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't >> >>>>>> need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to >> >>>>>> imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, wecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times> >> >>>>>>>> removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >> >>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >> >>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,> >> >>>>>> including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >> >>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the >> >>>> points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could >> >>>> do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better
explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >> >>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >> >>>>>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of >> >>> relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW >> >>> the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known
to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't
illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
themselves *while conserving advantages and discarding
disadvantages in each generation, with no influence other
than by the nonsentient environment*.
I think that there's a tendency to neglect what might be a more important >characteristic. That is the heavy constraint to have subsequent versions >"inherit" most of the characteristics of the prior "generation".
That is the greatest repudiation of designer based intervention.
Actual design intervention can make radical changes. It can import
brand new components. It can steal from other lineages. If there
were intelligent designers involved in the history of life on Earth,
they were operating with some crazy and nonsensical constraints
against creating chimeras.
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at >>>>>>> 3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09 >>>>>>> 20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple> >>>>>>>>>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at >>>>>>> one> >>> and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >>>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These >>>>>>> vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys, >>>>>>> the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines >>>>>>> pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway >>>>>>> to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations >>>>>>> and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without >>>>>>> bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think >>>>>>> of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider >>>>>>> this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >> >>>>>>> British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few> >>>>>>>>> years virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >>>>>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the >>>>>>> War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this >>>>>>> was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest >>>>>>> navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >>>>>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or >>>>>>> less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the >>>>>>> only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing >>>>>>> ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine >>>>>>> into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing >>>>>>> the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't >>>>>>> need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,> >>>>>>> including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >>>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion >>>>>>> in> addition to her sails.commanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times> >>>>>>>>> removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads >>>>>>> to> >> be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to >>>>>>> imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we >>>>>>> need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a >>>>>>> very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >>>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure >>>>>>> all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >>>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same >>>>>>> design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped >>>>>>> the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad >>>>>>> armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the >>>>>>> way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>>> everybody.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the >>>>> points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could >>>>> do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything >>>>>>>>>> was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >>>>>>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW >>>> the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known
to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't
illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years.
was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain
who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several
decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the
Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build
such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the >worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent >movements of planets in the solar system.
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 12:10:11?PM UTC+1, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 3:00:11?AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:Yes, the evolution of ships is not a very good analogy for the evolution of organisms.
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple> >> > >>>>>>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These >> > >>>> vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >> > >>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without >> > >>>> bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider >> > >>>> this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this >> > >>>> was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest >> > >>>> navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >> > >>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more oryears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >> > >>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing >> > >>>> ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't >> > >>>> need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to >> > >>>> imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, wecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >> > >>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >> > >>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,> >> > >>>> including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >> > >>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the >> > >> points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could >> > >> do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better
explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >> > >>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >> > >>>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of >> > > relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW >> > > the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
The evolution of chips (UK usage) however could be interesting - were they intelligently
designed by St. Theresa of Avila, as the Spanish claim, or were they the result of a random
mutation when the inhabitants of the Meuse Valley in today's Belgium first put some leftovers
from potato preparation in a pan used for frying fish to save on energy, which was then
selected for when the environment changed, the river froze over more often, and potatoes
where the only thing people had left to fry?
Is fish and chips irreducibly complex, as one can't be eaten without the other???
Cladistically, are they vegetables, as claimed in Fleming Companies, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, 322 F. Supp. 2d 744 (E.D. Tex. 2004)?
I could go on, but probably should not
On Tuesday, August 22, 2023 at 12:15:11?PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 07:46:44 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanSpecifically (and critically) which don't reproduce
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10?PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote: >> >>>>>> On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10?PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ ]> >>>> >>> >>> At >> >>>>>> different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple> >> >>>>>>>>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans provingand the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These >> >>>>>> vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without >> >>>>>> bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think >> >>>>>> of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider >> >>>>>> this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the >> >>>>>> only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't needyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >> >>>>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huscar, in the >> >>>>>> War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this >> >>>>>> was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest >> >>>>>> navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >> >>>>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or >> >>>>>> less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing >> >>>>>> ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine >> >>>>>> into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't >> >>>>>> need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship> >> >>>>>>>> commanded by Galvarino Riveros Crdenas (first cousin five times> >> >>>>>>>> removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to >> >>>>>> imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, webe useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a >> >>>>>> very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure >> >>>>>> all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped >> >>>>>> the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,> >> >>>>>> including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion >> >>>>>> in> addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could >> >>>> do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better
explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a
designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >> >>>>>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known
to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't
illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
themselves *while conserving advantages and discarding
disadvantages in each generation, with no influence other
than by the nonsentient environment*.
I think that there's a tendency to neglect what might be a more important >characteristic. That is the heavy constraint to have subsequent versions >"inherit" most of the characteristics of the prior "generation".
That is the greatest repudiation of designer based intervention.
Actual design intervention can make radical changes. It can import
brand new components. It can steal from other lineages. If there
were intelligent designers involved in the history of life on Earth,
they were operating with some crazy and nonsensical constraints
against creating chimeras.
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at >>>>>>>> 3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09 >>>>>>>> 20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple> >>>>>>>>>>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at >>>>>>>> one> >>> and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >>>>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These >>>>>>>> vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys, >>>>>>>> the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines >>>>>>>> pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway >>>>>>>> to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without >>>>>>>> bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think >>>>>>>> of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider >>>>>>>> this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >> >>>>>>>> British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few> >>>>>>>>>> years virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >>>>>>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this >>>>>>>> was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest >>>>>>>> navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >>>>>>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or >>>>>>>> less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the >>>>>>>> only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing >>>>>>>> ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine >>>>>>>> into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing >>>>>>>> the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't >>>>>>>> need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a >>>>>>>> very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >>>>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure >>>>>>>> all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >>>>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the samecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times> >>>>>>>>>> removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads >>>>>>>> to> >> be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to >>>>>>>> imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped >>>>>>>> the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the >>>>>>>> way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,> >>>>>>>> including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >>>>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion >>>>>>>> in> addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the >>>>>> points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could >>>>>> do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >>>>>>>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they >>>>> can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even >>>>> if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of >>>>> relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to >>>>> plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous >>>>> to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can >>>>> get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking >>>>> fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW >>>>> the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known
to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't
illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years.
was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain
who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several
decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the
Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build
such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the
worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent
movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials or construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism is
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show
that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >>>>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when thisyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >>>>>>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >>>>>>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, wecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >>>>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >>>>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >>>>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the >>>>>> points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could >>>>>> do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they >>>>> can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even >>>>> if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can >>>>> usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of >>>>> relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to >>>>> plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep >>>>> those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous >>>>> to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can >>>>> get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking >>>>> fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW >>>>> the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather >>>> it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known >>> to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't
illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years.
was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain
who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several
decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the
Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build
such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the >> worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent
movements of planets in the solar system.
...Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
Designed by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
What
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials or construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
The fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another
more advanced civilization that we know nothing about. >
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism is
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show
that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
Ok, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antithetical device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms.
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning.
My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_ explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points
to a designer.
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals
refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the "illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of
the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 12:25:12?AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:No matter what you might see on Ancient Aliens or The History Channel, the Antikythera mechanism is not some unbelievable outlier in the ancient world.
jillery wrote:...
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09 >> >>>>>>>> 20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. Thesevital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >> >>>>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >> >>>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when thisyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >> >>>>>>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >> >>>>>>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible tocommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >> >>>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >> >>>>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >> >>>>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >> >>>>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >> >>>>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the >> >>>>>> points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could >> >>>>>> do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better
explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >> >>>>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even >> >>>>> if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of >> >>>>> relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to >> >>>>> plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can >> >>>>> get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking >> >>>>> fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW >> >>>>> the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known >> >>> to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't
illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years.
was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain
who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several
decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the
Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build
such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the >> >> worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent
movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
Designed by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
You keep saying this, even though others have pointed out to you that there are descriptions of similar orrerys designed by Archimedes and by a friend of Cicero from the 2nd century BCE. Hellenistic Greek and Roman engineering were quite sophisticated.
daddy in the sky and therefore dismiss both the evidence for evolution and the utter lack of evidence for a designer. Once you start making it personal by attacking the other fellow's motives, you've given up.Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
What
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials orThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the >> antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another
more advanced civilization that we know nothing about. >
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism isOk, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show
that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antithetical
device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms.
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning.
My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_
explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points
to a designer.
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals
refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they
attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the
"illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of
the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm >> or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot >> be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in
existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology.
Now you are back to arguing based on people's inferred motives. You can do that if you like; it seems you cannot help yourself. But it's a useless argument, since the other side can just say that you are motivated by an infantile desire to have a big
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09 >>>>>>>>> 20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple> >>>>>>>>>>>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestinesand the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >>>>>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These >>>>>>>>> vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without >>>>>>>>> bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think >>>>>>>>> of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider >>>>>>>>> this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this >>>>>>>>> was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest >>>>>>>>> navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >>>>>>>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or >>>>>>>>> less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the >>>>>>>>> only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing >>>>>>>>> ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine >>>>>>>>> into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventingyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >>>>>>>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't >>>>>>>>> need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a >>>>>>>>> very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >>>>>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure >>>>>>>>> all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >>>>>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the samecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to >>>>>>>>> imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped >>>>>>>>> the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,> >>>>>>>>> including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >>>>>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion >>>>>>>>> in> addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the >>>>>>> points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could >>>>>>> do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >>>>>>>>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they >>>>>> can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even >>>>>> if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can >>>>>> usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of >>>>>> relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to >>>>>> plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous >>>>>> to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can >>>>>> get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking >>>>>> fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW >>>>>> the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather >>>>> it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known >>>> to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't
illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years.
was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain
who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several
decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the
Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build
such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the
worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent
movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
Designed by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of >sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
What
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials or
construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
The fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the >antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another
more advanced civilization that we know nothing about. >
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism is
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show
that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
Ok, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antithetical >device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms.
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning.
My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_ >explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points
to a designer.
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals
refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they >attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the
"illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of
the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm
or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot
be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in >existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology.
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >>>>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when thisyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >>>>>>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >>>>>>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, wecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >>>>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >>>>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >>>>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the >>>>>> points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could >>>>>> do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they >>>>> can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even >>>>> if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can >>>>> usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of >>>>> relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to >>>>> plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep >>>>> those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous >>>>> to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can >>>>> get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking >>>>> fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW >>>>> the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather >>>> it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known >>> to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't
illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years.
was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain
who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several
decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the
Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build
such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the >> worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent
movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
Designed by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
What
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials or construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
The fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another
more advanced civilization that we know nothing about. >
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism is
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show
that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
Ok, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antithetical device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms.
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning.
My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_ explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points
to a designer.
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals
refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the "illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of
the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:24:30 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron DeanDesigned by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection >>>>>> that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather >>>>>> it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple> >>>>>>>>>>>>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestinesand the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >>>>>>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These >>>>>>>>>> vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without >>>>>>>>>> bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider >>>>>>>>>> this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this >>>>>>>>>> was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest >>>>>>>>>> navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >>>>>>>>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more oryears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >>>>>>>>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing >>>>>>>>>> ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't >>>>>>>>>> need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not acommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to >>>>>>>>>> imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >>>>>>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >>>>>>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,> >>>>>>>>>> including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >>>>>>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the >>>>>>>> points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could >>>>>>>> do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >>>>>>>>>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly >>>>>>> analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they >>>>>>> can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even >>>>>>> if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can >>>>>>> usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of >>>>>>> relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam >>>>>>> engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to >>>>>>> plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep >>>>>>> those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous >>>>>>> to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can >>>>>>> get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking >>>>>>> fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW >>>>>>> the advantage depends on the environment.
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known >>>>> to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't
illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years. >>>> was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain
who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several
decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the
Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build
such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the >>>> worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent
movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
WRT your first question: We arrive at this conclusion because we
recognize the features and characteristics of human manufacture,
exactly the same way you infer human manufacture of the things you use
every day, including the very computer you use to send your posts to
T.O.
WRT your second question: Of course it could be of extraterrestrial
origin, just as it could be from the future and was transported by
some time traveler, just as it could be of supernatural origin. To
rule out these "coulds" would be to prove a negative, a futile
exercise. We have no examples of these "coulds" to compare, while we
do have many examples of human manufacture. There is nothing about
the antikythera mechanism to suggest these "coulds" other than its sophisticated principles.
So you can let your imagination run wild and believe all kinds of
"coulds". Or you can acknowledge the less interesting but more likely conclusion that the antikythera mechanism illustrates the genius of an unknown ancient savant.
What
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials orThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the >> antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another
more advanced civilization that we know nothing about. >
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism isOk, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show
that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antikytera
device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms.
Once again, your question requires to prove a negative. Once again,
we don't observe naturalistic processes that construct gears out of
metal, while we daily use such objects of human manufacture every day.
Once again, the more likely answer is not found by imagining "coulds".
IIUC your argument above raises an analogy that human manufacture
illustrates design, and so design implies purposeful intelligence.
Once again, that argument conveniently ignores the fact that design
doesn't require purpose but does require function and pattern, and we
observe unguided natural processes performing functions and creating
patterns every day.
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning.
My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_
explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points
to a designer.
You have _not_ shown purposeful design is the _better_ explanation.
You just assert it. You argue design, but fail to show that design
requires purpose, while you conveniently _ignore_ all of the unguided
natural designs which surround you.
