Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that
there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this
time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life
over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that
his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.
Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
Ron Okimoto
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:chemistry etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in
say, “not enough”, or simply, “I don’t know”.Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life
over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that
his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.
Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
Ron OkimotoIt's important to recognise the fundamental contention here: Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
You only need to find one black swan to prove that black swans exist. Similar but different, you only need to find one part of origins that has no satisfactory naturalistic explanation. Tour is proposing OOL as that part.
Of course, the definition of “no satisfactory naturalistic explanation” is disputable: how large must the “gap” be? How many years/dollars of research must be first invested before a valid gap is declared? And even then, one may still choose to
If after say another 500 years of concerted scientific research into OOL, the gap has not narrowed but in fact widened (and Tour claims the current trend is that it is widening), then one may reasonably conclude that, on balance of evidence, the “Godhypothesis” to be more likely. And some may be willing to accept less than another 500 years to reach this conclusion.
Note there is no claim of “proof” in this approach, rather a rational weighing of scientific evidence, subject to the complexities and personal factors inherent in that process. A metaphysical bias (e.g. atheistic or theistic) may influence one’sinterpretation of this evidence.
That’s my framing of this debate. YMMV.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:chemistry etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in
to say, “not enough”, or simply, “I don’t know”.Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.
Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
Ron OkimotoIt's important to recognise the fundamental contention here: Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
You only need to find one black swan to prove that black swans exist. Similar but different, you only need to find one part of origins that has no satisfactory naturalistic explanation. Tour is proposing OOL as that part.
Of course, the definition of “no satisfactory naturalistic explanation” is disputable: how large must the “gap” be? How many years/dollars of research must be first invested before a valid gap is declared? And even then, one may still choose
God hypothesis” to be more likely. And some may be willing to accept less than another 500 years to reach this conclusion.If after say another 500 years of concerted scientific research into OOL, the gap has not narrowed but in fact widened (and Tour claims the current trend is that it is widening), then one may reasonably conclude that, on balance of evidence, the “
The assumption underlying this argument is that all interesting scientific questions that have naturalistic answers, have answers which can be figured out by humans, given enough time and resources. Why do you think that that assumption is correct?
s interpretation of this evidence.Note there is no claim of “proof” in this approach, rather a rational weighing of scientific evidence, subject to the complexities and personal factors inherent in that process. A metaphysical bias (e.g. atheistic or theistic) may influence one’
That’s my framing of this debate. YMMV.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry
You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all
creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that
there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this
time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life
over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that
his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast
majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still
comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.
Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
Ron Okimoto
It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here: Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
You only need to find one black swan to prove that black swans exist. Similar but different, you only need to find one part of origins that has no satisfactory naturalistic explanation. Tour is proposing OOL as that part.
Of course, the definition of “no satisfactory naturalistic explanation” is disputable: how large must the “gap” be? How many years/dollars of research must be first invested before a valid gap is declared? And even then, one may still choose tosay, “not enough”, or simply, “I don’t know”.
If after say another 500 years of concerted scientific research into OOL, the gap has not narrowed but in fact widened (and Tour claims the current trend is that it is widening), then one may reasonably conclude that, on balance of evidence, the “Godhypothesis” to be more likely. And some may be willing to accept less than another 500 years to reach this conclusion.
Note there is no claim of “proof” in this approach, rather a rational weighing of scientific evidence, subject to the complexities and personal factors inherent in that process. A metaphysical bias (e.g. atheistic or theistic) may influence one’sinterpretation of this evidence.
That’s my framing of this debate. YMMV.
On 8/25/2023 7:08 PM, MarkE wrote:chemistry etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in
You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all
creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that
there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this
time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life
over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that
his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast
majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still >> comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.
Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
Ron Okimoto
It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here: Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?Tour claims to understand that no ID science can exist. He admits that
he doesn't know how to do any. That means that his denial is just
denial, and it isn't even any denial that he wants to believe that his designer is responsible for. Tell us how the existing origin of life
gap fits into your biblical beliefs. It is just a sad fact that most biblical creationists do not want to believe in the designer of the Top
Six god-of-the-gaps denial arguments. Creationist like Tour only use
them to temporarily lie to themselves about reality, but never want to
build anything positive out of them. I have recently put up the Reason
to believe creation model that they claim that they can support, and
they have to deny the top six denial in order to make the junk fit into their model. They use them all, but then they have to claim that they
don't really mean what they need them to mean. You can go to their site
and find them going on about the Cambrian explosion just like the ID
perps, but when it comes to using it in their model they can't use the
dates that they claim are so important to claiming that there isn't
enough time to evolve those multicellular animals. Really, they have to claim that land plants were created before sea creatures, but the
fossils that they use to demonstrate the Cambrian explosion evolved long before there were land plants on earth. We do not find land plants
until the Ordovician.
Tell us how the origin of life gap fits in with your Biblical model.
How long did life exist before land plants were created on the 3rd day?
The angiosperms described in the Bible didn't evolve until after
dinosaurs evolved. Really, they do not appear on earth until around 180 million years ago, and the Cambrian explosion was over half a billion
years ago, and microbial life may have existed for over 3 billion years.
The designer responsible for the origin of life is not the Biblical designer. Demonstrate otherwise. The reason to believe IDiots have to
deny most of the fossil record in order to maintain their biblical beliefs.
The current origin of life gap tells us that life existed and was
evolving on this planet for billions of years before land plants evolved.
to say, “not enough”, or simply, “I don’t know”.You only need to find one black swan to prove that black swans exist. Similar but different, you only need to find one part of origins that has no satisfactory naturalistic explanation. Tour is proposing OOL as that part.This does not apply to gap denial. The issue with gap denial is that no black swans have ever been found. There has never been a single
god-did-it event ever verified to have occurred. This is the reality
that all existing Christians have been born into. Continuing the denial
will never change that situation.
Look at Denton. He claims that his designer got the ball rolling with
the Big Bang and it all unfolded into what we have today. Even though
the Big Bang is #1 of the ID perp's top six evidences for IDiocy and the
AIG still has it up at their creation museum, the Big Bang is one of the science topics along with biological evolution that IDiots want to
remove from the public school science standards. They do not want their
kids to understand anything about the Big Bang.
Nelson has been an ID perp with the Discovery Institute from the
beginning of the ID creationist scam, and he has pretty much always
claimed that they did not have any ID science, but they were working on producing it. It turns out that Nelson never wanted the ID perps to
produce any IDiotic science. He never wanted to believe in the designer
of the Top Six because he is a young earth biblical literalist. The
last thing that Nelson wanted to happen is for Behe to demonstrate that
some god designed the IC flagellum over a billion years ago.
Pagano claimed that the Top six were not the best IDiotic evidence for IDiocy, and then he quit posting. The Top Six do not support a
geocentric IDiotic universe. Bill claimed that he had never supported
the creationist ID scam even though he had been an IDiot on TO since starting to post to TO. What Bill likely meant was that he had never supported what IDiocy had always been. Kalk and Glenn just ran in
denial and tried to keep posting the second rate denial that the ID
perps would put up, but Kalk couldn't keep doing that, so he claimed to
quit being an IDiot, and claimed that he had never claimed to be Hindu.
Now Kalk is just a plain vanilla biblical creationist who can't stand
what ID always was. Glenn still can't deal with the Top Six in an
honest and straightforward manner.
The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six. What was your response when
you were asked to put your designer into the origin of life gap that you were creating?
Look what has happened in the last 3.8 billion years since the origin of life on this planet. What kind of life did Tour's god or yours create,
and what has happened to it since? The origin of life gap god is not
the god of the Bible. You can go to the Reason to Believe site and see
that for yourself. They claim that it all makes biblical sense, but it doesn't.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
Is the life created 3.8 billion years ago anything like the life
described to have been created on the third day? What does the evidence
tell us about when the lifeforms created on subsequent days were
actually created. The ID perps still make a big deal about the gaps in
the whale fossil record, but what does that fossil record tell us about
the whether aquatic whales could have been created before the land
mammals that they evolved from?