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals
refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they
attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the
"illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of
the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm >> or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot >> be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in
existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology.
Nobody, including Dawkins, needs to prove God doesn't exist, a
negative claim. OTOH if you claim that your designer is God, then you
need to prove God does exist, a positive claim. Not sure how you
still don't understand the difference.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Hillery wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:24:30 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron DeanDesigned by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection >>>>>> that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather >>>>>> it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which >>>>>> more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. Thesevital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in theyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, wecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a
designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly >>>>>>> analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they >>>>>>> can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even >>>>>>> if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can >>>>>>> usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam >>>>>>> engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to >>>>>>> plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep >>>>>>> those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast >>>>>>> distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous >>>>>>> to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can >>>>>>> get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking >>>>>>> fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known >>>>> to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't >>>>> illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years. >>>> was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain >>>> who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several >>>> decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the >>>> Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build >>>> such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the >>>> worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent >>>> movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
WRT your first question: We arrive at this conclusion because we
recognize the features and characteristics of human manufacture,
exactly the same way you infer human manufacture of the things you use every day, including the very computer you use to send your posts to
T.O.
WRT your second question: Of course it could be of extraterrestrial origin, just as it could be from the future and was transported by
some time traveler, just as it could be of supernatural origin. To
rule out these "coulds" would be to prove a negative, a futile
exercise. We have no examples of these "coulds" to compare, while we
do have many examples of human manufacture. There is nothing about
the antikythera mechanism to suggest these "coulds" other than its sophisticated principles.
So you can let your imagination run wild and believe all kinds of "coulds". Or you can acknowledge the less interesting but more likely conclusion that the antikythera mechanism illustrates the genius of an unknown ancient savant.
Not for another 1500 years was there a savant capable of devising an equal mechanism of the same technological sophistication. So, what it comes down to is there is no known alternative possibility, so it had to be some ancient
ingenuous human being.
What
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials orThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the
construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another >> more advanced civilization that we know nothing about. >
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism isOk, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show
that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antikytera
device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms.
Once again, your question requires to prove a negative. Once again,
we don't observe naturalistic processes that construct gears out of
metal, while we daily use such objects of human manufacture every day. Once again, the more likely answer is not found by imagining "coulds".
Modern man, yes we do see him constructing gears out of metal. But, we
do not see ancient humans cutting and fitting gears together. Furthermore, no one knows how it was done with the known tooling of the period.
IIUC your argument above raises an analogy that human manufacture illustrates design, and so design implies purposeful intelligence.
Once again, that argument conveniently ignores the fact that design doesn't require purpose but does require function and pattern, and we observe unguided natural processes performing functions and creating patterns every day.
Highly complex functions, apart from living organisms - we do not! We see snow flakes and crystals. But this is building up on specific, consistent unwavering and changeless patterns.
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning. >>>
My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_ >> explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points >> to a designer.
You have _not_ shown purposeful design is the _better_ explanation.
You just assert it. You argue design, but fail to show that design requires purpose, while you conveniently _ignore_ all of the unguided natural designs which surround you.
In reality all life is governed, piloted and controlled by highly
ordered and
complex information (DNA) which guides the formation of highly complex multi-level interdependent stages of complicity as in living reproducing organisms. And as far as we know, such information comes only from mind. There is no known exceptions.
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals
refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they >> attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the
"illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of >> the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm
or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot
be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in >> existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology.
Nobody, including Dawkins, needs to prove God doesn't exist, a
negative claim. OTOH if you claim that your designer is God, then you
need to prove God does exist, a positive claim. Not sure how you
still don't understand the difference.
Where did you get the idea that Dawkins needed to _prove_that God
doesn't exist? Not from me, I've maintained, all along, that proof is impossible.
I've acknowledged over ad over repeatedly one can believe or not believe, but one can never know. While I'm convinced that there is evidence of
design hence a designed - God. Evidence is _not_ proof. Proof is
impossible.
I might be thick headed, but you are too! You fail to understand there's a difference between evidence and proof, or else you refuse to see a difference.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 4:05:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Hillery wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:24:30 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron DeanDesigned by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we >> arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection >>>>>> that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans provingvital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in theyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible tocommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a
designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly >>>>>>> analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam >>>>>>> engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep >>>>>>> those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast >>>>>>> distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which >>>>>> more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships. >>>>>
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known
to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently >>>>> ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't >>>>> illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true >>> but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated >>>> or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years.
was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain >>>> who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several >>>> decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the >>>> Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build >>>> such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the
worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent >>>> movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you >>> say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
WRT your first question: We arrive at this conclusion because we recognize the features and characteristics of human manufacture,
exactly the same way you infer human manufacture of the things you use every day, including the very computer you use to send your posts to T.O.
WRT your second question: Of course it could be of extraterrestrial origin, just as it could be from the future and was transported by
some time traveler, just as it could be of supernatural origin. To
rule out these "coulds" would be to prove a negative, a futile
exercise. We have no examples of these "coulds" to compare, while we
do have many examples of human manufacture. There is nothing about
the antikythera mechanism to suggest these "coulds" other than its sophisticated principles.
So you can let your imagination run wild and believe all kinds of "coulds". Or you can acknowledge the less interesting but more likely conclusion that the antikythera mechanism illustrates the genius of an unknown ancient savant.
Not for another 1500 years was there a savant capable of devising an equal mechanism of the same technological sophistication. So, what it comes down to is there is no known alternative possibility, so it had to be some ancientThere you go again. Similar devices were described within the first two centuries BCE.
ingenuous human being.
before making such broad and incorrect generalizations.What
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials orThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the
construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another >> more advanced civilization that we know nothing about. >
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism isOk, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show
that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antikytera
device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms.
Once again, your question requires to prove a negative. Once again,
we don't observe naturalistic processes that construct gears out of metal, while we daily use such objects of human manufacture every day. Once again, the more likely answer is not found by imagining "coulds".
Modern man, yes we do see him constructing gears out of metal. But, weYou may have read that somewhere, or it just may seem obvious to you, but it is false. The Greeks and Romans both made metal gears, some for large equipment, some for more delicate things like water clocks. You could read up on Graeco-Roman engineering
do not see ancient humans cutting and fitting gears together. Furthermore, no one knows how it was done with the known tooling of the period.
IIUC your argument above raises an analogy that human manufacture illustrates design, and so design implies purposeful intelligence.
Once again, that argument conveniently ignores the fact that design doesn't require purpose but does require function and pattern, and we observe unguided natural processes performing functions and creating patterns every day.
Highly complex functions, apart from living organisms - we do not! We see snow flakes and crystals. But this is building up on specific, consistent unwavering and changeless patterns.We also do not see designers creating life from scratch. We know of no designer who could do such a thing.
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning. >>>
My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_
explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points
to a designer.
You have _not_ shown purposeful design is the _better_ explanation.
You just assert it. You argue design, but fail to show that design requires purpose, while you conveniently _ignore_ all of the unguided natural designs which surround you.
In reality all life is governed, piloted and controlled by highly
ordered and
complex information (DNA) which guides the formation of highly complex multi-level interdependent stages of complicity as in living reproducing organisms. And as far as we know, such information comes only from mind. There is no known exceptions.
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals >> refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they
attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the
"illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of >> the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm
or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot
be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in
existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology.
copying or modifying existing organisms) before you can claim there is evidence that living things are designed.Nobody, including Dawkins, needs to prove God doesn't exist, a
negative claim. OTOH if you claim that your designer is God, then you need to prove God does exist, a positive claim. Not sure how you
still don't understand the difference.
Where did you get the idea that Dawkins needed to _prove_that GodAs you constantly say, design requires a designer. Therefore there can be no evidence for design without some independent evidence for a designer. You need to find evidence of designers who build organisms from scratch (not, like Craig Venter, by
doesn't exist? Not from me, I've maintained, all along, that proof is impossible.
I've acknowledged over ad over repeatedly one can believe or not believe, but one can never know. While I'm convinced that there is evidence of design hence a designed - God. Evidence is _not_ proof. Proof is impossible.
I might be thick headed, but you are too! You fail to understand there's a difference between evidence and proof, or else you refuse to see a difference.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09 >>>>>>>>> 20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple> >>>>>>>>>>>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestinesand the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >>>>>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These >>>>>>>>> vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without >>>>>>>>> bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think >>>>>>>>> of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider >>>>>>>>> this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this >>>>>>>>> was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest >>>>>>>>> navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >>>>>>>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or >>>>>>>>> less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the >>>>>>>>> only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing >>>>>>>>> ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine >>>>>>>>> into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventingyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >>>>>>>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't >>>>>>>>> need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a >>>>>>>>> very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >>>>>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure >>>>>>>>> all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >>>>>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the samecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to >>>>>>>>> imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped >>>>>>>>> the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,> >>>>>>>>> including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >>>>>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion >>>>>>>>> in> addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the >>>>>>> points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could >>>>>>> do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >>>>>>>>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they >>>>>> can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even >>>>>> if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can >>>>>> usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of >>>>>> relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to >>>>>> plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous >>>>>> to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can >>>>>> get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking >>>>>> fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW >>>>>> the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather >>>>> it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known >>>> to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't
illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years.
was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain
who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several
decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the
Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build
such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the
worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent
movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
Designed by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
What
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials or
construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
The fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the >antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another
more advanced civilization that we know nothing about. >
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism is
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show
that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
Ok, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antithetical >device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms.
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning.
My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_ >explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points
to a designer.
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals
refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they >attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the
"illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of
the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm
or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot
be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in >existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 12:25:12 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:No matter what you might see on Ancient Aliens or The History Channel, the Antikythera mechanism is not some unbelievable outlier in the ancient world.
jillery wrote:...
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection >>>>>> that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather >>>>>> it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple> >>>>>>>>>>>>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestinesand the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >>>>>>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These >>>>>>>>>> vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without >>>>>>>>>> bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider >>>>>>>>>> this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this >>>>>>>>>> was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest >>>>>>>>>> navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >>>>>>>>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more oryears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >>>>>>>>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing >>>>>>>>>> ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't >>>>>>>>>> need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not acommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to >>>>>>>>>> imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >>>>>>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >>>>>>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,> >>>>>>>>>> including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >>>>>>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the >>>>>>>> points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could >>>>>>>> do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >>>>>>>>>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly >>>>>>> analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they >>>>>>> can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even >>>>>>> if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can >>>>>>> usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of >>>>>>> relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to >>>>>>> plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep >>>>>>> those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous >>>>>>> to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can >>>>>>> get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking >>>>>>> fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW >>>>>>> the advantage depends on the environment.
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known >>>>> to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't
illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years. >>>> was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain
who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several
decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the
Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build
such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the >>>> worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent
movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
Designed by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
You keep saying this, even though others have pointed out to you that there are descriptions of similar orrerys designed by Archimedes and by a friend of Cicero from the 2nd century BCE. Hellenistic Greek and Roman engineering were quite sophisticated.
daddy in the sky and therefore dismiss both the evidence for evolution and the utter lack of evidence for a designer. Once you start making it personal by attacking the other fellow's motives, you've given up.Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
What
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials orThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the >> antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another
more advanced civilization that we know nothing about. >
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism isOk, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show
that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antithetical
device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms. >>>
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning.
My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_
explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points
to a designer.
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals
refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they
attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the
"illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of
the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm >> or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot >> be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in
existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology.
Now you are back to arguing based on people's inferred motives. You can do that if you like; it seems you cannot help yourself. But it's a useless argument, since the other side can just say that you are motivated by an infantile desire to have a big
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Hillery wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:24:30 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron DeanDesigned by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection >>>>>> that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather >>>>>> it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which >>>>>> more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. Thesevital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in theyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, wecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a
designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly >>>>>>> analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they >>>>>>> can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even >>>>>>> if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can >>>>>>> usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam >>>>>>> engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to >>>>>>> plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep >>>>>>> those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast >>>>>>> distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous >>>>>>> to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can >>>>>>> get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking >>>>>>> fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known >>>>> to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't >>>>> illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years. >>>> was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain >>>> who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several >>>> decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the >>>> Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build >>>> such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the >>>> worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent >>>> movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
WRT your first question: We arrive at this conclusion because we
recognize the features and characteristics of human manufacture,
exactly the same way you infer human manufacture of the things you use every day, including the very computer you use to send your posts to
T.O.
WRT your second question: Of course it could be of extraterrestrial origin, just as it could be from the future and was transported by
some time traveler, just as it could be of supernatural origin. To
rule out these "coulds" would be to prove a negative, a futile
exercise. We have no examples of these "coulds" to compare, while we
do have many examples of human manufacture. There is nothing about
the antikythera mechanism to suggest these "coulds" other than its sophisticated principles.
So you can let your imagination run wild and believe all kinds of "coulds". Or you can acknowledge the less interesting but more likely conclusion that the antikythera mechanism illustrates the genius of an unknown ancient savant.
Not for another 1500 years was there a savant capable of devising an equal mechanism of the same technological sophistication. So, what it comes down to is there is no known alternative possibility, so it had to be some ancient
ingenuous human being.
What
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials orThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the
construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another >> more advanced civilization that we know nothing about. >
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism isOk, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show
that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antikytera
device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms.
Once again, your question requires to prove a negative. Once again,
we don't observe naturalistic processes that construct gears out of
metal, while we daily use such objects of human manufacture every day. Once again, the more likely answer is not found by imagining "coulds".
Modern man, yes we do see him constructing gears out of metal. But, we
do not see ancient humans cutting and fitting gears together. Furthermore, no one knows how it was done with the known tooling of the period.
IIUC your argument above raises an analogy that human manufacture illustrates design, and so design implies purposeful intelligence.
Once again, that argument conveniently ignores the fact that design doesn't require purpose but does require function and pattern, and we observe unguided natural processes performing functions and creating patterns every day.
Highly complex functions, apart from living organisms - we do not! We see snow flakes and crystals. But this is building up on specific, consistent unwavering and changeless patterns.
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning. >>>
My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_ >> explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points >> to a designer.
You have _not_ shown purposeful design is the _better_ explanation.
You just assert it. You argue design, but fail to show that design requires purpose, while you conveniently _ignore_ all of the unguided natural designs which surround you.
In reality all life is governed, piloted and controlled by highly
ordered and
complex information (DNA) which guides the formation of highly complex multi-level interdependent stages of complicity as in living reproducing organisms. And as far as we know, such information comes only from mind. There is no known exceptions.
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals
refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they >> attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the
"illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of >> the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm
or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot
be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in >> existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology.
Nobody, including Dawkins, needs to prove God doesn't exist, a
negative claim. OTOH if you claim that your designer is God, then you
need to prove God does exist, a positive claim. Not sure how you
still don't understand the difference.
Where did you get the idea that Dawkins needed to _prove_that God
doesn't exist? Not from me, I've maintained, all along, that proof is impossible.
I've acknowledged over ad over repeatedly one can believe or not believe, but one can never know. While I'm convinced that there is evidence of
design hence a designed - God. Evidence is _not_ proof. Proof is
impossible.
I might be thick headed, but you are too! You fail to understand there's a difference between evidence and proof, or else you refuse to see a difference.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 4:05:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Hillery wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:24:30 -0400, Ron DeanNot for another 1500 years was there a savant capable of devising an equal >> mechanism of the same technological sophistication. So, what it comes down >> to is there is no known alternative possibility, so it had to be some
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron DeanDesigned by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection >>>>>>>> that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather >>>>>>>> it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which >>>>>>>> more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships. >>>>>>>
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >>>>>>>>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>>>>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>>>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in theyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>>>>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, wecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>>>>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>>>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >>>>>>>>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>>>>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >>>>>>>>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>>>>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >>>>>>>>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the >>>>>>>>>> points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly >>>>>>>>> analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they >>>>>>>>> can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even >>>>>>>>> if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can >>>>>>>>> usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of >>>>>>>>> relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam >>>>>>>>> engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to >>>>>>>>> plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep >>>>>>>>> those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast >>>>>>>>> distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous >>>>>>>>> to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>>>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can >>>>>>>>> get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking >>>>>>>>> fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW >>>>>>>>> the advantage depends on the environment.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known >>>>>>> to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't >>>>>>> illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true >>>>> but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated >>>>>> or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years. >>>>>> was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain >>>>>> who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several >>>>>> decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the >>>>>> Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build >>>>>> such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the >>>>>> worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent >>>>>> movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you >>>>> say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
WRT your first question: We arrive at this conclusion because we
recognize the features and characteristics of human manufacture,
exactly the same way you infer human manufacture of the things you use
every day, including the very computer you use to send your posts to
T.O.
WRT your second question: Of course it could be of extraterrestrial
origin, just as it could be from the future and was transported by
some time traveler, just as it could be of supernatural origin. To
rule out these "coulds" would be to prove a negative, a futile
exercise. We have no examples of these "coulds" to compare, while we
do have many examples of human manufacture. There is nothing about
the antikythera mechanism to suggest these "coulds" other than its
sophisticated principles.
So you can let your imagination run wild and believe all kinds of
"coulds". Or you can acknowledge the less interesting but more likely
conclusion that the antikythera mechanism illustrates the genius of an
unknown ancient savant.
ancient
ingenuous human being.
There you go again. Similar devices were described within the first two centuries BCE.
before making such broad and incorrect generalizations.Modern man, yes we do see him constructing gears out of metal. But, we
WhatOnce again, your question requires to prove a negative. Once again,
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials orThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the >>>> antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another >>>> more advanced civilization that we know nothing about. >
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism isOk, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show
that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antikytera
device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms. >>>
we don't observe naturalistic processes that construct gears out of
metal, while we daily use such objects of human manufacture every day.
Once again, the more likely answer is not found by imagining "coulds".
do not see ancient humans cutting and fitting gears together. Furthermore, >> no one knows how it was done with the known tooling of the period.
You may have read that somewhere, or it just may seem obvious to you, but it is false. The Greeks and Romans both made metal gears, some for large equipment, some for more delicate things like water clocks. You could read up on Graeco-Roman engineering
copying or modifying existing organisms) before you can claim there is evidence that living things are designed.Highly complex functions, apart from living organisms - we do not! We see
IIUC your argument above raises an analogy that human manufacture
illustrates design, and so design implies purposeful intelligence.
Once again, that argument conveniently ignores the fact that design
doesn't require purpose but does require function and pattern, and we
observe unguided natural processes performing functions and creating
patterns every day.
snow flakes and crystals. But this is building up on specific, consistent
unwavering and changeless patterns.
We also do not see designers creating life from scratch. We know of no designer who could do such a thing.
In reality all life is governed, piloted and controlled by highly
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning. >>>>>
My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_ >>>> explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points >>>> to a designer.
You have _not_ shown purposeful design is the _better_ explanation.
You just assert it. You argue design, but fail to show that design
requires purpose, while you conveniently _ignore_ all of the unguided
natural designs which surround you.
ordered and
complex information (DNA) which guides the formation of highly complex
multi-level interdependent stages of complicity as in living reproducing
organisms. And as far as we know, such information comes only from mind.
There is no known exceptions.
Where did you get the idea that Dawkins needed to _prove_that God
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals
refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they >>>> attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the
"illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of >>>> the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm >>>> or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot >>>> be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in >>>> existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology. >>>
Nobody, including Dawkins, needs to prove God doesn't exist, a
negative claim. OTOH if you claim that your designer is God, then you
need to prove God does exist, a positive claim. Not sure how you
still don't understand the difference.
doesn't exist? Not from me, I've maintained, all along, that proof is
impossible.
I've acknowledged over ad over repeatedly one can believe or not believe,
but one can never know. While I'm convinced that there is evidence of
design hence a designed - God. Evidence is _not_ proof. Proof is
impossible.
I might be thick headed, but you are too! You fail to understand there's a >> difference between evidence and proof, or else you refuse to see a
difference.
As you constantly say, design requires a designer. Therefore there can be no evidence for design without some independent evidence for a designer. You need to find evidence of designers who build organisms from scratch (not, like Craig Venter, by
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
broger...@gmail.com wrote:sophisticated. No matter what you might see on Ancient Aliens or The History Channel, the Antikythera mechanism is not some unbelievable outlier in the ancient world.
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 12:25:12 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:...
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection >>>>>> that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather >>>>>> it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which >>>>>> more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. Thesevital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in theyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, wecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a
designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly >>>>>>> analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they >>>>>>> can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even >>>>>>> if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can >>>>>>> usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam >>>>>>> engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to >>>>>>> plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep >>>>>>> those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast >>>>>>> distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous >>>>>>> to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can >>>>>>> get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking >>>>>>> fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known >>>>> to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't >>>>> illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years. >>>> was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain >>>> who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several >>>> decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the >>>> Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build >>>> such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the >>>> worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent >>>> movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
Designed by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
You keep saying this, even though others have pointed out to you that there are descriptions of similar orrerys designed by Archimedes and by a friend of Cicero from the 2nd century BCE. Hellenistic Greek and Roman engineering were quite
It's easy to make such claims, but demonstrating this claims is another matter.daddy in the sky and therefore dismiss both the evidence for evolution and the utter lack of evidence for a designer. Once you start making it personal by attacking the other fellow's motives, you've given up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqlJ50zDgeA
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
What
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials orThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the
construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another >> more advanced civilization that we know nothing about. >
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism isOk, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show
that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antithetical
device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms. >>>
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning. >>>
My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_ >> explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points >> to a designer.
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals
refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they >> attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the
"illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of >> the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm
or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot
be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in >> existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology.
Now you are back to arguing based on people's inferred motives. You can do that if you like; it seems you cannot help yourself. But it's a useless argument, since the other side can just say that you are motivated by an infantile desire to have a big
Nonsense! What I wrote is obvious. I have no such desires, I just go wherever the evidence
I observe leads me.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 4:05:13?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Hillery wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:24:30 -0400, Ron DeanNot for another 1500 years was there a savant capable of devising an equal >>> mechanism of the same technological sophistication. So, what it comes down >>> to is there is no known alternative possibility, so it had to be some
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron DeanDesigned by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we >>>>> arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection >>>>>>>>> that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather >>>>>>>>> it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which >>>>>>>>> more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships. >>>>>>>>
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>>>>>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. Thesevital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>>>>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in theyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>>>>>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, wecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>>>>>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>>>>>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>>>>>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a
designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly >>>>>>>>>> analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they >>>>>>>>>> can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even >>>>>>>>>> if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can >>>>>>>>>> usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam >>>>>>>>>> engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to >>>>>>>>>> plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep >>>>>>>>>> those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast >>>>>>>>>> distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous >>>>>>>>>> to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>>>>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can >>>>>>>>>> get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking >>>>>>>>>> fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known >>>>>>>> to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently >>>>>>>> ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't >>>>>>>> illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true >>>>>> but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated >>>>>>> or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years. >>>>>>> was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain >>>>>>> who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several >>>>>>> decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the >>>>>>> Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build >>>>>>> such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the >>>>>>> worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent >>>>>>> movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you >>>>>> don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you >>>>>> say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
WRT your first question: We arrive at this conclusion because we
recognize the features and characteristics of human manufacture,
exactly the same way you infer human manufacture of the things you use >>>> every day, including the very computer you use to send your posts to
T.O.
WRT your second question: Of course it could be of extraterrestrial
origin, just as it could be from the future and was transported by
some time traveler, just as it could be of supernatural origin. To
rule out these "coulds" would be to prove a negative, a futile
exercise. We have no examples of these "coulds" to compare, while we
do have many examples of human manufacture. There is nothing about
the antikythera mechanism to suggest these "coulds" other than its
sophisticated principles.
So you can let your imagination run wild and believe all kinds of
"coulds". Or you can acknowledge the less interesting but more likely
conclusion that the antikythera mechanism illustrates the genius of an >>>> unknown ancient savant.
ancient
ingenuous human being.
There you go again. Similar devices were described within the first two centuries BCE.
So, you say!
engineering before making such broad and incorrect generalizations.Modern man, yes we do see him constructing gears out of metal. But, we
WhatOnce again, your question requires to prove a negative. Once again,
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials or >>>>>> construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond >>>>>> what is observed from other artifacts of that era.The fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the
antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another >>>>> more advanced civilization that we know nothing about. >
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism isOk, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show >>>>>> that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antikytera >>>>> device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms. >>>>
we don't observe naturalistic processes that construct gears out of
metal, while we daily use such objects of human manufacture every day. >>>> Once again, the more likely answer is not found by imagining "coulds". >>>>
do not see ancient humans cutting and fitting gears together. Furthermore, >>> no one knows how it was done with the known tooling of the period.
You may have read that somewhere, or it just may seem obvious to you, but it is false. The Greeks and Romans both made metal gears, some for large equipment, some for more delicate things like water clocks. You could read up on Graeco-Roman
Here again you make claims. Anybody can do this.copying or modifying existing organisms) before you can claim there is evidence that living things are designed.
Highly complex functions, apart from living organisms - we do not! We see >>> snow flakes and crystals. But this is building up on specific, consistent >>> unwavering and changeless patterns.
IIUC your argument above raises an analogy that human manufacture
illustrates design, and so design implies purposeful intelligence.
Once again, that argument conveniently ignores the fact that design
doesn't require purpose but does require function and pattern, and we
observe unguided natural processes performing functions and creating
patterns every day.
We also do not see designers creating life from scratch. We know of no designer who could do such a thing.
In reality all life is governed, piloted and controlled by highly
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning. >>>>>>
My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_ >>>>> explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points >>>>> to a designer.
You have _not_ shown purposeful design is the _better_ explanation.
You just assert it. You argue design, but fail to show that design
requires purpose, while you conveniently _ignore_ all of the unguided
natural designs which surround you.
ordered and
complex information (DNA) which guides the formation of highly complex
multi-level interdependent stages of complicity as in living reproducing >>> organisms. And as far as we know, such information comes only from mind. >>> There is no known exceptions.
Where did you get the idea that Dawkins needed to _prove_that God
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals >>>>> refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they >>>>> attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the
"illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of >>>>> the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm
or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot
be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in >>>>> existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology. >>>>
Nobody, including Dawkins, needs to prove God doesn't exist, a
negative claim. OTOH if you claim that your designer is God, then you
need to prove God does exist, a positive claim. Not sure how you
still don't understand the difference.
doesn't exist? Not from me, I've maintained, all along, that proof is
impossible.
I've acknowledged over ad over repeatedly one can believe or not believe, >>> but one can never know. While I'm convinced that there is evidence of
design hence a designed - God. Evidence is _not_ proof. Proof is
impossible.
I might be thick headed, but you are too! You fail to understand there's a >>> difference between evidence and proof, or else you refuse to see a
difference.