There just isn't any reason to maintain the gap denial when it is what
is between the gaps that you can't deal with. What was the advice that
Saint Augustine had about the issue of denial of aspects of nature that could be determined to exist by human reasoning just because they
conflicted with something written in the Bible?
What good does it do for you or Tour to use it to deny existing reality
when you don't want to believe in the god responsible for the origin of
life on this planet?
Nyikos had to destroy his space alien designer fantasy. He had to
invoke god-like space aliens from another universe as being responsible
for the Top Six, and possible multiple different space aliens
responsible for some of the Top Six. What do you have to do with the
Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial? The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six.
Ron Okimoto
Of course, the definition of “no satisfactory naturalistic explanation” is disputable: how large must the “gap” be? How many years/dollars of research must be first invested before a valid gap is declared? And even then, one may still choose
God hypothesis” to be more likely. And some may be willing to accept less than another 500 years to reach this conclusion.If after say another 500 years of concerted scientific research into OOL, the gap has not narrowed but in fact widened (and Tour claims the current trend is that it is widening), then one may reasonably conclude that, on balance of evidence, the “
s interpretation of this evidence.Note there is no claim of “proof” in this approach, rather a rational weighing of scientific evidence, subject to the complexities and personal factors inherent in that process. A metaphysical bias (e.g. atheistic or theistic) may influence one’
That’s my framing of this debate. YMMV.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:35:14 AM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:chemistry etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in
choose to say, “not enough”, or simply, “I don’t know”.Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still
comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.
Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
Ron OkimotoIt's important to recognise the fundamental contention here: Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
You only need to find one black swan to prove that black swans exist. Similar but different, you only need to find one part of origins that has no satisfactory naturalistic explanation. Tour is proposing OOL as that part.
Of course, the definition of “no satisfactory naturalistic explanation” is disputable: how large must the “gap” be? How many years/dollars of research must be first invested before a valid gap is declared? And even then, one may still
God hypothesis” to be more likely. And some may be willing to accept less than another 500 years to reach this conclusion.If after say another 500 years of concerted scientific research into OOL, the gap has not narrowed but in fact widened (and Tour claims the current trend is that it is widening), then one may reasonably conclude that, on balance of evidence, the “
The assumption underlying this argument is that all interesting scientific questions that have naturalistic answers, have answers which can be figured out by humans, given enough time and resources. Why do you think that that assumption is correct?
"The assumption underlying this argument is that all interesting scientific questions that have naturalistic answers, have answers which can be figured out by humans, given enough time and resources. Why do you think that that assumption is correct?"
Not assuming that in any absolute sense. Rather, I'm implying what I'd call an "open" or "extended" epistemology, i.e. one which allows for the possibility of transcendent agency and detection of that agency through inferred breach of natural laws.
I acknowledge the potential difficulties and subjectivities in making such an inference. Making that inference prematurely is god-of-the-gaps, but refusing to ever make it (or at least concede it as a rational, evidential possibility) is commitmentmetaphysical naturalism.
s interpretation of this evidence.Note there is no claim of “proof” in this approach, rather a rational weighing of scientific evidence, subject to the complexities and personal factors inherent in that process. A metaphysical bias (e.g. atheistic or theistic) may influence one
That’s my framing of this debate. YMMV.
It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here:
Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin
of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here:Simplified: Does science provide greater evidence for X or Y?
Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin
of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
There are multiple problems with what you are attempting.
First, you are actually proposing that if science doesn't provide
you with a satisfactory narrative for X, they you think science
supports Y.
There are so many problems that I won't bother covering them
all. But for starters,
Why do you assert this dichotomy of either X or Y?
What is the significance of the test for establishing X?
. is the test reasonable? why? established to whose
. satisfaction? Why them? on what timeline? Why?
There's more if we get into details of X. Tour's implied model
is flawed. The model is implied by the specific tests. So
what if people can't support that particular model, especially
if it's the wrong model?
As for your Y, it's extremely arbitrary, not in a dichotomous
relationship with your X, and is ill-defined on top.
That combination of logical deficiencies makes for a rather
poorly inspired challenge. It seems more like a variant on a
Gish-Gallop than something rooted in scientific thought.
Sure, you can provide some answers for parts of the questions
above. For example, you can invoke that some named scientists
are "experts" so in ways represent some of the better current
authorities. But you won't have established why the authorities
of 2020 are special, as opposed to those of the 1970s, or
fifty years earlier, or 50 years from today. You are implicitly
assigning special significance to Now, something to always
be suspicious of. Willy Wonka and some Oompa Loompas
might have something to say about Verruca Salt.
Now the above isn't a reason to stop asking about the nature
of current best understandings of Origin of Life models.
That's a very legitimate thing to ask. But your proposed leap
from certain states of the answer to that question is dubious,
poorly founded, and ultimately quite silly.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 12:05:15 PM UTC+10, RonO wrote:chemistry etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
On 8/25/2023 7:08 PM, MarkE wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:15:15 AM UTC+10, RonO wrote:
On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in
problematic), it needs to appeal to the appearance of age (quite arguably problematic). OEC in its various forms addresses the old earth/universe data, and in the case of Theistic Evolution is accommodating of ToE. Progressive Creation (Hugh Ross) sitsTour claims to understand that no ID science can exist. He admits thatYou still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life >>>> gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that >>>> there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this >>>> time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life
over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that
his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast
majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still >>>> comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy. >>>>
Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
Ron Okimoto
It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here: Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
he doesn't know how to do any. That means that his denial is just
denial, and it isn't even any denial that he wants to believe that his
designer is responsible for. Tell us how the existing origin of life
gap fits into your biblical beliefs. It is just a sad fact that most
biblical creationists do not want to believe in the designer of the Top
Six god-of-the-gaps denial arguments. Creationist like Tour only use
them to temporarily lie to themselves about reality, but never want to
build anything positive out of them. I have recently put up the Reason
to believe creation model that they claim that they can support, and
they have to deny the top six denial in order to make the junk fit into
their model. They use them all, but then they have to claim that they
don't really mean what they need them to mean. You can go to their site
and find them going on about the Cambrian explosion just like the ID
perps, but when it comes to using it in their model they can't use the
dates that they claim are so important to claiming that there isn't
enough time to evolve those multicellular animals. Really, they have to
claim that land plants were created before sea creatures, but the
fossils that they use to demonstrate the Cambrian explosion evolved long
before there were land plants on earth. We do not find land plants
until the Ordovician.
Tell us how the origin of life gap fits in with your Biblical model.
How long did life exist before land plants were created on the 3rd day?
The angiosperms described in the Bible didn't evolve until after
dinosaurs evolved. Really, they do not appear on earth until around 180
million years ago, and the Cambrian explosion was over half a billion
years ago, and microbial life may have existed for over 3 billion years.
The designer responsible for the origin of life is not the Biblical
designer. Demonstrate otherwise. The reason to believe IDiots have to
deny most of the fossil record in order to maintain their biblical beliefs. >>
The current origin of life gap tells us that life existed and was
evolving on this planet for billions of years before land plants evolved.
I have as many questions as answers. I see various problems in reconciling biblical theology, scientific data and different creationist positions. E.g., it seems to me that while YEC avoids physical death before the Fall (arguably theologically
I find macroevolution unconvincing based on my interpretation of the limits of natural selection (as I've discussed elewhere), but accept adaptation in response to environmental pressures (this capacity being a feature of a planned, robust design).
How about you?
to say, “not enough”, or simply, “I don’t know”.You only need to find one black swan to prove that black swans exist. Similar but different, you only need to find one part of origins that has no satisfactory naturalistic explanation. Tour is proposing OOL as that part.This does not apply to gap denial. The issue with gap denial is that no
black swans have ever been found. There has never been a single
god-did-it event ever verified to have occurred. This is the reality
that all existing Christians have been born into. Continuing the denial
will never change that situation.
Look at Denton. He claims that his designer got the ball rolling with
the Big Bang and it all unfolded into what we have today. Even though
the Big Bang is #1 of the ID perp's top six evidences for IDiocy and the
AIG still has it up at their creation museum, the Big Bang is one of the
science topics along with biological evolution that IDiots want to
remove from the public school science standards. They do not want their
kids to understand anything about the Big Bang.