As you constantly say, design requires a designer. Therefore there can be no evidence for design without some independent evidence for a designer. You need to find evidence of designers who build organisms from scratch (not, like Craig Venter, by
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 18:15:22 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com>engineering before making such broad and incorrect generalizations.
wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 4:05:13?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Hillery wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:24:30 -0400, Ron DeanNot for another 1500 years was there a savant capable of devising an equal
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron DeanDesigned by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we >>>>> arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden >>>>>>>>>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:And other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection >>>>>>>>> that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans provingvital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in theyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible tocommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a
designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly >>>>>>>>>> analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam >>>>>>>>>> engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep >>>>>>>>>> those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast >>>>>>>>>> distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which >>>>>>>>> more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships. >>>>>>>>
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known
to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently >>>>>>>> ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't >>>>>>>> illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true >>>>>> but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated >>>>>>> or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years.
was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain >>>>>>> who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several >>>>>>> decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the >>>>>>> Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build
such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the
worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent >>>>>>> movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you >>>>>> don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you >>>>>> say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years? >>>>> Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
WRT your first question: We arrive at this conclusion because we
recognize the features and characteristics of human manufacture,
exactly the same way you infer human manufacture of the things you use >>>> every day, including the very computer you use to send your posts to >>>> T.O.
WRT your second question: Of course it could be of extraterrestrial >>>> origin, just as it could be from the future and was transported by
some time traveler, just as it could be of supernatural origin. To
rule out these "coulds" would be to prove a negative, a futile
exercise. We have no examples of these "coulds" to compare, while we >>>> do have many examples of human manufacture. There is nothing about
the antikythera mechanism to suggest these "coulds" other than its
sophisticated principles.
So you can let your imagination run wild and believe all kinds of
"coulds". Or you can acknowledge the less interesting but more likely >>>> conclusion that the antikythera mechanism illustrates the genius of an >>>> unknown ancient savant.
mechanism of the same technological sophistication. So, what it comes down
to is there is no known alternative possibility, so it had to be some >>> ancient
ingenuous human being.
There you go again. Similar devices were described within the first two centuries BCE.
So, you say!https://www.gutenberg.org/files/54161/54161-h/54161-h.htm
The link above will take you to a translation of a work by Cicero. It's
long but if you just search for "I shall" you should see his description of a similar device
Modern man, yes we do see him constructing gears out of metal. But, we >>> do not see ancient humans cutting and fitting gears together. Furthermore,
What
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials or >>>>>> construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond >>>>>> what is observed from other artifacts of that era.The fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the
antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another
more advanced civilization that we know nothing about. >
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism is >>>>>> designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show >>>>>> that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.Ok, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antikytera >>>>> device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms.
Once again, your question requires to prove a negative. Once again, >>>> we don't observe naturalistic processes that construct gears out of >>>> metal, while we daily use such objects of human manufacture every day. >>>> Once again, the more likely answer is not found by imagining "coulds". >>>>
no one knows how it was done with the known tooling of the period.
You may have read that somewhere, or it just may seem obvious to you, but it is false. The Greeks and Romans both made metal gears, some for large equipment, some for more delicate things like water clocks. You could read up on Graeco-Roman
copying or modifying existing organisms) before you can claim there is evidenceHere again you make claims. Anybody can do this.
Highly complex functions, apart from living organisms - we do not! We see
IIUC your argument above raises an analogy that human manufacture
illustrates design, and so design implies purposeful intelligence.
Once again, that argument conveniently ignores the fact that design >>>> doesn't require purpose but does require function and pattern, and we >>>> observe unguided natural processes performing functions and creating >>>> patterns every day.
snow flakes and crystals. But this is building up on specific, consistent
unwavering and changeless patterns.
We also do not see designers creating life from scratch. We know of no designer who could do such a thing.
In reality all life is governed, piloted and controlled by highly
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning. >>>>>>
My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_
explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points
to a designer.
You have _not_ shown purposeful design is the _better_ explanation. >>>> You just assert it. You argue design, but fail to show that design
requires purpose, while you conveniently _ignore_ all of the unguided >>>> natural designs which surround you.
ordered and
complex information (DNA) which guides the formation of highly complex >>> multi-level interdependent stages of complicity as in living reproducing >>> organisms. And as far as we know, such information comes only from mind. >>> There is no known exceptions.
Where did you get the idea that Dawkins needed to _prove_that God
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals >>>>> refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they
attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the >>>>> "illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of
the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm
or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot
be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in
existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology.
Nobody, including Dawkins, needs to prove God doesn't exist, a
negative claim. OTOH if you claim that your designer is God, then you >>>> need to prove God does exist, a positive claim. Not sure how you
still don't understand the difference.
doesn't exist? Not from me, I've maintained, all along, that proof is >>> impossible.
I've acknowledged over ad over repeatedly one can believe or not believe,
but one can never know. While I'm convinced that there is evidence of >>> design hence a designed - God. Evidence is _not_ proof. Proof is
impossible.
I might be thick headed, but you are too! You fail to understand there's a
difference between evidence and proof, or else you refuse to see a
difference.
As you constantly say, design requires a designer. Therefore there can be no evidence for design without some independent evidence for a designer. You need to find evidence of designers who build organisms from scratch (not, like Craig Venter, by
that living things are designed.and here two images of the even older Byzantine sundial
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
broger...@gmail.com wrote:sophisticated. No matter what you might see on Ancient Aliens or The History Channel, the Antikythera mechanism is not some unbelievable outlier in the ancient world.
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 12:25:12 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:...
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection >>>>>> that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather >>>>>> it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which >>>>>> more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. Thesevital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in theyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, wecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a
designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly >>>>>>> analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they >>>>>>> can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even >>>>>>> if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can >>>>>>> usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam >>>>>>> engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to >>>>>>> plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep >>>>>>> those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast >>>>>>> distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous >>>>>>> to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can >>>>>>> get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking >>>>>>> fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known >>>>> to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't >>>>> illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years. >>>> was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain >>>> who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several >>>> decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the >>>> Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build >>>> such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the >>>> worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent >>>> movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
Designed by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
You keep saying this, even though others have pointed out to you that there are descriptions of similar orrerys designed by Archimedes and by a friend of Cicero from the 2nd century BCE. Hellenistic Greek and Roman engineering were quite
It's easy to make such claims, but demonstrating this claims is another matter.daddy in the sky and therefore dismiss both the evidence for evolution and the utter lack of evidence for a designer. Once you start making it personal by attacking the other fellow's motives, you've given up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqlJ50zDgeA
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
What
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials orThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the
construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another >> more advanced civilization that we know nothing about. >
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism isOk, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show
that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antithetical
device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms. >>>
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning. >>>
My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_ >> explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points >> to a designer.
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals
refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they >> attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the
"illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of >> the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm
or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot
be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in >> existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology.
Now you are back to arguing based on people's inferred motives. You can do that if you like; it seems you cannot help yourself. But it's a useless argument, since the other side can just say that you are motivated by an infantile desire to have a big
Nonsense! What I wrote is obvious. I have no such desires, I just go wherever the evidence
I observe leads me.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
broger...@gmail.com wrote:engineering before making such broad and incorrect generalizations.
On Thursday, August 24, 2023 at 4:05:13 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Hillery wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:24:30 -0400, Ron DeanNot for another 1500 years was there a savant capable of devising an equal
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron DeanDesigned by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we >>>> arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection >>>>>>>> that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans provingvital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in theyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible tocommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a
designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly >>>>>>>>> analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam >>>>>>>>> engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep >>>>>>>>> those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast >>>>>>>>> distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>>>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which >>>>>>>> more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships. >>>>>>>
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known
to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently >>>>>>> ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't >>>>>>> illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true >>>>> but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated >>>>>> or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years.
was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain >>>>>> who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several >>>>>> decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the >>>>>> Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build >>>>>> such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the
worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent >>>>>> movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you >>>>> don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you >>>>> say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
WRT your first question: We arrive at this conclusion because we
recognize the features and characteristics of human manufacture,
exactly the same way you infer human manufacture of the things you use >>> every day, including the very computer you use to send your posts to
T.O.
WRT your second question: Of course it could be of extraterrestrial
origin, just as it could be from the future and was transported by
some time traveler, just as it could be of supernatural origin. To
rule out these "coulds" would be to prove a negative, a futile
exercise. We have no examples of these "coulds" to compare, while we
do have many examples of human manufacture. There is nothing about
the antikythera mechanism to suggest these "coulds" other than its
sophisticated principles.
So you can let your imagination run wild and believe all kinds of
"coulds". Or you can acknowledge the less interesting but more likely >>> conclusion that the antikythera mechanism illustrates the genius of an >>> unknown ancient savant.
mechanism of the same technological sophistication. So, what it comes down
to is there is no known alternative possibility, so it had to be some
ancient
ingenuous human being.
There you go again. Similar devices were described within the first two centuries BCE.
So, you say!
Modern man, yes we do see him constructing gears out of metal. But, we
What
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials or >>>>> construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond >>>>> what is observed from other artifacts of that era.The fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the
antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another >>>> more advanced civilization that we know nothing about. >
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism isOk, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show >>>>> that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antikytera >>>> device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms.
Once again, your question requires to prove a negative. Once again,
we don't observe naturalistic processes that construct gears out of
metal, while we daily use such objects of human manufacture every day. >>> Once again, the more likely answer is not found by imagining "coulds". >>>
do not see ancient humans cutting and fitting gears together. Furthermore,
no one knows how it was done with the known tooling of the period.
You may have read that somewhere, or it just may seem obvious to you, but it is false. The Greeks and Romans both made metal gears, some for large equipment, some for more delicate things like water clocks. You could read up on Graeco-Roman
Here again you make claims. Anybody can do this.
copying or modifying existing organisms) before you can claim there is evidence that living things are designed.Highly complex functions, apart from living organisms - we do not! We see >> snow flakes and crystals. But this is building up on specific, consistent >> unwavering and changeless patterns.
IIUC your argument above raises an analogy that human manufacture
illustrates design, and so design implies purposeful intelligence.
Once again, that argument conveniently ignores the fact that design
doesn't require purpose but does require function and pattern, and we >>> observe unguided natural processes performing functions and creating
patterns every day.
We also do not see designers creating life from scratch. We know of no designer who could do such a thing.
In reality all life is governed, piloted and controlled by highly
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning. >>>>>
My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_
explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points
to a designer.
You have _not_ shown purposeful design is the _better_ explanation.
You just assert it. You argue design, but fail to show that design
requires purpose, while you conveniently _ignore_ all of the unguided >>> natural designs which surround you.
ordered and
complex information (DNA) which guides the formation of highly complex
multi-level interdependent stages of complicity as in living reproducing >> organisms. And as far as we know, such information comes only from mind. >> There is no known exceptions.
Where did you get the idea that Dawkins needed to _prove_that God
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals >>>> refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they
attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the >>>> "illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of >>>> the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm
or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot
be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in
existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology. >>>
Nobody, including Dawkins, needs to prove God doesn't exist, a
negative claim. OTOH if you claim that your designer is God, then you >>> need to prove God does exist, a positive claim. Not sure how you
still don't understand the difference.
doesn't exist? Not from me, I've maintained, all along, that proof is
impossible.
I've acknowledged over ad over repeatedly one can believe or not believe, >> but one can never know. While I'm convinced that there is evidence of
design hence a designed - God. Evidence is _not_ proof. Proof is
impossible.
I might be thick headed, but you are too! You fail to understand there's a
difference between evidence and proof, or else you refuse to see a
difference.
As you constantly say, design requires a designer. Therefore there can be no evidence for design without some independent evidence for a designer. You need to find evidence of designers who build organisms from scratch (not, like Craig Venter, by
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Hillery wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:24:30 -0400, Ron DeanNot for another 1500 years was there a savant capable of devising an equal >mechanism of the same technological sophistication. So, what it comes down
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron DeanDesigned by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection >>>>>>> that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather >>>>>>> it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which >>>>>>> more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >>>>>>>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>>>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when thisyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >>>>>>>>>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >>>>>>>>>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>>>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, wecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>>>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >>>>>>>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>>>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >>>>>>>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>>>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >>>>>>>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the >>>>>>>>> points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could >>>>>>>>> do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly >>>>>>>> analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they >>>>>>>> can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even >>>>>>>> if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can >>>>>>>> usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of >>>>>>>> relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam >>>>>>>> engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to >>>>>>>> plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep >>>>>>>> those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast >>>>>>>> distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous >>>>>>>> to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can >>>>>>>> get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking >>>>>>>> fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW >>>>>>>> the advantage depends on the environment.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known >>>>>> to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't >>>>>> illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years. >>>>> was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain >>>>> who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several
decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the
Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build >>>>> such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the >>>>> worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent >>>>> movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
WRT your first question: We arrive at this conclusion because we
recognize the features and characteristics of human manufacture,
exactly the same way you infer human manufacture of the things you use
every day, including the very computer you use to send your posts to
T.O.
WRT your second question: Of course it could be of extraterrestrial
origin, just as it could be from the future and was transported by
some time traveler, just as it could be of supernatural origin. To
rule out these "coulds" would be to prove a negative, a futile
exercise. We have no examples of these "coulds" to compare, while we
do have many examples of human manufacture. There is nothing about
the antikythera mechanism to suggest these "coulds" other than its
sophisticated principles.
So you can let your imagination run wild and believe all kinds of
"coulds". Or you can acknowledge the less interesting but more likely
conclusion that the antikythera mechanism illustrates the genius of an
unknown ancient savant.
to is there is no known alternative possibility, so it had to be some >ancient ingenuous human being.
WhatThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the >>> antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials or
construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another >>> more advanced civilization that we know nothing about.