Nelson has been an ID perp with the Discovery Institute from the
beginning of the ID creationist scam, and he has pretty much always
claimed that they did not have any ID science, but they were working on
producing it. It turns out that Nelson never wanted the ID perps to
produce any IDiotic science. He never wanted to believe in the designer
of the Top Six because he is a young earth biblical literalist. The
last thing that Nelson wanted to happen is for Behe to demonstrate that
some god designed the IC flagellum over a billion years ago.
Pagano claimed that the Top six were not the best IDiotic evidence for
IDiocy, and then he quit posting. The Top Six do not support a
geocentric IDiotic universe. Bill claimed that he had never supported
the creationist ID scam even though he had been an IDiot on TO since
starting to post to TO. What Bill likely meant was that he had never
supported what IDiocy had always been. Kalk and Glenn just ran in
denial and tried to keep posting the second rate denial that the ID
perps would put up, but Kalk couldn't keep doing that, so he claimed to
quit being an IDiot, and claimed that he had never claimed to be Hindu.
Now Kalk is just a plain vanilla biblical creationist who can't stand
what ID always was. Glenn still can't deal with the Top Six in an
honest and straightforward manner.
The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six. What was your response when
you were asked to put your designer into the origin of life gap that you
were creating?
Look what has happened in the last 3.8 billion years since the origin of
life on this planet. What kind of life did Tour's god or yours create,
and what has happened to it since? The origin of life gap god is not
the god of the Bible. You can go to the Reason to Believe site and see
that for yourself. They claim that it all makes biblical sense, but it
doesn't.
https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/summary-of-reasons-to-believes-testable-creation-model-1
Is the life created 3.8 billion years ago anything like the life
described to have been created on the third day? What does the evidence
tell us about when the lifeforms created on subsequent days were
actually created. The ID perps still make a big deal about the gaps in
the whale fossil record, but what does that fossil record tell us about
the whether aquatic whales could have been created before the land
mammals that they evolved from?
There just isn't any reason to maintain the gap denial when it is what
is between the gaps that you can't deal with. What was the advice that
Saint Augustine had about the issue of denial of aspects of nature that
could be determined to exist by human reasoning just because they
conflicted with something written in the Bible?
What good does it do for you or Tour to use it to deny existing reality
when you don't want to believe in the god responsible for the origin of
life on this planet?
Nyikos had to destroy his space alien designer fantasy. He had to
invoke god-like space aliens from another universe as being responsible
for the Top Six, and possible multiple different space aliens
responsible for some of the Top Six. What do you have to do with the
Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial? The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six.
Ron Okimoto
Of course, the definition of “no satisfactory naturalistic explanation” is disputable: how large must the “gap” be? How many years/dollars of research must be first invested before a valid gap is declared? And even then, one may still choose
God hypothesis” to be more likely. And some may be willing to accept less than another 500 years to reach this conclusion.
If after say another 500 years of concerted scientific research into OOL, the gap has not narrowed but in fact widened (and Tour claims the current trend is that it is widening), then one may reasonably conclude that, on balance of evidence, the “
s interpretation of this evidence.
Note there is no claim of “proof” in this approach, rather a rational weighing of scientific evidence, subject to the complexities and personal factors inherent in that process. A metaphysical bias (e.g. atheistic or theistic) may influence one’
That’s my framing of this debate. YMMV.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:00:15 PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:What's silly is the leap from "there's no current scientific explanation," to "there must be a supernatural explanation." Evidence against some particular naturalistic explanation is not positive evidence for an unspecified supernatural one. That's what'
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here:Simplified: Does science provide greater evidence for X or Y?
Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin
of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
There are multiple problems with what you are attempting.
First, you are actually proposing that if science doesn't provide
you with a satisfactory narrative for X, they you think science
supports Y.
There are so many problems that I won't bother covering them
all. But for starters,
Why do you assert this dichotomy of either X or Y?
What is the significance of the test for establishing X?
. is the test reasonable? why? established to whose
. satisfaction? Why them? on what timeline? Why?
There's more if we get into details of X. Tour's implied model
is flawed. The model is implied by the specific tests. So
what if people can't support that particular model, especially
if it's the wrong model?
As for your Y, it's extremely arbitrary, not in a dichotomous
relationship with your X, and is ill-defined on top.
That combination of logical deficiencies makes for a rather
poorly inspired challenge. It seems more like a variant on a
Gish-Gallop than something rooted in scientific thought.
Sure, you can provide some answers for parts of the questions
above. For example, you can invoke that some named scientists
are "experts" so in ways represent some of the better current
authorities. But you won't have established why the authorities
of 2020 are special, as opposed to those of the 1970s, or
fifty years earlier, or 50 years from today. You are implicitly
assigning special significance to Now, something to always
be suspicious of. Willy Wonka and some Oompa Loompas
might have something to say about Verruca Salt.
Now the above isn't a reason to stop asking about the nature
of current best understandings of Origin of Life models.
That's a very legitimate thing to ask. But your proposed leapAre you saying that any origins debate on natural vs supernatural causes, on the basis of scientific evidence or lack thereof, is silly?
from certain states of the answer to that question is dubious,
poorly founded, and ultimately quite silly.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:00:15 PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here:Simplified: Does science provide greater evidence for X or Y?
Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin
of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
There are multiple problems with what you are attempting.
First, you are actually proposing that if science doesn't provide
you with a satisfactory narrative for X, they you think science
supports Y.
There are so many problems that I won't bother covering them
all. But for starters,
Why do you assert this dichotomy of either X or Y?
What is the significance of the test for establishing X?
. is the test reasonable? why? established to whose
. satisfaction? Why them? on what timeline? Why?
There's more if we get into details of X. Tour's implied model
is flawed. The model is implied by the specific tests. So
what if people can't support that particular model, especially
if it's the wrong model?
As for your Y, it's extremely arbitrary, not in a dichotomous
relationship with your X, and is ill-defined on top.
That combination of logical deficiencies makes for a rather
poorly inspired challenge. It seems more like a variant on a
Gish-Gallop than something rooted in scientific thought.
Sure, you can provide some answers for parts of the questions
above. For example, you can invoke that some named scientists
are "experts" so in ways represent some of the better current
authorities. But you won't have established why the authorities
of 2020 are special, as opposed to those of the 1970s, or
fifty years earlier, or 50 years from today. You are implicitly
assigning special significance to Now, something to always
be suspicious of. Willy Wonka and some Oompa Loompas
might have something to say about Verruca Salt.
Now the above isn't a reason to stop asking about the nature
of current best understandings of Origin of Life models.
That's a very legitimate thing to ask. But your proposed leap
from certain states of the answer to that question is dubious,
poorly founded, and ultimately quite silly.
Are you saying that any origins debate on natural vs supernatural causes, on the basis of scientific evidence or lack thereof, is silly?
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:55:15 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:00:15 PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here:
Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin
of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
.Simplified: Does science provide greater evidence for X or Y?
There are multiple problems with what you are attempting.
First, you are actually proposing that if science doesn't provide
you with a satisfactory narrative for X, they you think science
supports Y.
There are so many problems that I won't bother covering them
all. But for starters,
Why do you assert this dichotomy of either X or Y?
What is the significance of the test for establishing X?
. is the test reasonable? why? established to whose
. satisfaction? Why them? on what timeline? Why?
There's more if we get into details of X. Tour's implied model
is flawed. The model is implied by the specific tests. So
what if people can't support that particular model, especially
if it's the wrong model?
As for your Y, it's extremely arbitrary, not in a dichotomous relationship with your X, and is ill-defined on top.
That combination of logical deficiencies makes for a rather
poorly inspired challenge. It seems more like a variant on a
Gish-Gallop than something rooted in scientific thought.
Sure, you can provide some answers for parts of the questions
above. For example, you can invoke that some named scientists
are "experts" so in ways represent some of the better current authorities. But you won't have established why the authorities
of 2020 are special, as opposed to those of the 1970s, or
fifty years earlier, or 50 years from today. You are implicitly assigning special significance to Now, something to always
be suspicious of. Willy Wonka and some Oompa Loompas
might have something to say about Verruca Salt.
Now the above isn't a reason to stop asking about the nature
of current best understandings of Origin of Life models.
That's a very legitimate thing to ask. But your proposed leap
from certain states of the answer to that question is dubious,
poorly founded, and ultimately quite silly.
.Are you saying that any origins debate on natural vs supernatural
causes, on the basis of scientific evidence or lack thereof, is silly?
What's silly is the leap from "there's no current scientific explanation," to "there must be a supernatural explanation." Evidence against some particular naturalistic explanation is not positive evidence for an unspecified supernatural one. That's what's silly..
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:30:16 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:I agree with you. Also, just as p(N) can be decomposed, so can p(S) be decomposed into an infinite variety of supernatural models. Neither "N" nor "S" are testable hypotheses, since they completely lack specificity. You can only compare comparably
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:55:15 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:00:15 PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here:
Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin
of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
Simplified: Does science provide greater evidence for X or Y?
There are multiple problems with what you are attempting.
First, you are actually proposing that if science doesn't provide
you with a satisfactory narrative for X, they you think science supports Y.
There are so many problems that I won't bother covering them
all. But for starters,
Why do you assert this dichotomy of either X or Y?
What is the significance of the test for establishing X?
. is the test reasonable? why? established to whose
. satisfaction? Why them? on what timeline? Why?
There's more if we get into details of X. Tour's implied model
is flawed. The model is implied by the specific tests. So
what if people can't support that particular model, especially
if it's the wrong model?
As for your Y, it's extremely arbitrary, not in a dichotomous relationship with your X, and is ill-defined on top.
That combination of logical deficiencies makes for a rather
poorly inspired challenge. It seems more like a variant on a Gish-Gallop than something rooted in scientific thought.
Sure, you can provide some answers for parts of the questions
above. For example, you can invoke that some named scientists
are "experts" so in ways represent some of the better current authorities. But you won't have established why the authorities
of 2020 are special, as opposed to those of the 1970s, or
fifty years earlier, or 50 years from today. You are implicitly assigning special significance to Now, something to always
be suspicious of. Willy Wonka and some Oompa Loompas
might have something to say about Verruca Salt.
Now the above isn't a reason to stop asking about the nature
of current best understandings of Origin of Life models.
.That's a very legitimate thing to ask. But your proposed leap
from certain states of the answer to that question is dubious,
poorly founded, and ultimately quite silly.
.Are you saying that any origins debate on natural vs supernatural causes, on the basis of scientific evidence or lack thereof, is silly?
What's silly is the leap from "there's no current scientific explanation," to "there must be a supernatural explanation." Evidence against some particular naturalistic explanation is not positive evidence for an unspecified supernatural one. That's what's silly..
That's certainly part of it. There was more that MarkE seems not
to have read. But let's put the above in mathematical terms.
MarkE seems to be starting from the position that the Origin of Life
was either N Natural, or S Supernatural.
That can be expressed as p(N) + p(S) = 1.
The probability of N plus the probability of S = 1.
MarkE seems to want to demonstrate that p(N) is either 0
or otherwise very small such that p(S) is either 1 or close to 1.
(this isn't a completely robust model because in a Universe
where p(S) is greater than 0, p(N) could theoretically still have
any value between 0 and 1 inclusive. But it suffices didactically.)
Again, the apparent claim is that if p(N) is zero or small, then
p(S) is promoted. But it takes a next step which is dubious.
That step is to assert that if some group of people can't show
that p(N) is non-zero or large, that p(N) must be small.
That connection is extremely weak. What makes one think
that the scientists of the 2020s have any great ability to
demonstrate much about p(N)? For reference, we know that
100 years ago they had extremely limited ability to do so.
There's a further problem in the challenge MarkE presents.
p(N) can be decomposed into p(N1) + p(N2) ... + p(Nn) = p(N)
where N1 is naturalistic OoL by model 1, N2 by model 2 etc.
Most of these models are likely wrong (perhaps even all).
In fact, within this modeling all but one of {N1, N2, ... Nn}
is the wrong model so most of the probabilities are zero.
MarkE's challenge is toward one model, as chosen by Tour.
Eliminating Ntour doesn't inform you about the other potential
models for naturalistic OoL. So even if we could somehow
rule out Tour's model, it doesn't tell us anything about p(S).
This is just an elaborate way of repeating that MarkE's challenge
sets up a false dichotomy. All of the above should be understood
simply from the phrase "false dichotomy".
** Yes, I know that the probabilities aren't necessarily additive
as multiple models could be viable but the illustration still
works.
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in 2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in 2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of whichwhich enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about
graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic
chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.
--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed >> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. >> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in 2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of whichwhich enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can >> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree >> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with >> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about
graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic
chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.
--Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand...
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
what am I missing here?"
To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider
is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy,
would you?
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
20222023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
--which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 19:14:08 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com>:
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in >2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
IOW, the usual garbage of a credentials assumed to confer
expertise in every field, the "outside expert" fallacy.
--which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed >> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in 2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can >> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree >> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with >> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
--Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand...
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
what am I missing here?"
To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsiderWhat you seem determined to miss is that nobody is objecting to the
is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy,
would you?
idea of testing models of Origins of Life.
The objection is to you tagging on the irrational continuation that if Tour's model of the OoL isn't well supported, that this means that
a supernatural model is then favored.
People have been very very clear about this. How are you missing it?
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:35:16 AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life >> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in 2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
--Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand...
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
what am I missing here?"
To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy,What you seem determined to miss is that nobody is objecting to the
would you?
idea of testing models of Origins of Life.
The objection is to you tagging on the irrational continuation that if Tour's model of the OoL isn't well supported, that this means that
a supernatural model is then favored.
People have been very very clear about this. How are you missing it?Have I not suggested something rather more nuanced than a simplistic dichotomy? I thought I had been very, very clear about this.
All the same, this issue is not incidental but fundamental to the terms of engagement in this debate. I've discussed it here before at length, but aim to revisit it.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 2:30:16?PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:35:16?AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:Have I not suggested something rather more nuanced than a simplistic dichotomy? I thought I had been very, very clear about this.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16?AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:What you seem determined to miss is that nobody is objecting to the
On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand...
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life >> > > > >> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in >> > > > > 2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with >> > > > >> interest.
productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which >> > > > not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a >> > > > speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers >> > > > would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about
graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry >> > > > from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic
chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.
--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
what am I missing here?"
To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider >> > > is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy,
would you?
idea of testing models of Origins of Life.
The objection is to you tagging on the irrational continuation that if
Tour's model of the OoL isn't well supported, that this means that
a supernatural model is then favored.
People have been very very clear about this. How are you missing it?
All the same, this issue is not incidental but fundamental to the terms of engagement in this debate. I've discussed it here before at length, but aim to revisit it.
PSproducts of extensive selection ... In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable." https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15
Another option, for example, is some version of the multiverse. Koonin appeals to it to help non-supernatural OoL:
"Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear to be
Koonin's third option supports my position , i.e. if all hypotheses based on physical-chemical pathways on a pre-biotic earth end up showing a widening explanatory gap, you're left with very limited reasonable alternatives. An appeal to the multiverseis on par with positing supernatural action.
And sure, there *might* be some other undiscovered property of matter that permits it to self-organise, but I'd argue that favouring this would be more about a metaphysical commitment.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:20:15?AM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:specific explanations, so the only sort of comparison or test you can do is to ask, for example, are the predictions of "N45" more in line with the evidence than the predictions of "S23"? And just as "'N17' predicts X and X is not observed" does not make
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:30:16?AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >> > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:55:15?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:I agree with you. Also, just as p(N) can be decomposed, so can p(S) be decomposed into an infinite variety of supernatural models. Neither "N" nor "S" are testable hypotheses, since they completely lack specificity. You can only compare comparably
.On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:00:15?PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote: >> > > > On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here:
Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin
of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
.Simplified: Does science provide greater evidence for X or Y?
There are multiple problems with what you are attempting.
First, you are actually proposing that if science doesn't provide
you with a satisfactory narrative for X, they you think science
supports Y.