Once again, your question requires to prove a negative. Once again,Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism isOk, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show
that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antikytera
device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms. >>
we don't observe naturalistic processes that construct gears out of
metal, while we daily use such objects of human manufacture every day.
Once again, the more likely answer is not found by imagining "coulds".
Modern man, yes we do see him constructing gears out of metal. But, we
do not see ancient humans cutting and fitting gears together. Furthermore,
no one knows how it was done with the known tooling of the period.
IIUC your argument above raises an analogy that human manufacture
illustrates design, and so design implies purposeful intelligence.
Once again, that argument conveniently ignores the fact that design
doesn't require purpose but does require function and pattern, and we
observe unguided natural processes performing functions and creating
patterns every day.
Highly complex functions, apart from living organisms - we do not! We see >snow flakes and crystals. But this is building up on specific, consistent >unwavering and changeless patterns.
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning. >>>>My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_ >>> explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points >>> to a designer.
You have _not_ shown purposeful design is the _better_ explanation.
You just assert it. You argue design, but fail to show that design
requires purpose, while you conveniently _ignore_ all of the unguided
natural designs which surround you.
In reality all life is governed, piloted and controlled by highly
ordered and
complex information (DNA) which guides the formation of highly complex >multi-level interdependent stages of complicity as in living reproducing >organisms. And as far as we know, such information comes only from mind. >There is no known exceptions.
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals
refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they >>> attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the
"illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of
the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm >>> or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot >>> be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in >>> existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology.
Nobody, including Dawkins, needs to prove God doesn't exist, a
negative claim. OTOH if you claim that your designer is God, then you
need to prove God does exist, a positive claim. Not sure how you
still don't understand the difference.
Where did you get the idea that Dawkins needed to _prove_that God
doesn't exist? Not from me, I've maintained, all along, that proof is >impossible.
I've acknowledged over ad over repeatedly one can believe or not believe,
but one can never know. While I'm convinced that there is evidence of
design hence a designed - God. Evidence is _not_ proof. Proof is
impossible.
I might be thick headed, but you are too! You fail to understand there's a >difference between evidence and proof, or else you refuse to see a >difference.
Ralph Page wrote:.......
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:24:30 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com>
wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron DeanDesigned by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection >>>>>> that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather >>>>>> it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which >>>>>> more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. Thesevital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in theyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, wecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a
designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly >>>>>>> analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they >>>>>>> can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even >>>>>>> if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can >>>>>>> usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam >>>>>>> engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to >>>>>>> plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep >>>>>>> those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast >>>>>>> distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous >>>>>>> to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can >>>>>>> get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking >>>>>>> fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known >>>>> to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't >>>>> illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years. >>>> was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain >>>> who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several >>>> decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the >>>> Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build >>>> such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the >>>> worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent >>>> movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
What
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials orThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the
construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another >> more advanced civilization that we know nothing about. >
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism isOk, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show
that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antithetical
device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms. >>>
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning. >>>
My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_ >> explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points >> to a designer.
What specifically about evolutionary processes do you think makes evoution a less likely condidate than an unkown designer to explain what we observe now in nature? Based on a few of your posts it appears you feel evolution is just too unlikely a candidate to explain the designs you see, but I don't know what specifically you think is (virtually) impossible. It appears you think DNA and homeobox genes, for example, could never have evolved but I'm not sure.
DNA is highly complex information. And as far as we know, such information comes only from mind.
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals
refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they >> attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the
"illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of >> the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm
or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot
be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in >> existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology. >>>
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:24:30 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron DeanDesigned by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection >>>>>> that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather >>>>>> it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple> >>>>>>>>>>>>> vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestinesand the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >>>>>>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These >>>>>>>>>> vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without >>>>>>>>>> bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider >>>>>>>>>> this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this >>>>>>>>>> was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest >>>>>>>>>> navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >>>>>>>>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more oryears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >>>>>>>>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing >>>>>>>>>> ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't >>>>>>>>>> need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not acommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to >>>>>>>>>> imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >>>>>>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >>>>>>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,> >>>>>>>>>> including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >>>>>>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the >>>>>>>> points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could >>>>>>>> do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 >>>>>>>>>>>>> years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly >>>>>>> analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they >>>>>>> can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even >>>>>>> if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can >>>>>>> usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of >>>>>>> relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam >>>>>>> engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to >>>>>>> plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep >>>>>>> those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous >>>>>>> to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can >>>>>>> get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking >>>>>>> fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW >>>>>>> the advantage depends on the environment.
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known >>>>> to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't
illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years. >>>> was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain
who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several
decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the
Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build
such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the >>>> worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent
movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
What
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials orThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the >> antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another
more advanced civilization that we know nothing about. >
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism isOk, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show
that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antithetical
device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms. >>>
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning.
My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_
explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points
to a designer.
What specifically about evolutionary processes do you think makes evoution
a less likely condidate than an unkown designer to explain what we observe now in nature? Based on a few of your posts it appears you feel evolution
is just too unlikely a candidate to explain the designs you see, but I
don't know what specifically you think is (virtually) impossible. It
appears you think DNA and homeobox genes, for example, could never have evolved but I'm not sure.
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals
refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they
attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the
"illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of
the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm >> or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot >> be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in
existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Ralph Page wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:24:30 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron DeanDesigned by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection >>>>>>> that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather >>>>>>> it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which >>>>>>> more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >>>>>>>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>>>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when thisyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >>>>>>>>>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >>>>>>>>>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>>>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, wecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>>>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >>>>>>>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>>>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >>>>>>>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>>>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >>>>>>>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the >>>>>>>>> points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could >>>>>>>>> do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly >>>>>>>> analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they >>>>>>>> can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even >>>>>>>> if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can >>>>>>>> usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of >>>>>>>> relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam >>>>>>>> engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to >>>>>>>> plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep >>>>>>>> those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast >>>>>>>> distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous >>>>>>>> to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can >>>>>>>> get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking >>>>>>>> fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW >>>>>>>> the advantage depends on the environment.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known >>>>>> to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't >>>>>> illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years. >>>>> was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain >>>>> who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several
decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the
Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build >>>>> such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the >>>>> worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent >>>>> movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
What
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials orThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the >>> antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another >>> more advanced civilization that we know nothing about. >
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism isOk, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show
that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antithetical
device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms. >>>>
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning. >>>>
My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_ >>> explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points >>> to a designer.
What specifically about evolutionary processes do you think makes evoution >> a less likely condidate than an unkown designer to explain what we observe >> now in nature? Based on a few of your posts it appears you feel evolution >> is just too unlikely a candidate to explain the designs you see, but I
don't know what specifically you think is (virtually) impossible. It
appears you think DNA and homeobox genes, for example, could never have
evolved but I'm not sure.
DNA is highly complex information. And as far as we know, such information >comes only from mind.
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals
refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they >>> attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the
"illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of
the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm >>> or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot >>> be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in >>> existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology. >>>>
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
DNA is highly complex information. And as far as we know, such information comes only from mind.
Ralph Page wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:24:30 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron DeanDesigned by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection >>>>>>> that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather >>>>>>> it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which >>>>>>> more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >>>>>>>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>>>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when thisyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor >>>>>>>>>>> naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in the
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the >>>>>>>>>>> amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>>>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, wecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>>>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >>>>>>>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>>>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >>>>>>>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>>>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >>>>>>>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the >>>>>>>>> points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could >>>>>>>>> do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly >>>>>>>> analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they >>>>>>>> can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even >>>>>>>> if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can >>>>>>>> usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of >>>>>>>> relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam >>>>>>>> engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to >>>>>>>> plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep >>>>>>>> those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast >>>>>>>> distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous >>>>>>>> to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can >>>>>>>> get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking >>>>>>>> fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW >>>>>>>> the advantage depends on the environment.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known >>>>>> to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't >>>>>> illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years. >>>>> was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain >>>>> who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several
decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the
Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build >>>>> such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the >>>>> worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent >>>>> movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
What
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials orThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the >>> antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another >>> more advanced civilization that we know nothing about. >
Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism isOk, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show
that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antithetical
device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms. >>>>
Not sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning. >>>>
My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_ >>> explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points >>> to a designer.
What specifically about evolutionary processes do you think makes evoution >> a less likely condidate than an unkown designer to explain what we observe >> now in nature? Based on a few of your posts it appears you feel evolution >> is just too unlikely a candidate to explain the designs you see, but I
don't know what specifically you think is (virtually) impossible. It
appears you think DNA and homeobox genes, for example, could never have
evolved but I'm not sure.
DNA is highly complex information. And as far as we know, such information >comes only from mind.
And this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals
refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they >>> attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the
"illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of
the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm >>> or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot >>> be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in >>> existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology. >>>>
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 16:00:37 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Hillery wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:24:30 -0400, Ron DeanNot for another 1500 years was there a savant capable of devising an equal >> mechanism of the same technological sophistication. So, what it comes down >> to is there is no known alternative possibility, so it had to be some
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron DeanDesigned by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection >>>>>>>> that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather >>>>>>>> it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which >>>>>>>> more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships. >>>>>>>
<athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,vital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must >>>>>>>>>>>> "move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans proving >>>>>>>>>>>> functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the >>>>>>>>>>>> armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in theyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad >>>>>>>>>>>> warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, wecommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes >>>>>>>>>>>> (including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible to
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> > >>>>>>>>>>>> examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if >>>>>>>>>>>> someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship >>>>>>>>>>>> example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said >>>>>>>>>>>> first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by >>>>>>>>>>>> everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added >>>>>>>>>>>> armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the >>>>>>>>>> points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly >>>>>>>>> analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they >>>>>>>>> can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even >>>>>>>>> if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can >>>>>>>>> usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of >>>>>>>>> relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam >>>>>>>>> engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to >>>>>>>>> plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep >>>>>>>>> those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast >>>>>>>>> distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous >>>>>>>>> to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>>>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can >>>>>>>>> get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking >>>>>>>>> fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known >>>>>>> to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently >>>>>>> ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't >>>>>>> illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true >>>>> but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated >>>>>> or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years. >>>>>> was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain >>>>>> who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several >>>>>> decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the >>>>>> Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build >>>>>> such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the >>>>>> worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent >>>>>> movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you >>>>> say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
WRT your first question: We arrive at this conclusion because we
recognize the features and characteristics of human manufacture,
exactly the same way you infer human manufacture of the things you use
every day, including the very computer you use to send your posts to
T.O.
WRT your second question: Of course it could be of extraterrestrial
origin, just as it could be from the future and was transported by
some time traveler, just as it could be of supernatural origin. To
rule out these "coulds" would be to prove a negative, a futile
exercise. We have no examples of these "coulds" to compare, while we
do have many examples of human manufacture. There is nothing about
the antikythera mechanism to suggest these "coulds" other than its
sophisticated principles.
So you can let your imagination run wild and believe all kinds of
"coulds". Or you can acknowledge the less interesting but more likely
conclusion that the antikythera mechanism illustrates the genius of an
unknown ancient savant.
ancient ingenuous human being.
Assuming you meant "ingenious", other than it's the most likely
conclusion, what is your objection to it? Do you really think your
specified "coulds" are more likely? If so, on what basis?
WhatThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the >>>> antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials or
construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another >>>> more advanced civilization that we know nothing about.
Even is what you say above was correct, that we know nothing about an advanced civilization doesn't inform what is the more likely
conclusion here. You would have a valid point if the antikythera
mechanism required some exotic materials processing. But it doesn't.
What you say above is simply incorrect. The manufacturing methods illustrated by the antikythera mechanism were reasonably common in its
time. Please read Burkhard's latest replies to you before you comment
again on this point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
Modern man, yes we do see him constructing gears out of metal. But, weOnce again, your question requires to prove a negative. Once again,Once again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism isOk, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show
that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antikytera
device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms. >>>
we don't observe naturalistic processes that construct gears out of
metal, while we daily use such objects of human manufacture every day.
Once again, the more likely answer is not found by imagining "coulds".
do not see ancient humans cutting and fitting gears together. Furthermore, >> no one knows how it was done with the known tooling of the period.
Yes, we have good evidence of humans from that era cutting and fitting
gears together. Once again, read Burkhard's replies to you.
IIUC your argument above raises an analogy that human manufactureHighly complex functions, apart from living organisms - we do not! We see
illustrates design, and so design implies purposeful intelligence.
Once again, that argument conveniently ignores the fact that design
doesn't require purpose but does require function and pattern, and we
observe unguided natural processes performing functions and creating
patterns every day.
snow flakes and crystals. But this is building up on specific, consistent
unwavering and changeless patterns.
Really? Are stars not complex enough for you? How about solar
systems and galaxies? What about terrains and shorelines? What about weather and climate? What is your definition of "highly complex" that disqualifies these things?
Or do you claim these things are also designed by a purposeful
intelligent designer? If so, you wouldn't be alone, but your
challenge would then be to explain how you distinguish between designs
and not-designs.
In reality all life is governed, piloted and controlled by highlyNot sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning. >>>>>My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_ >>>> explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points >>>> to a designer.
You have _not_ shown purposeful design is the _better_ explanation.
You just assert it. You argue design, but fail to show that design
requires purpose, while you conveniently _ignore_ all of the unguided
natural designs which surround you.
ordered and
complex information (DNA) which guides the formation of highly complex
multi-level interdependent stages of complicity as in living reproducing
organisms. And as far as we know, such information comes only from mind.
There is no known exceptions.
Your last sentence above is an assertion without evidence, and
conveniently ignores the many counter-examples which have been
provided to you over these many years.
Where did you get the idea that Dawkins needed to _prove_that GodAnd this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals
refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they >>>> attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the
"illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of >>>> the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm >>>> or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot >>>> be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in >>>> existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology. >>>
Nobody, including Dawkins, needs to prove God doesn't exist, a
negative claim. OTOH if you claim that your designer is God, then you
need to prove God does exist, a positive claim. Not sure how you
still don't understand the difference.
doesn't exist? Not from me, I've maintained, all along, that proof is
impossible.
Really? Did you not mention Richard Dawkins? Did you not type "With
this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence"? Or did you
mean something other than what you actually wrote?
I've acknowledged over ad over repeatedly one can believe or not believe,
but one can never know. While I'm convinced that there is evidence of
design hence a designed - God. Evidence is _not_ proof. Proof is
impossible.
Once again, you assert a claim that evidence of design implies a
designer. It does not. I and others have repeatedly identified counterexamples to you that show function and pattern aka designs
produced without intelligence or purpose, yet you conveniently ignore
them. Why is that?
I might be thick headed, but you are too! You fail to understand there's a >> difference between evidence and proof, or else you refuse to see a
difference.
The above is yet another asserted claim without evidence. Cite where
I have failed to understand the difference between evidence and proof.
Meanwhile, every time you say "design implies a designer", you show
that you don't know the meaning of "evidence" or "proof" or "implies".
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 16:00:37 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hillery wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:24:30 -0400, Ron DeanNot for another 1500 years was there a savant capable of devising an equal
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron DeanDesigned by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we >>>> arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-BowdenAnd other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection >>>>>>>> that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
<athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans provingvital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in theyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need >>>>>>>>>>>> engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible tocommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a
designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly >>>>>>>>> analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam >>>>>>>>> engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep >>>>>>>>> those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast >>>>>>>>> distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few >>>>>>>>> hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which >>>>>>>> more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships. >>>>>>>
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known
to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently >>>>>>> ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't >>>>>>> illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true >>>>> but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated >>>>>> or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years.
was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain >>>>>> who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several >>>>>> decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the >>>>>> Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build >>>>>> such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the
worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent >>>>>> movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you >>>>> don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you >>>>> say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
WRT your first question: We arrive at this conclusion because we
recognize the features and characteristics of human manufacture,
exactly the same way you infer human manufacture of the things you use >>> every day, including the very computer you use to send your posts to
T.O.
WRT your second question: Of course it could be of extraterrestrial
origin, just as it could be from the future and was transported by
some time traveler, just as it could be of supernatural origin. To
rule out these "coulds" would be to prove a negative, a futile
exercise. We have no examples of these "coulds" to compare, while we
do have many examples of human manufacture. There is nothing about
the antikythera mechanism to suggest these "coulds" other than its
sophisticated principles.
So you can let your imagination run wild and believe all kinds of
"coulds". Or you can acknowledge the less interesting but more likely >>> conclusion that the antikythera mechanism illustrates the genius of an >>> unknown ancient savant.
mechanism of the same technological sophistication. So, what it comes down
to is there is no known alternative possibility, so it had to be some
ancient ingenuous human being.
Assuming you meant "ingenious", other than it's the most likely conclusion, what is your objection to it? Do you really think your specified "coulds" are more likely? If so, on what basis?
Sorry, Jill about not getting back sooner, but I have some serous health problems
requiring hospitalization and testing. It cannot be helped.
WhatThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials or >>>>> construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond >>>>> what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another >>>> more advanced civilization that we know nothing about.
Even is what you say above was correct, that we know nothing about an advanced civilization doesn't inform what is the more likely
conclusion here. You would have a valid point if the antikythera
mechanism required some exotic materials processing. But it doesn't.
What you say above is simply incorrect. The manufacturing methods illustrated by the antikythera mechanism were reasonably common in its time. Please read Burkhard's latest replies to you before you comment again on this point.
I did read Burkhard's reply, but he was mistaken.
As I wrote, it was not believed that the technology existed at this
period of time that
could design and build such a device as this. I was reflecting on this article.
"No one knew that 2,000 years ago, the technology existed to build such
a device. The Antikythera mechanism, pictured, is now widely regarded as
the first computer. "
https://science.nasa.gov/antikythera-mechanism
According to Wikipedia
"In 2022 researchers proposed the mechanism's initial calibration date,
not construction date, could have been 23 December 178 BC. Other experts propose 204 BC as a more likely calibration date.[24][25] Machines with similar complexity did not appear again until the astronomical clocks of Richard of Wallingford and Giovanni de' Dondi in the fourteenth century.[26]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
Modern man, yes we do see him constructing gears out of metal. But, weOnce again, nobody challenges that the antikythera mechanism isOk, how do you know, for a fact,that some as of yet unknown,
designed. Once again, your example shows design, but does not show >>>>> that unguided natural processes can't also produce designs.
undiscovered naturalistic process did not bring about the antikytera >>>> device? After all it's not nearly as complicated as the early life forms.
Once again, your question requires to prove a negative. Once again,
we don't observe naturalistic processes that construct gears out of
metal, while we daily use such objects of human manufacture every day. >>> Once again, the more likely answer is not found by imagining "coulds". >>>
do not see ancient humans cutting and fitting gears together. Furthermore,
no one knows how it was done with the known tooling of the period.
Yes, we have good evidence of humans from that era cutting and fitting gears together. Once again, read Burkhard's replies to you.
There were some crude gears used in pumping water, and maybe in some manufacturing processes, during this time, but nothing as complicated as
the antikyhera mechanism was built for another 1500 years.
IIUC your argument above raises an analogy that human manufactureHighly complex functions, apart from living organisms - we do not! We see >> snow flakes and crystals. But this is building up on specific, consistent >> unwavering and changeless patterns.
illustrates design, and so design implies purposeful intelligence.
Once again, that argument conveniently ignores the fact that design
doesn't require purpose but does require function and pattern, and we >>> observe unguided natural processes performing functions and creating
patterns every day.
Really? Are stars not complex enough for you? How about solar
systems and galaxies? What about terrains and shorelines? What about weather and climate? What is your definition of "highly complex" that disqualifies these things?
Or do you claim these things are also designed by a purposeful
intelligent designer? If so, you wouldn't be alone, but your
challenge would then be to explain how you distinguish between designs
and not-designs.
In reality all life is governed, piloted and controlled by highlyNot sure why you continue to ignore this fatal flaw in your reasoning. >>>>>My argument has been, that deliberate, purposeful design is the _better_
explanation for the _design_ that we observe in nature and design points
to a designer.
You have _not_ shown purposeful design is the _better_ explanation.
You just assert it. You argue design, but fail to show that design
requires purpose, while you conveniently _ignore_ all of the unguided >>> natural designs which surround you.
ordered and
complex information (DNA) which guides the formation of highly complex
multi-level interdependent stages of complicity as in living reproducing >> organisms. And as far as we know, such information comes only from mind. >> There is no known exceptions.
Your last sentence above is an assertion without evidence, and conveniently ignores the many counter-examples which have been
provided to you over these many years.
Where did you get the idea that Dawkins needed to _prove_that GodAnd this explains exactly why Richard Dawkins and other professionals >>>> refuse to recognize design. And by whatever it takes, hook or crook, they
attempt to explain away design.
Dawkins attempts to explain away design as "apparent design" or the >>>> "illusion of design". This is because design can be seen as evidence of >>>> the existence of a designer - God, and this violates their life's paradigm
or their world view.
With this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence, which cannot
be done. One can believe God exist or one can believe there is no God in
existence. But one cannot know. Proof is beyond scientific methodology. >>>
Nobody, including Dawkins, needs to prove God doesn't exist, a
negative claim. OTOH if you claim that your designer is God, then you >>> need to prove God does exist, a positive claim. Not sure how you
still don't understand the difference.
doesn't exist? Not from me, I've maintained, all along, that proof is
impossible.
Really? Did you not mention Richard Dawkins? Did you not type "With
this evidence, it's necessary to falsify God' existence"? Or did you
mean something other than what you actually wrote?
I've acknowledged over ad over repeatedly one can believe or not believe, >> but one can never know. While I'm convinced that there is evidence of
design hence a designed - God. Evidence is _not_ proof. Proof is
impossible.
Once again, you assert a claim that evidence of design implies a
designer. It does not. I and others have repeatedly identified counterexamples to you that show function and pattern aka designs
produced without intelligence or purpose, yet you conveniently ignore them. Why is that?
I might be thick headed, but you are too! You fail to understand there's a
difference between evidence and proof, or else you refuse to see a
difference.
The above is yet another asserted claim without evidence. Cite where
I have failed to understand the difference between evidence and proof.
Meanwhile, every time you say "design implies a designer", you show
that you don't know the meaning of "evidence" or "proof" or "implies".
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
The calculations of times and constellation that the mechanism
uses were well documented and understood at the time - which is
one more reason why we have a pretty good idea who made it and why,
it aligns with the cycle of the classical olympic games e.g.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 7:20:18 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 16:00:37 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hillery wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:24:30 -0400, Ron DeanNot for another 1500 years was there a savant capable of devising an equal
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron DeanDesigned by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we >>>> arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden >>>>>>>>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:And other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans provingvital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in theyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible tocommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better
explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a
designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly >>>>>>>>> analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam >>>>>>>>> engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast >>>>>>>>> distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which >>>>>>>> more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships. >>>>>>>
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known
to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently >>>>>>> ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't >>>>>>> illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true >>>>> but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated >>>>>> or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years.
was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain
who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several >>>>>> decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the >>>>>> Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build
such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the
worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent
movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you >>>>> don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you >>>>> say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the
antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans.
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years? >>>> Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
WRT your first question: We arrive at this conclusion because we
recognize the features and characteristics of human manufacture,
exactly the same way you infer human manufacture of the things you use >>> every day, including the very computer you use to send your posts to >>> T.O.
WRT your second question: Of course it could be of extraterrestrial >>> origin, just as it could be from the future and was transported by
some time traveler, just as it could be of supernatural origin. To
rule out these "coulds" would be to prove a negative, a futile
exercise. We have no examples of these "coulds" to compare, while we >>> do have many examples of human manufacture. There is nothing about
the antikythera mechanism to suggest these "coulds" other than its
sophisticated principles.
So you can let your imagination run wild and believe all kinds of
"coulds". Or you can acknowledge the less interesting but more likely >>> conclusion that the antikythera mechanism illustrates the genius of an >>> unknown ancient savant.
mechanism of the same technological sophistication. So, what it comes down
to is there is no known alternative possibility, so it had to be some >> ancient ingenuous human being.
Assuming you meant "ingenious", other than it's the most likely conclusion, what is your objection to it? Do you really think your specified "coulds" are more likely? If so, on what basis?
Sorry, Jill about not getting back sooner, but I have some serous health problems
requiring hospitalization and testing. It cannot be helped.
WhatThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials or >>>>> construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond >>>>> what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another
1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another
more advanced civilization that we know nothing about.
Even is what you say above was correct, that we know nothing about an advanced civilization doesn't inform what is the more likely
conclusion here. You would have a valid point if the antikythera mechanism required some exotic materials processing. But it doesn't. What you say above is simply incorrect. The manufacturing methods illustrated by the antikythera mechanism were reasonably common in its time. Please read Burkhard's latest replies to you before you comment again on this point.
I did read Burkhard's reply, but he was mistaken.I've given you links to images of similar gears which are even older than Antikythera, where you can see them for yourself. And I also
gave you references to the contemporary and near contemporary
texts that describe similar mechanism.
while it was more complex then these, it achieved that complexity
by simply combining several existing technologies into one - nothing entirely new, just a more elaborate combination of
functions that furthermore came at a cost - it does not perform any
of them quite as well as simpler mechanisms of that time
do, a typical trade off when lots of functions are combines in one
piece
The calculations of times and constellation that the mechanism
uses were well documented and understood at the time - which is
one more reason why we have a pretty good idea who made it and why,
it aligns with the cycle of the classical olympic games e.g.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 3:10:18 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 7:20:18 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 16:00:37 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hillery wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:24:30 -0400, Ron DeanNot for another 1500 years was there a savant capable of devising an equal
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron DeanDesigned by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden >>>>>>>>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:And other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans provingvital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in theyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible tocommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better
explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a
designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships. >>>>>>>
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known
to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently >>>>>>> ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't
illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is
known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years.
was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain
who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several
decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the
Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build
such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the
worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent
movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you >>>>> don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the >>>>> antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans. >>>>>
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of
sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years? >>>> Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
WRT your first question: We arrive at this conclusion because we
recognize the features and characteristics of human manufacture,
exactly the same way you infer human manufacture of the things you use
every day, including the very computer you use to send your posts to >>> T.O.
WRT your second question: Of course it could be of extraterrestrial >>> origin, just as it could be from the future and was transported by >>> some time traveler, just as it could be of supernatural origin. To >>> rule out these "coulds" would be to prove a negative, a futile
exercise. We have no examples of these "coulds" to compare, while we >>> do have many examples of human manufacture. There is nothing about >>> the antikythera mechanism to suggest these "coulds" other than its >>> sophisticated principles.
So you can let your imagination run wild and believe all kinds of >>> "coulds". Or you can acknowledge the less interesting but more likely
conclusion that the antikythera mechanism illustrates the genius of an
unknown ancient savant.
mechanism of the same technological sophistication. So, what it comes down
to is there is no known alternative possibility, so it had to be some >> ancient ingenuous human being.
Assuming you meant "ingenious", other than it's the most likely conclusion, what is your objection to it? Do you really think your specified "coulds" are more likely? If so, on what basis?