There are so many problems that I won't bother covering them
all. But for starters,
Why do you assert this dichotomy of either X or Y?
What is the significance of the test for establishing X?
. is the test reasonable? why? established to whose
. satisfaction? Why them? on what timeline? Why?
There's more if we get into details of X. Tour's implied model
is flawed. The model is implied by the specific tests. So
what if people can't support that particular model, especially
if it's the wrong model?
As for your Y, it's extremely arbitrary, not in a dichotomous
relationship with your X, and is ill-defined on top.
That combination of logical deficiencies makes for a rather
poorly inspired challenge. It seems more like a variant on a
Gish-Gallop than something rooted in scientific thought.
Sure, you can provide some answers for parts of the questions
above. For example, you can invoke that some named scientists
are "experts" so in ways represent some of the better current
authorities. But you won't have established why the authorities
of 2020 are special, as opposed to those of the 1970s, or
fifty years earlier, or 50 years from today. You are implicitly
assigning special significance to Now, something to always
be suspicious of. Willy Wonka and some Oompa Loompas
might have something to say about Verruca Salt.
Now the above isn't a reason to stop asking about the nature
of current best understandings of Origin of Life models.
That's a very legitimate thing to ask. But your proposed leap
from certain states of the answer to that question is dubious,
poorly founded, and ultimately quite silly.
.Are you saying that any origins debate on natural vs supernaturalWhat's silly is the leap from "there's no current scientific explanation," >> > to "there must be a supernatural explanation." Evidence against some
causes, on the basis of scientific evidence or lack thereof, is silly? >> .
particular naturalistic explanation is not positive evidence for an
unspecified supernatural one. That's what's silly.
That's certainly part of it. There was more that MarkE seems not
to have read. But let's put the above in mathematical terms.
MarkE seems to be starting from the position that the Origin of Life
was either N Natural, or S Supernatural.
That can be expressed as p(N) + p(S) = 1.
The probability of N plus the probability of S = 1.
MarkE seems to want to demonstrate that p(N) is either 0
or otherwise very small such that p(S) is either 1 or close to 1.
(this isn't a completely robust model because in a Universe
where p(S) is greater than 0, p(N) could theoretically still have
any value between 0 and 1 inclusive. But it suffices didactically.)
Again, the apparent claim is that if p(N) is zero or small, then
p(S) is promoted. But it takes a next step which is dubious.
That step is to assert that if some group of people can't show
that p(N) is non-zero or large, that p(N) must be small.
That connection is extremely weak. What makes one think
that the scientists of the 2020s have any great ability to
demonstrate much about p(N)? For reference, we know that
100 years ago they had extremely limited ability to do so.
There's a further problem in the challenge MarkE presents.
p(N) can be decomposed into p(N1) + p(N2) ... + p(Nn) = p(N)
where N1 is naturalistic OoL by model 1, N2 by model 2 etc.
Most of these models are likely wrong (perhaps even all).
In fact, within this modeling all but one of {N1, N2, ... Nn}
is the wrong model so most of the probabilities are zero.
MarkE's challenge is toward one model, as chosen by Tour.
Eliminating Ntour doesn't inform you about the other potential
models for naturalistic OoL. So even if we could somehow
rule out Tour's model, it doesn't tell us anything about p(S).
This is just an elaborate way of repeating that MarkE's challenge
sets up a false dichotomy. All of the above should be understood
simply from the phrase "false dichotomy".
** Yes, I know that the probabilities aren't necessarily additive
as multiple models could be viable but the illustration still
works.
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 08:10:04 -0700 (PDT), "broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:specific explanations, so the only sort of comparison or test you can do is to ask, for example, are the predictions of "N45" more in line with the evidence than the predictions of "S23"? And just as "'N17' predicts X and X is not observed" does not make
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 10:20:15?AM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:30:16?AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:I agree with you. Also, just as p(N) can be decomposed, so can p(S) be decomposed into an infinite variety of supernatural models. Neither "N" nor "S" are testable hypotheses, since they completely lack specificity. You can only compare comparably
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:55:15?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:00:15?PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here:
Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin
of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
.Simplified: Does science provide greater evidence for X or Y?
There are multiple problems with what you are attempting.
First, you are actually proposing that if science doesn't provide >> > > > you with a satisfactory narrative for X, they you think science
supports Y.
There are so many problems that I won't bother covering them
all. But for starters,
Why do you assert this dichotomy of either X or Y?
What is the significance of the test for establishing X?
. is the test reasonable? why? established to whose
. satisfaction? Why them? on what timeline? Why?
There's more if we get into details of X. Tour's implied model
is flawed. The model is implied by the specific tests. So
what if people can't support that particular model, especially
if it's the wrong model?
As for your Y, it's extremely arbitrary, not in a dichotomous
relationship with your X, and is ill-defined on top.
That combination of logical deficiencies makes for a rather
poorly inspired challenge. It seems more like a variant on a
Gish-Gallop than something rooted in scientific thought.
Sure, you can provide some answers for parts of the questions
above. For example, you can invoke that some named scientists
are "experts" so in ways represent some of the better current
authorities. But you won't have established why the authorities
of 2020 are special, as opposed to those of the 1970s, or
fifty years earlier, or 50 years from today. You are implicitly
assigning special significance to Now, something to always
be suspicious of. Willy Wonka and some Oompa Loompas
might have something to say about Verruca Salt.
Now the above isn't a reason to stop asking about the nature
of current best understandings of Origin of Life models.
That's a very legitimate thing to ask. But your proposed leap
from certain states of the answer to that question is dubious,
poorly founded, and ultimately quite silly.
.Are you saying that any origins debate on natural vs supernatural
causes, on the basis of scientific evidence or lack thereof, is silly?
What's silly is the leap from "there's no current scientific explanation,".
to "there must be a supernatural explanation." Evidence against some
particular naturalistic explanation is not positive evidence for an
unspecified supernatural one. That's what's silly.
That's certainly part of it. There was more that MarkE seems not
to have read. But let's put the above in mathematical terms.
MarkE seems to be starting from the position that the Origin of Life
was either N Natural, or S Supernatural.
That can be expressed as p(N) + p(S) = 1.
The probability of N plus the probability of S = 1.
MarkE seems to want to demonstrate that p(N) is either 0
or otherwise very small such that p(S) is either 1 or close to 1.
(this isn't a completely robust model because in a Universe
where p(S) is greater than 0, p(N) could theoretically still have
any value between 0 and 1 inclusive. But it suffices didactically.)
Again, the apparent claim is that if p(N) is zero or small, then
p(S) is promoted. But it takes a next step which is dubious.
That step is to assert that if some group of people can't show
that p(N) is non-zero or large, that p(N) must be small.
That connection is extremely weak. What makes one think
that the scientists of the 2020s have any great ability to
demonstrate much about p(N)? For reference, we know that
100 years ago they had extremely limited ability to do so.
There's a further problem in the challenge MarkE presents.
p(N) can be decomposed into p(N1) + p(N2) ... + p(Nn) = p(N)
where N1 is naturalistic OoL by model 1, N2 by model 2 etc.
Most of these models are likely wrong (perhaps even all).
In fact, within this modeling all but one of {N1, N2, ... Nn}
is the wrong model so most of the probabilities are zero.
MarkE's challenge is toward one model, as chosen by Tour.
Eliminating Ntour doesn't inform you about the other potential
models for naturalistic OoL. So even if we could somehow
rule out Tour's model, it doesn't tell us anything about p(S).
This is just an elaborate way of repeating that MarkE's challenge
sets up a false dichotomy. All of the above should be understood
simply from the phrase "false dichotomy".
** Yes, I know that the probabilities aren't necessarily additive
as multiple models could be viable but the illustration still
works.
The problem is, of course, that evolution-deniers never offer anyOne more problem is that there are supernatural and natural explanations which can be true simultaneously, so it's not even fair to say P(N)+P(S)=1.
specific S(n) version for evaluation or comparison, they just want to
argue about S as some abstract overall value. That can be seen in the various Ron Dean threads where, despite repeated requests, he refuses
to give any indication of what the characteristics of the designer
might be or the mechanisms that might have been used in the design
process.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 2:30:16 PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:be products of extensive selection ... In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable." https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:35:16 AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field: >>
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in 2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour'swhich enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe >> uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with >> interest.
productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which
not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.
--Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand...
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
what am I missing here?"
To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsiderWhat you seem determined to miss is that nobody is objecting to the
is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy,
would you?
idea of testing models of Origins of Life.
The objection is to you tagging on the irrational continuation that if Tour's model of the OoL isn't well supported, that this means that
a supernatural model is then favored.
People have been very very clear about this. How are you missing it?Have I not suggested something rather more nuanced than a simplistic dichotomy? I thought I had been very, very clear about this.
All the same, this issue is not incidental but fundamental to the terms of engagement in this debate. I've discussed it here before at length, but aim to revisit it.PS
Another option, for example, is some version of the multiverse. Koonin appeals to it to help non-supernatural OoL:
"Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear to
Koonin's third option supports my position , i.e. if all hypotheses based on physical-chemical pathways on a pre-biotic earth end up showing a widening explanatory gap, you're left with very limited reasonable alternatives. An appeal to the multiverseis on par with positing supernatural action.
And sure, there *might* be some other undiscovered property of matter that permits it to self-organise, but I'd argue that favouring this would be more about a metaphysical commitment.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 1:10:16 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 2:30:16 PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:> > On
Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:35:16 AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:>
Cornish-Bowden wrote:> > > > > On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, AthelOn Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:> >
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel
Cornish-Bowden said:> > > > >> > > > > > On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000,
MarkE said:> > > > > >> > > > > >> Dr James Tour has proposed this
challenge regarding origin of life> > > > > >> research, inviting by
name ten leading scientists in the field:> > > > > >>> > > > > >>
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared> > > > > >>> > > > > >>
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed>
overstated claims.> > > > > >> Tour is an outsider able to rock thepoints of challenge to speculative, implausible and
boat, but an accomplished> > > > > >> scientist with relevant expertise
in chemistry etc> > > > > >> > > > > > Yes, but the "etc" doesn't
include anything relevant. 43 papers in> > > > > > 2022–2023, none of
thm having anything to do with the origin of life.> > > > > >> > > > >
many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can> > > >which enables him to mount a serious challenge.> > > > > >> Sure,
degree> > > > > >> of progress it claims, and is willing for the publicbe made says something about the state of OOL research and the
to believe> > > > > >> uncorrected.> > > > > >> We have "professor"
Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with> > > > > >> Tour to
thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with> > > > > >>
interest.> > > > > I previously only looked back two years, but I've
now looked at Tour's> > > > > productions back to the beginning of
2013. 343 publications, of which> > > > > not a single one is related
to the origin of life. If I submitted a> > > > > speculative paper
about the future of graphene research the reviewers> > > > > would
(rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about> > > > >
graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry>
aspects of> > > > > chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care howfrom a major university, and was therefore an expert on all
good an organic> > > > > chemist Tour is, he has no standing in
origin-of-life research.> > > > >> > > > > --> > > > > athel cb :
Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016> > > > Which is why he has
posed the challenge as "help me understand...> > > > what am I missing
here?"> > > >> > > > To dismiss on principle the questioning of a
serious, informed outsider> > > > is a kind of appeal to authority. You
wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy,> > > > would you?> > > What
you seem determined to miss is that nobody is objecting to the> > >
idea of testing models of Origins of Life.> > >> > > The objection is
to you tagging on the irrational continuation that if> > > Tour's model
of the OoL isn't well supported, that this means that> > > a
supernatural model is then favored.> > >> > > People have been very
very clear about this. How are you missing it?> > Have I not suggested
something rather more nuanced than a simplistic dichotomy? I thought I
had been very, very clear about this.> >> > All the same, this issue is
not incidental but fundamental to the terms of engagement in this
debate. I've discussed it here before at length, but aim to revisit it.
Koonin appeals to it to help non-supernatural OoL:>> "Origin of life isAnother option, for example, is some version of the multiverse.
a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed,
primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for
replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of
these systems appear to be products of extensive selection ... In an
infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by
chance is inevitable."
https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15>>
Koonin's third option supports my position , i.e. if all hypotheses
based on physical-chemical pathways on a pre-biotic earth end up
showing a widening explanatory gap, you're left with very limited
reasonable alternatives. An appeal to the multiverse is on par with
positing supernatural action.>> And sure, there *might* be some other
undiscovered property of matter that permits it to self-organise, but
I'd argue that favouring this would be more about a metaphysical
commitment.
I'm still not quite sure where you see a "widening explanatory gap," or
even what you mean by the phrase. To me, it looks like starting from a
huge gap, starting from Darwin's "warm little pond somewhere"
to the first life, to a current state where lots of the detailed
problems have been made explicit, some have been resolved (e.g., "but
if that were true RNA alone without protein would have to have be able
to form enzymatically active RNAs" and then people find enzymatically
active RNAs). Likewise for all the pre-biotic synthesis pathways - for
many of them we've gone from no plausible idea, to better ideas, there
are progressively more and more constraints on the models. That seems
to me to be progress and gradual filling in and defining of the gaps,
not a "widening explanatory gap." No doubt the problem is not solved,
and indeed like lots of other problems in science it may not get solved
any time soon, but the idea that there's no progress just does not jibe
with what's happening in the field.
As for Koonin's argument - it's another example of silly. It's based on
a model of the origin of life to which nobody in the field subscribes, something almost as much of a strawman as the tornado in a junkyard
making a 747. No need for multiverses. And if you read Koonin's
argument and did not immediately see the flaws in it, or at least see
what researchers in the field would identify as the flaws in it, you
haven't been making much of an effort.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 1:10:16 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:be products of extensive selection ... In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable." https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 2:30:16 PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:35:16 AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field: >>
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished >> scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour'swhich enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe >> uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which
not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a
speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.
--Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand... what am I missing here?"
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsiderWhat you seem determined to miss is that nobody is objecting to the idea of testing models of Origins of Life.
is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy,
would you?
The objection is to you tagging on the irrational continuation that if Tour's model of the OoL isn't well supported, that this means that
a supernatural model is then favored.
People have been very very clear about this. How are you missing it?Have I not suggested something rather more nuanced than a simplistic dichotomy? I thought I had been very, very clear about this.
All the same, this issue is not incidental but fundamental to the terms of engagement in this debate. I've discussed it here before at length, but aim to revisit it.PS
Another option, for example, is some version of the multiverse. Koonin appeals to it to help non-supernatural OoL:
"Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear to
multiverse is on par with positing supernatural action.Koonin's third option supports my position , i.e. if all hypotheses based on physical-chemical pathways on a pre-biotic earth end up showing a widening explanatory gap, you're left with very limited reasonable alternatives. An appeal to the
lots of the detailed problems have been made explicit, some have been resolved (e.g., "but if that were true RNA alone without protein would have to have be able to form enzymatically active RNAs" and then people find enzymatically active RNAs). LikewiseAnd sure, there *might* be some other undiscovered property of matter that permits it to self-organise, but I'd argue that favouring this would be more about a metaphysical commitment.I'm still not quite sure where you see a "widening explanatory gap," or even what you mean by the phrase. To me, it looks like starting from a huge gap, starting from Darwin's "warm little pond somewhere" to the first life, to a current state where
As for Koonin's argument - it's another example of silly. It's based on a model of the origin of life to which nobody in the field subscribes, something almost as much of a strawman as the tornado in a junkyard making a 747. No need for multiverses.And if you read Koonin's argument and did not immediately see the flaws in it, or at least see what researchers in the field would identify as the flaws in it, you haven't been making much of an effort.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 8:55:17?PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:to be products of extensive selection ... In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable." https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 1:10:16?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 2:30:16?PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:35:16?AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote: >> > > > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:PS
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16?AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:What you seem determined to miss is that nobody is objecting to the >> > > > idea of testing models of Origins of Life.
On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand... >> > > > > what am I missing here?"