Sorry, Jill about not getting back sooner, but I have some serous health problems
requiring hospitalization and testing. It cannot be helped.
WhatThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials or >>>>> construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond >>>>> what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another >>>> 1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another
more advanced civilization that we know nothing about.
Even is what you say above was correct, that we know nothing about an advanced civilization doesn't inform what is the more likely conclusion here. You would have a valid point if the antikythera mechanism required some exotic materials processing. But it doesn't. What you say above is simply incorrect. The manufacturing methods illustrated by the antikythera mechanism were reasonably common in its time. Please read Burkhard's latest replies to you before you comment again on this point.
I did read Burkhard's reply, but he was mistaken.I've given you links to images of similar gears which are even older than Antikythera, where you can see them for yourself. And I also
gave you references to the contemporary and near contemporary
texts that describe similar mechanism.
while it was more complex then these, it achieved that complexity
by simply combining several existing technologies into one - nothing entirely new, just a more elaborate combination of
functions that furthermore came at a cost - it does not perform any
of them quite as well as simpler mechanisms of that time
do, a typical trade off when lots of functions are combines in one
piece
The calculations of times and constellation that the mechanismA correction is required. The Byzantine sundials are from circa 500 AD,
uses were well documented and understood at the time - which is
one more reason why we have a pretty good idea who made it and why,
it aligns with the cycle of the classical olympic games e.g.
not 500 BC and thus post date the Antikythera.
claim about nothing similar being found for 1500 years. Further, as you note, there are reports nearly contemporaneous with the Antikythera
that describe similar orrerys, two independent ones from the known
works of Cicero that have both been referenced in thread. And still
further, as you note there are reports attributed to Aristotle that allude to similar devices. It may also be worth noting that the works of Aristotle were know to the Isidore of Miletus, the Architect of the cathedral
Hagia Sophia circa 530 AD as he is suspected of being involved in
the original of the Archimedes palimpsest, a fascinating document
that Ron should take note of. It seems to be a copy of works by Archimedes originally copied about 500 AD in Greek. Centuries later during the Crusades members of the latin church had odd ideas about Greek being a religion
of witchcraft and demonic forces, it was removed to a Greek monastery
for safe keeping. However, it was not appreciated for what it was so
they seemingly scraped off he writing and overwrote it with religious
texts. Luckily, some of the earlier work stained the parchment and with modern technology the original can be mostly reconstructed.
Two lessons. Much of what was known has been lost. And recycling
isn't new. An old brass device, probably broken after many years, of
little practical value, would very likely risk being melted down to make arrow heads, or buttons, or a hinge --- something practical.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 9:15:18 PM UTC+1, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 3:10:18 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 7:20:18 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 16:00:37 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hillery wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:24:30 -0400, Ron DeanNot for another 1500 years was there a savant capable of devising an equal
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron DeanDesigned by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden >>>>>>>>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:And other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans provingvital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in theyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible tocommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better
explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a
designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> >Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known
to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't
illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is >>>>>> known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years.
was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain
who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several
decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the
Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build
such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the
worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent
movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the >>>>> antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans. >>>>>
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of >>>> sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years? >>>> Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
WRT your first question: We arrive at this conclusion because we >>> recognize the features and characteristics of human manufacture, >>> exactly the same way you infer human manufacture of the things you use
every day, including the very computer you use to send your posts to
T.O.
WRT your second question: Of course it could be of extraterrestrial
origin, just as it could be from the future and was transported by >>> some time traveler, just as it could be of supernatural origin. To >>> rule out these "coulds" would be to prove a negative, a futile
exercise. We have no examples of these "coulds" to compare, while we
do have many examples of human manufacture. There is nothing about >>> the antikythera mechanism to suggest these "coulds" other than its >>> sophisticated principles.
So you can let your imagination run wild and believe all kinds of >>> "coulds". Or you can acknowledge the less interesting but more likely
conclusion that the antikythera mechanism illustrates the genius of an
unknown ancient savant.
mechanism of the same technological sophistication. So, what it comes down
to is there is no known alternative possibility, so it had to be some
ancient ingenuous human being.
Assuming you meant "ingenious", other than it's the most likely conclusion, what is your objection to it? Do you really think your specified "coulds" are more likely? If so, on what basis?
Sorry, Jill about not getting back sooner, but I have some serous health
problems
requiring hospitalization and testing. It cannot be helped.
WhatThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials or
construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another >>>> 1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another
more advanced civilization that we know nothing about.
.Even is what you say above was correct, that we know nothing about an
advanced civilization doesn't inform what is the more likely conclusion here. You would have a valid point if the antikythera mechanism required some exotic materials processing. But it doesn't. What you say above is simply incorrect. The manufacturing methods illustrated by the antikythera mechanism were reasonably common in its
time. Please read Burkhard's latest replies to you before you comment
again on this point.
I did read Burkhard's reply, but he was mistaken.I've given you links to images of similar gears which are even older than
Antikythera, where you can see them for yourself. And I also
gave you references to the contemporary and near contemporary
texts that describe similar mechanism.
while it was more complex then these, it achieved that complexity
by simply combining several existing technologies into one - nothing entirely new, just a more elaborate combination of
functions that furthermore came at a cost - it does not perform any
of them quite as well as simpler mechanisms of that time
do, a typical trade off when lots of functions are combines in one
piece
ah yes, you are right of course, I mixed it up withThe calculations of times and constellation that the mechanismA correction is required. The Byzantine sundials are from circa 500 AD, not 500 BC and thus post date the Antikythera.
uses were well documented and understood at the time - which is
one more reason why we have a pretty good idea who made it and why,
it aligns with the cycle of the classical olympic games e.g.
the Babylonian saros scheme that provides parts of the
calculations for Antikythera, and do date back to 748 BCE, so
are quite a bit older
This still contradicts Ron's
claim about nothing similar being found for 1500 years. Further, as you note, there are reports nearly contemporaneous with the Antikythera
that describe similar orrerys, two independent ones from the known
works of Cicero that have both been referenced in thread. And still further, as you note there are reports attributed to Aristotle that allude to similar devices. It may also be worth noting that the works of Aristotle
were know to the Isidore of Miletus, the Architect of the cathedral
Hagia Sophia circa 530 AD as he is suspected of being involved in
the original of the Archimedes palimpsest, a fascinating document
that Ron should take note of. It seems to be a copy of works by Archimedes originally copied about 500 AD in Greek. Centuries later during the Crusades
members of the latin church had odd ideas about Greek being a religion
of witchcraft and demonic forces, it was removed to a Greek monastery
for safe keeping. However, it was not appreciated for what it was so
they seemingly scraped off he writing and overwrote it with religious texts. Luckily, some of the earlier work stained the parchment and with modern technology the original can be mostly reconstructed.
Two lessons. Much of what was known has been lost. And recycling
isn't new. An old brass device, probably broken after many years, of little practical value, would very likely risk being melted down to make arrow heads, or buttons, or a hinge --- something practical.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 5:30:18 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 9:15:18 PM UTC+1, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 3:10:18 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 7:20:18 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 16:00:37 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hillery wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:24:30 -0400, Ron DeanNot for another 1500 years was there a savant capable of devising an equal
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron DeanDesigned by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden >>>>>>>>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:And other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans provingvital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in theyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible tocommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better
explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a
designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> > >>>>>>>>>Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way.
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam
engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast
distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which
more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships.
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known
to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently
ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't
illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is >>>>>> known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated
or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years.
was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain
who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several
decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the
Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build
such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the
worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent
movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you
don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the >>>>> antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans. >>>>>
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of >>>> sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years?
Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
WRT your first question: We arrive at this conclusion because we >>> recognize the features and characteristics of human manufacture, >>> exactly the same way you infer human manufacture of the things you use
every day, including the very computer you use to send your posts to
T.O.
WRT your second question: Of course it could be of extraterrestrial
origin, just as it could be from the future and was transported by
some time traveler, just as it could be of supernatural origin. To
rule out these "coulds" would be to prove a negative, a futile >>> exercise. We have no examples of these "coulds" to compare, while we
do have many examples of human manufacture. There is nothing about
the antikythera mechanism to suggest these "coulds" other than its
sophisticated principles.
So you can let your imagination run wild and believe all kinds of
"coulds". Or you can acknowledge the less interesting but more likely
conclusion that the antikythera mechanism illustrates the genius of an
unknown ancient savant.
mechanism of the same technological sophistication. So, what it comes down
to is there is no known alternative possibility, so it had to be some
ancient ingenuous human being.
Assuming you meant "ingenious", other than it's the most likely conclusion, what is your objection to it? Do you really think your specified "coulds" are more likely? If so, on what basis?
Sorry, Jill about not getting back sooner, but I have some serous health
problems
requiring hospitalization and testing. It cannot be helped.
WhatThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials or
construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond
what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another >>>> 1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another
more advanced civilization that we know nothing about.
Even is what you say above was correct, that we know nothing about an
advanced civilization doesn't inform what is the more likely conclusion here. You would have a valid point if the antikythera mechanism required some exotic materials processing. But it doesn't.
What you say above is simply incorrect. The manufacturing methods illustrated by the antikythera mechanism were reasonably common in its
time. Please read Burkhard's latest replies to you before you comment
again on this point.
I did read Burkhard's reply, but he was mistaken.I've given you links to images of similar gears which are even older than
Antikythera, where you can see them for yourself. And I also
gave you references to the contemporary and near contemporary
texts that describe similar mechanism.
while it was more complex then these, it achieved that complexity
by simply combining several existing technologies into one - nothing entirely new, just a more elaborate combination of
functions that furthermore came at a cost - it does not perform any
of them quite as well as simpler mechanisms of that time
do, a typical trade off when lots of functions are combines in one piece
.ah yes, you are right of course, I mixed it up withThe calculations of times and constellation that the mechanismA correction is required. The Byzantine sundials are from circa 500 AD, not 500 BC and thus post date the Antikythera.
uses were well documented and understood at the time - which is
one more reason why we have a pretty good idea who made it and why,
it aligns with the cycle of the classical olympic games e.g.
the Babylonian saros scheme that provides parts of the
calculations for Antikythera, and do date back to 748 BCE, so
are quite a bit older
And of course I brain farted in Aristotle instead of Archimedes
a few times. The law of conservation of misinformation strikes again.
.
This still contradicts Ron's
claim about nothing similar being found for 1500 years. Further, as you note, there are reports nearly contemporaneous with the Antikythera
that describe similar orrerys, two independent ones from the known
works of Cicero that have both been referenced in thread. And still further, as you note there are reports attributed to Aristotle that allude
to similar devices. It may also be worth noting that the works of Aristotle
were know to the Isidore of Miletus, the Architect of the cathedral Hagia Sophia circa 530 AD as he is suspected of being involved in
the original of the Archimedes palimpsest, a fascinating document
that Ron should take note of. It seems to be a copy of works by Archimedes
originally copied about 500 AD in Greek. Centuries later during the Crusades
members of the latin church had odd ideas about Greek being a religion of witchcraft and demonic forces, it was removed to a Greek monastery for safe keeping. However, it was not appreciated for what it was so they seemingly scraped off he writing and overwrote it with religious texts. Luckily, some of the earlier work stained the parchment and with modern technology the original can be mostly reconstructed.
Two lessons. Much of what was known has been lost. And recycling
isn't new. An old brass device, probably broken after many years, of little practical value, would very likely risk being melted down to make arrow heads, or buttons, or a hinge --- something practical.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 10:50:18 PM UTC+1, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
..
And of course I brain farted in Aristotle instead of Archimedes
a few times. The law of conservation of misinformation strikes again.
A propos just got this in my twitter feed - not a mechanism as such, but art from.
that period - only because Ron seems to think people at that time could not make intricate metal work:
https://twitter.com/ghostofhellas/status/1696300149784379818/photo/1
Sorry, Jill about not getting back sooner, but I have some serous health >problems
requiring hospitalization and testing. It cannot be helped.
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 9:05:18 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:Do you think any of this are as complicated as the the antikyhera
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 10:50:18 PM UTC+1, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
..
And of course I brain farted in Aristotle instead of Archimedes
a few times. The law of conservation of misinformation strikes again.
A propos just got this in my twitter feed - not a mechanism as such, but art from.
that period - only because Ron seems to think people at that time could not >> make intricate metal work:
https://twitter.com/ghostofhellas/status/1696300149784379818/photo/1
Funny thing. I saw a similar one in a visit to Thessaloniki circa 2000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_the_Royal_Tombs_of_Aigai_(Vergina)#/media/File:Queen_Medea's_Gold_Wreath_from_the_antechamber_of_tomb_of_Philip_II_of_Macedon_Aigai_Vergina_336_BCE.jpg
And I think I saw that one at the Getti museum in LA. I recall being stunned by both. I think there's a similar one in the Louvre but may be crossing wires.
Could well be the British museum has a few in their basement.
Partly I'm bragging to myself about my good fortune, but partly I'm affirming how mind-bogglingly intricate the craftsmanship is. Pictures don't do justice.
.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 9:05:18 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 10:50:18 PM UTC+1, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
..
And of course I brain farted in Aristotle instead of Archimedes
a few times. The law of conservation of misinformation strikes again.
A propos just got this in my twitter feed - not a mechanism as such, but art from.
that period - only because Ron seems to think people at that time could not
make intricate metal work:
https://twitter.com/ghostofhellas/status/1696300149784379818/photo/1
Funny thing. I saw a similar one in a visit to Thessaloniki circa 2000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_the_Royal_Tombs_of_Aigai_(Vergina)#/media/File:Queen_Medea's_Gold_Wreath_from_the_antechamber_of_tomb_of_Philip_II_of_Macedon_Aigai_Vergina_336_BCE.jpg
And I think I saw that one at the Getti museum in LA. I recall being stunnedDo you think any of this are as complicated as the the antikyhera
by both. I think there's a similar one in the Louvre but may be crossing wires.