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished >> > > > > > >> scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which
not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a
speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about >> > > > > > graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic
chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research. >> > > > > >
--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider
is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy,
would you?
The objection is to you tagging on the irrational continuation that if
Tour's model of the OoL isn't well supported, that this means that
a supernatural model is then favored.
People have been very very clear about this. How are you missing it? >> > > Have I not suggested something rather more nuanced than a simplistic dichotomy? I thought I had been very, very clear about this.
All the same, this issue is not incidental but fundamental to the terms of engagement in this debate. I've discussed it here before at length, but aim to revisit it.
Another option, for example, is some version of the multiverse. Koonin appeals to it to help non-supernatural OoL:
"Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear
multiverse is on par with positing supernatural action.
Koonin's third option supports my position , i.e. if all hypotheses based on physical-chemical pathways on a pre-biotic earth end up showing a widening explanatory gap, you're left with very limited reasonable alternatives. An appeal to the
lots of the detailed problems have been made explicit, some have been resolved (e.g., "but if that were true RNA alone without protein would have to have be able to form enzymatically active RNAs" and then people find enzymatically active RNAs). LikewiseI'm still not quite sure where you see a "widening explanatory gap," or even what you mean by the phrase. To me, it looks like starting from a huge gap, starting from Darwin's "warm little pond somewhere" to the first life, to a current state where
And sure, there *might* be some other undiscovered property of matter that permits it to self-organise, but I'd argue that favouring this would be more about a metaphysical commitment.
happening in the field.scientists aren’t even close to intelligently synthesizing life from non-life in the lab. The problem, Tour says, is that some leading origin-of-life researchers give the impression they are right on the cusp of solving the problem.
The following quote gives the overall vibe (emphasis mine):
"James Tour claims the origin-of-life community is further than ever from solving the mystery of life’s origin, and how the public has gotten the false impression that scientists can synthesize life in the lab. Tour explains that origin-of-life
Not so, Tour says. He offers the analogy of someone claiming, in the year 1500, that he has the know-how to build a ship to travel to the moon, when no one yet knows even how to build an airplane, car, or car engine. Tour says that if he took a cellthat had just died a moment before and asked top origin-of-life researchers to engineer it back to life, they couldn’t do it. They’re not even close to being able to do it. And yet all the ingredients, all the building blocks of life are right there,
There are no models that would make such a scenario plausible. AND THE MORE WE LEARN ABOUT CELLULAR COMPLEXITY, THE HARDER THE PROBLEM GETS. Indeed, as Tour puts it, origin-of-life research is like moving down a football field in nanometer incrementswhile the goalposts are racing away. What’s left is only the dogmatic assumption among origin-of-life researchers that the first life must have appeared on Earth purely through blind material forces. Tour has made it his mission to show the broader
And if you read Koonin's argument and did not immediately see the flaws in it, or at least see what researchers in the field would identify as the flaws in it, you haven't been making much of an effort.As for Koonin's argument - it's another example of silly. It's based on a model of the origin of life to which nobody in the field subscribes, something almost as much of a strawman as the tornado in a junkyard making a 747. No need for multiverses.
Not citing Koonin as endorsment, rather to demonstrate I'm not implying a dichotomy.
[...]
Regardless, Tour's arguments should ultimately be taken on their own merits.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 8:55:17 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:to be products of extensive selection ... In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable." https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 1:10:16 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 2:30:16 PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:35:16 AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour'swhich enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which
not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a
speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic
chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.
--Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand... what am I missing here?"
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsiderWhat you seem determined to miss is that nobody is objecting to the idea of testing models of Origins of Life.
is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy,
would you?
The objection is to you tagging on the irrational continuation that if
Tour's model of the OoL isn't well supported, that this means that
a supernatural model is then favored.
People have been very very clear about this. How are you missing it?Have I not suggested something rather more nuanced than a simplistic dichotomy? I thought I had been very, very clear about this.
All the same, this issue is not incidental but fundamental to the terms of engagement in this debate. I've discussed it here before at length, but aim to revisit it.PS
Another option, for example, is some version of the multiverse. Koonin appeals to it to help non-supernatural OoL:
"Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear
multiverse is on par with positing supernatural action.Koonin's third option supports my position , i.e. if all hypotheses based on physical-chemical pathways on a pre-biotic earth end up showing a widening explanatory gap, you're left with very limited reasonable alternatives. An appeal to the
lots of the detailed problems have been made explicit, some have been resolved (e.g., "but if that were true RNA alone without protein would have to have be able to form enzymatically active RNAs" and then people find enzymatically active RNAs). LikewiseAnd sure, there *might* be some other undiscovered property of matter that permits it to self-organise, but I'd argue that favouring this would be more about a metaphysical commitment.I'm still not quite sure where you see a "widening explanatory gap," or even what you mean by the phrase. To me, it looks like starting from a huge gap, starting from Darwin's "warm little pond somewhere" to the first life, to a current state where
The following quote gives the overall vibe (emphasis mine):scientists aren’t even close to intelligently synthesizing life from non-life in the lab. The problem, Tour says, is that some leading origin-of-life researchers give the impression they are right on the cusp of solving the problem.
"James Tour claims the origin-of-life community is further than ever from solving the mystery of life’s origin, and how the public has gotten the false impression that scientists can synthesize life in the lab. Tour explains that origin-of-life
Not so, Tour says. He offers the analogy of someone claiming, in the year 1500, that he has the know-how to build a ship to travel to the moon, when no one yet knows even how to build an airplane, car, or car engine. Tour says that if he took a cellthat had just died a moment before and asked top origin-of-life researchers to engineer it back to life, they couldn’t do it.
They’re not even close to being able to do it. And yet all the ingredients, all the building blocks of life are right there, all in one place, in the right>yet they assume that purely blind material processes >turned prebiotic chemicals into all the key building blocks, and then mindlessly engineered those into the first self-reproducing cell on the early Earth.
proportions. And not only can scientists not engineer those ingredients back to life, they still can’t synthesize even a fraction of the building blocks >essential to cellular life, despite decades and millions of dollars poured into the problem. And
There are no models that would make such a scenario plausible. AND THE MORE WE LEARN ABOUT CELLULAR COMPLEXITY, THE HARDER THE PROBLEM GETS. Indeed, as Tour puts it, origin-of-life research is like moving down a football field in nanometer incrementswhile the goalposts are racing away. What’s left is only the dogmatic assumption among origin-of-life researchers that the first life must have appeared on Earth purely through blind material forces. Tour has made it his mission to show the broader
And if you read Koonin's argument and did not immediately see the flaws in it, or at least see what researchers in the field would identify as the flaws in it, you haven't been making much of an effort.As for Koonin's argument - it's another example of silly. It's based on a model of the origin of life to which nobody in the field subscribes, something almost as much of a strawman as the tornado in a junkyard making a 747. No need for multiverses.
Not citing Koonin as endorsment, rather to demonstrate I'm not implying a dichotomy.
On 2023-08-27 10:51:31 +0000, broger...@gmail.com said:.............................