Could well be the British museum has a few in their basement.
Partly I'm bragging to myself about my good fortune, but partly I'm affirming
how mind-bogglingly intricate the craftsmanship is. Pictures don't do justice.
.
mechanism. I do
admit they are beautiful.
Thank You!
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:35:19 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:small gears, and that they had a good understanding of geometry and pre-calculus math. So I don't really see that the Antihythera orrery is something light years ahead of their known capabilities.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:Well, they are beautiful and intricate and require fine metalworking of small parts. We know multiple ancient civilizations had very good understanding of the motions of planets and the sun against the fixed stars. We know that they built large and
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 9:05:18 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:Do you think any of this are as complicated as the the antikyhera
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 10:50:18 PM UTC+1, Lawyer Daggett wrote: >>>.
.
And of course I brain farted in Aristotle instead of Archimedes
a few times. The law of conservation of misinformation strikes again.
A propos just got this in my twitter feed - not a mechanism as such, but art from.
that period - only because Ron seems to think people at that time could not
make intricate metal work:
https://twitter.com/ghostofhellas/status/1696300149784379818/photo/1
Funny thing. I saw a similar one in a visit to Thessaloniki circa 2000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_the_Royal_Tombs_of_Aigai_(Vergina)#/media/File:Queen_Medea's_Gold_Wreath_from_the_antechamber_of_tomb_of_Philip_II_of_Macedon_Aigai_Vergina_336_BCE.jpg
And I think I saw that one at the Getti museum in LA. I recall being stunned
by both. I think there's a similar one in the Louvre but may be crossing wires.
Could well be the British museum has a few in their basement.
Partly I'm bragging to myself about my good fortune, but partly I'm affirming
how mind-bogglingly intricate the craftsmanship is. Pictures don't do justice.
.
mechanism. I do
admit they are beautiful.
Thank You!
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 10:50:18 PM UTC+1, Lawyer Daggett wrote:integrate
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 5:30:18 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 9:15:18 PM UTC+1, Lawyer Daggett wrote: >>>> On Monday, August 28, 2023 at 3:10:18 PM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:.
ah yes, you are right of course, I mixed it up withOn Monday, August 28, 2023 at 7:20:18 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:A correction is required. The Byzantine sundials are from circa 500 AD, >>>> not 500 BC and thus post date the Antikythera.
jillery wrote:I've given you links to images of similar gears which are even older than >>>>> Antikythera, where you can see them for yourself. And I also
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 16:00:37 -0400, Ron DeanSorry, Jill about not getting back sooner, but I have some serous health >>>>>> problems
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hillery wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 00:24:30 -0400, Ron DeanNot for another 1500 years was there a savant capable of devising an equal
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 22:25:44 -0400, Ron DeanDesigned by humans, of course, is the only possibility. But how do we
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 02:55:29 -0400, Ron DeanComplex, purposeful design is usually obvious.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 20:16:22 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:And other point. It was not random mutations and natural selection
On 2023-08-10 18:04:50 +0000, Burkhard said:
On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 5:26:10 PM UTC+1, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/10/23 8:32 AM, Burkhard wrote:> > On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at
3:01:10 PM UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:> >> On 2023-08-09
20:18:56 +0000, Ron Dean said:> >>> >>>> >>> [ … ]> >>>> >>> >>> At
different points in time and as new body forms evolve, the multiple>
"move along"> >>> he evolutionary pathway towards humans provingvital organs must, to a considerable degree, evolve in tandem or at
and the same time, the vital organs to be functional must
functional to the series> >>> of intermediates along the path. These
vital organs must evolve, to be> >>> functional for survival: kidneys,
the liver, the lung, brain, stomach, bowels,> >>> skeleton, intestines
pancreas, urinary track. And the as they "move along"> >>> the pathway
to humans.. I am convinced that aimless, mindless ransom> >>> mutations
and natural selection is not up to the task.> >> This is just the
armchair argument. Sitting comfortably in your> >> armchair, without
bothering to read any of the relevant literature, you> >> can't think
of how it could happen. Therefore it didn't happen.> >>> >> Consider
this example from human affairs. The French navy introduced> >>
ironclad warships to replace wooden sailing ships in 1859, and the> >>
British navy did the same only a very little time later. Within a few>
naval> >> power like Peru used an ironclad ship, the Huáscar, in theyears virtually all serious navies did the same, and even a minor
War of the> >> Pacific (1879), and suffered a major defeat when this
was captured by> >> the Chilean navy. Nowadays not even the smallest
navies go to war in> >> wooden sailing ships. How do we explain the
amazing coincidence that> >> everyone made the same change at more or
less the same time?> >>> >> Closer to your argument, an ironclad
warship could not overcome a> >> wooden sailing ship if that were the
only change. It needed an engine> >> (sailing ships don't need
engines), but that would be useless without a> >> propeller (sailing
ships don't need propellers) to convert the power> >> from the engine
into motion, but both would be useless without a way of> >> preventing
the engine room from getting unbearably hot (sailing ships> >> don't
need engine rooms). All of those would be useless without a> >>
competent captain (the Huáscar was captured by a wooden sailing ship>
(including> >> ones I haven't mentioned). Amazing, no? Impossible tocommanded by Galvarino Riveros Cárdenas (first cousin five times>
removed of my wife, as it happens)). So, for the change to ironclads
be useful there had to be a whole series of other changes
imagine all these> >> adaptions occurring simultaneously. Obviously, we
need to see the hand> >> of God in all this.> >> >> > That's... not a
very good example for your purpose, is it? After all these are> >
examples of design, so Ron should say: exactly, this only works if
someone is> > in charge planning the design of the ship and make sure
all these things are there> > together> >> > What makes the ship
example very different> > from evolution is the one thing you said
first, and I thought that was the way> > you were going - that the same
design idea was copied immediately by> > everybody. And they scrapped
the old and brought in the new - so Peru did> > not try to put ironclad
armour and guns on a wooden sailing ship.> > So no path dependency the
way we find with biological organisms, but radical> > restarts by
everybody.
I will just point out that, whatever Peru did, the early ironclads,>
including the Gloire, were in fact wooden sailing ships with added
armor> and guns, though the Gloire had steam-powered screw propulsion
addition to her sails.
OK, fair enough, but I'd say that then the example is sunk and beyond repair
Yes. You're both right. I was conscious while writing my post of the
points you raised in your first response, but it was the best I could
do at that moment. Not good enough, however.
There has to be a> >>> strong measure of faith to believe everything
was jut accidental.> >>> Again I think design is the better
explanation. The only objection,> >>> would be the absence of a
designer. I see nothing that suggest the> >>> absence of a designer.>
years; mainly> >> in England until 1987.> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36
There is another point not yet mentioned, one that is relevantly
analogous. Sailing ships are largely self-reliant in the sense they
can usually rely on the wind to get them to their destinations. Even
if their travels take longer than their stores would last, they can
usually resupply from many points along the way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not so with most engine-driven ships, as they require vast amounts of
relatively hard-to-get fuels. From the first coal-powered steam >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engines, and excluding only nuclear-powered craft, their crew had to
plan and time their routes with great precision, in order to keep
those hungry engines well-fed.
Sailing ships are analogous to camels, who can travel over vast >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distances without food and water. Engine-driven ships are analogous
to hummingbirds, who will stop flying if they can't feed every few
hours.
As long as engine-driven ships "live" in environments where they can
get their preferred "food", they will outpace sailing ships. Lacking
fuel, engine-driven ships are little better than floating debris. IOW
the advantage depends on the environment.
that caused wooden sailing ships to go to ironclad ships, but rather
it was decisions made by minds, anticipating the next war, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than likely, would be against ironclad motor driven ships. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your other point is not in dispute, as you're describing what is known
to be intelligently designed. What you continue to conveniently >>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore is that your analogies using human manufactured items don't
illustrate items which reproduce themselves.
"Obvious" usually means you convinced yourself your beliefs are true
but you have no idea how to explain it to anybody else.
An example is the
antikythera mechanism from the 1/th century BC. Nothing is >>>>>>>>>>>> known from this period of history as technologically sophisticated >>>>>>>>>>>> or equal in complexity as this device. And not for another 1500 years.
was the technology of this device equaled. No one knows, for certain
who designed or who built it. Its purpose was not known for several
decades. No modern historian, scientist or philosopher believed the
Greeks or any civilization of this period had the capability to build
such a device. Yet, here is an obvious design - for a purpose. It's the
worlds first analogue computer, its purpose is believed to represent
movements of planets in the solar system.
Your argument above is related to your strawman objection that you >>>>>>>>>>> don't know the name of your presumptive designer. All the things you
say we don't know have nothing to do with recognizing that the >>>>>>>>>>> antikythera mechanism is a design and was designed by humans. >>>>>>>>>>>
arrive at this conclusion; since nothing equaling the level of >>>>>>>>>> sophistication
in design as was observed in this device, for another 1500 years? >>>>>>>>>> Can you rule out extra terrestrial beings?
WRT your first question: We arrive at this conclusion because we >>>>>>>>> recognize the features and characteristics of human manufacture, >>>>>>>>> exactly the same way you infer human manufacture of the things you use
every day, including the very computer you use to send your posts to >>>>>>>>> T.O.
WRT your second question: Of course it could be of extraterrestrial >>>>>>>>> origin, just as it could be from the future and was transported by >>>>>>>>> some time traveler, just as it could be of supernatural origin. To >>>>>>>>> rule out these "coulds" would be to prove a negative, a futile >>>>>>>>> exercise. We have no examples of these "coulds" to compare, while we >>>>>>>>> do have many examples of human manufacture. There is nothing about >>>>>>>>> the antikythera mechanism to suggest these "coulds" other than its >>>>>>>>> sophisticated principles.
So you can let your imagination run wild and believe all kinds of >>>>>>>>> "coulds". Or you can acknowledge the less interesting but more likely >>>>>>>>> conclusion that the antikythera mechanism illustrates the genius of an
unknown ancient savant.
mechanism of the same technological sophistication. So, what it comes down
to is there is no known alternative possibility, so it had to be some >>>>>>>> ancient ingenuous human being.
Assuming you meant "ingenious", other than it's the most likely
conclusion, what is your objection to it? Do you really think your >>>>>>> specified "coulds" are more likely? If so, on what basis?
requiring hospitalization and testing. It cannot be helped.
I did read Burkhard's reply, but he was mistaken.
WhatThe fact, that no artifact as sophisticated or technically advanced as the
makes the antikythera mechanism remarkable is not the materials or >>>>>>>>>>> construction, but is the sophisticated principles which are beyond >>>>>>>>>>> what is observed from other artifacts of that era.
antikythera mechanism, is known from the period and for another >>>>>>>>>> 1500 years, points to the possibility that this device was from another
more advanced civilization that we know nothing about.
Even is what you say above was correct, that we know nothing about an >>>>>>> advanced civilization doesn't inform what is the more likely
conclusion here. You would have a valid point if the antikythera >>>>>>> mechanism required some exotic materials processing. But it doesn't. >>>>>>> What you say above is simply incorrect. The manufacturing methods >>>>>>> illustrated by the antikythera mechanism were reasonably common in its >>>>>>> time. Please read Burkhard's latest replies to you before you comment >>>>>>> again on this point.
gave you references to the contemporary and near contemporary
texts that describe similar mechanism.
while it was more complex then these, it achieved that complexity
by simply combining several existing technologies into one - nothing >>>>> entirely new, just a more elaborate combination of
functions that furthermore came at a cost - it does not perform any
of them quite as well as simpler mechanisms of that time
do, a typical trade off when lots of functions are combines in one
piece
The calculations of times and constellation that the mechanism
uses were well documented and understood at the time - which is
one more reason why we have a pretty good idea who made it and why,
it aligns with the cycle of the classical olympic games e.g.
the Babylonian saros scheme that provides parts of the
calculations for Antikythera, and do date back to 748 BCE, so
are quite a bit older
And of course I brain farted in Aristotle instead of Archimedes
a few times. The law of conservation of misinformation strikes again.
A propos just got this in my twitter feed - not a mechanism as such, but art from
that period - only because Ron seems to think people at that time could not make intricate metal work:
https://twitter.com/ghostofhellas/status/1696300149784379818/photo/1
I think the antikythera mechanism was one of a kind, because it's
This still contradicts Ron's
claim about nothing similar being found for 1500 years. Further, as you >>>> note, there are reports nearly contemporaneous with the Antikythera
that describe similar orrerys, two independent ones from the known
works of Cicero that have both been referenced in thread. And still
further, as you note there are reports attributed to Aristotle that allude >>>> to similar devices. It may also be worth noting that the works of Aristotle
were know to the Isidore of Miletus, the Architect of the cathedral
Hagia Sophia circa 530 AD as he is suspected of being involved in
the original of the Archimedes palimpsest, a fascinating document
that Ron should take note of. It seems to be a copy of works by Archimedes >>>> originally copied about 500 AD in Greek. Centuries later during the Crusades
members of the latin church had odd ideas about Greek being a religion >>>> of witchcraft and demonic forces, it was removed to a Greek monastery
for safe keeping. However, it was not appreciated for what it was so
they seemingly scraped off he writing and overwrote it with religious
texts. Luckily, some of the earlier work stained the parchment and with >>>> modern technology the original can be mostly reconstructed.
Two lessons. Much of what was known has been lost. And recycling
isn't new. An old brass device, probably broken after many years, of
little practical value, would very likely risk being melted down to make >>>> arrow heads, or buttons, or a hinge --- something practical.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 00:55:23 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,723 |