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 1:10:16 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 2:30:16 PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:> > On
Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:35:16 AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:>
Cornish-Bowden wrote:> > > > > On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, AthelOn Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:> > >> > > On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel
Cornish-Bowden said:> > > > >> > > > > > On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000,
MarkE said:> > > > > >> > > > > >> Dr James Tour has proposed this
challenge regarding origin of life> > > > > >> research, inviting by
name ten leading scientists in the field:> > > > > >>> > > > > >>
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared> > > > > >>> > > > > >>
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed>
overstated claims.> > > > > >> Tour is an outsider able to rock thepoints of challenge to speculative, implausible and
boat, but an accomplished> > > > > >> scientist with relevant expertise >> in chemistry etc> > > > > >> > > > > > Yes, but the "etc" doesn't
include anything relevant. 43 papers in> > > > > > 2022–2023, none of >> thm having anything to do with the origin of life.> > > > > >> > > > >
many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can> > > >which enables him to mount a serious challenge.> > > > > >> Sure,
degree> > > > > >> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public >> to believe> > > > > >> uncorrected.> > > > > >> We have "professor"be made says something about the state of OOL research and the
Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with> > > > > >> Tour to
thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with> > > > > >>
interest.> > > > > I previously only looked back two years, but I've
now looked at Tour's> > > > > productions back to the beginning of
2013. 343 publications, of which> > > > > not a single one is related
to the origin of life. If I submitted a> > > > > speculative paper
about the future of graphene research the reviewers> > > > > would
(rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about> > > > >
graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry>
aspects of> > > > > chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care howfrom a major university, and was therefore an expert on all
good an organic> > > > > chemist Tour is, he has no standing in
origin-of-life research.> > > > >> > > > > --> > > > > athel cb :
Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016> > > > Which is why he has >> posed the challenge as "help me understand...> > > > what am I missing
here?"> > > >> > > > To dismiss on principle the questioning of a
serious, informed outsider> > > > is a kind of appeal to authority. You >> wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy,> > > > would you?> > > What
you seem determined to miss is that nobody is objecting to the> > >
idea of testing models of Origins of Life.> > >> > > The objection is
to you tagging on the irrational continuation that if> > > Tour's model >> of the OoL isn't well supported, that this means that> > > a
supernatural model is then favored.> > >> > > People have been very
very clear about this. How are you missing it?> > Have I not suggested
something rather more nuanced than a simplistic dichotomy? I thought I
had been very, very clear about this.> >> > All the same, this issue is >> not incidental but fundamental to the terms of engagement in this
debate. I've discussed it here before at length, but aim to revisit it. >> PS>> Another option, for example, is some version of the multiverse.
Koonin appeals to it to help non-supernatural OoL:>> "Origin of life is >> a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed,
primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for
replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of
these systems appear to be products of extensive selection ... In an
infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by
chance is inevitable."
https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15>> >> Koonin's third option supports my position , i.e. if all hypotheses
based on physical-chemical pathways on a pre-biotic earth end up
showing a widening explanatory gap, you're left with very limited
reasonable alternatives. An appeal to the multiverse is on par with
positing supernatural action.>> And sure, there *might* be some other
undiscovered property of matter that permits it to self-organise, but
I'd argue that favouring this would be more about a metaphysical
commitment.
I'm still not quite sure where you see a "widening explanatory gap," or even what you mean by the phrase. To me, it looks like starting from a huge gap, starting from Darwin's "warm little pond somewhere"
Darwin's warm little pond should be put to rest. He made no pretence
that it was a fully worked out theory. He wrote a whole long book to
develop the idea of natural selection, and mentioned the origin of life
only twice (as far as I know), as a brief suggestion in a private
letter [presented in very tentative terms: "But if (and oh! what a big
if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond..."], and in a somewhat longer but still brief account in a letter to The Athenaeum.
to the first life, to a current state where lots of the detailed
problems have been made explicit, some have been resolved (e.g., "but
if that were true RNA alone without protein would have to have be able
to form enzymatically active RNAs" and then people find enzymatically active RNAs). Likewise for all the pre-biotic synthesis pathways - for many of them we've gone from no plausible idea, to better ideas, there
are progressively more and more constraints on the models. That seems
to me to be progress and gradual filling in and defining of the gaps,
not a "widening explanatory gap." No doubt the problem is not solved,
and indeed like lots of other problems in science it may not get solved any time soon, but the idea that there's no progress just does not jibe with what's happening in the field.
As for Koonin's argument - it's another example of silly. It's based on--
a model of the origin of life to which nobody in the field subscribes, something almost as much of a strawman as the tornado in a junkyard
making a 747. No need for multiverses. And if you read Koonin's
argument and did not immediately see the flaws in it, or at least see
what researchers in the field would identify as the flaws in it, you haven't been making much of an effort.
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 8:55:17 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:to be products of extensive selection ... In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable." https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 1:10:16 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 2:30:16 PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:35:16 AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour'swhich enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which
not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a
speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic
chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.
--Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand... what am I missing here?"
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsiderWhat you seem determined to miss is that nobody is objecting to the idea of testing models of Origins of Life.
is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy,
would you?
The objection is to you tagging on the irrational continuation that if
Tour's model of the OoL isn't well supported, that this means that
a supernatural model is then favored.
People have been very very clear about this. How are you missing it?Have I not suggested something rather more nuanced than a simplistic dichotomy? I thought I had been very, very clear about this.
All the same, this issue is not incidental but fundamental to the terms of engagement in this debate. I've discussed it here before at length, but aim to revisit it.PS
Another option, for example, is some version of the multiverse. Koonin appeals to it to help non-supernatural OoL:
"Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear
multiverse is on par with positing supernatural action.Koonin's third option supports my position , i.e. if all hypotheses based on physical-chemical pathways on a pre-biotic earth end up showing a widening explanatory gap, you're left with very limited reasonable alternatives. An appeal to the
lots of the detailed problems have been made explicit, some have been resolved (e.g., "but if that were true RNA alone without protein would have to have be able to form enzymatically active RNAs" and then people find enzymatically active RNAs). LikewiseAnd sure, there *might* be some other undiscovered property of matter that permits it to self-organise, but I'd argue that favouring this would be more about a metaphysical commitment.I'm still not quite sure where you see a "widening explanatory gap," or even what you mean by the phrase. To me, it looks like starting from a huge gap, starting from Darwin's "warm little pond somewhere" to the first life, to a current state where
The following quote gives the overall vibe (emphasis mine):scientists aren’t even close to intelligently synthesizing life from non-life in the lab. The problem, Tour says, is that some leading origin-of-life researchers give the impression they are right on the cusp of solving the problem.
"James Tour claims the origin-of-life community is further than ever from solving the mystery of life’s origin, and how the public has gotten the false impression that scientists can synthesize life in the lab. Tour explains that origin-of-life
Not so, Tour says. He offers the analogy of someone claiming, in the year 1500, that he has the know-how to build a ship to travel to the moon, when no one yet knows even how to build an airplane, car, or car engine. Tour says that if he took a cellthat had just died a moment before and asked top origin-of-life researchers to engineer it back to life, they couldn’t do it. They’re not even close to being able to do it. And yet all the ingredients, all the building blocks of life are right there,
There are no models that would make such a scenario plausible. AND THE MORE WE LEARN ABOUT CELLULAR COMPLEXITY, THE HARDER THE PROBLEM GETS. Indeed, as Tour puts it, origin-of-life research is like moving down a football field in nanometer incrementswhile the goalposts are racing away. What’s left is only the dogmatic assumption among origin-of-life researchers that the first life must have appeared on Earth purely through blind material forces. Tour has made it his mission to show the broader
And if you read Koonin's argument and did not immediately see the flaws in it, or at least see what researchers in the field would identify as the flaws in it, you haven't been making much of an effort.As for Koonin's argument - it's another example of silly. It's based on a model of the origin of life to which nobody in the field subscribes, something almost as much of a strawman as the tornado in a junkyard making a 747. No need for multiverses.
Not citing Koonin as endorsment, rather to demonstrate I'm not implying a dichotomy.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 10:00:17?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:to be products of extensive selection ... In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable." https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 8:55:17?PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >> > On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 1:10:16?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 2:30:16?PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:35:16?AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote: >> > > > > On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:PS
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16?AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:What you seem determined to miss is that nobody is objecting to the >> > > > > idea of testing models of Origins of Life.
On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand... >> > > > > > what am I missing here?"
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
20222023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which
not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a
speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about >> > > > > > > graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic
chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research. >> > > > > > >
--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider
is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy,
would you?
The objection is to you tagging on the irrational continuation that if
Tour's model of the OoL isn't well supported, that this means that >> > > > > a supernatural model is then favored.
People have been very very clear about this. How are you missing it? >> > > > Have I not suggested something rather more nuanced than a simplistic dichotomy? I thought I had been very, very clear about this.
All the same, this issue is not incidental but fundamental to the terms of engagement in this debate. I've discussed it here before at length, but aim to revisit it.
Another option, for example, is some version of the multiverse. Koonin appeals to it to help non-supernatural OoL:
"Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear
multiverse is on par with positing supernatural action.
Koonin's third option supports my position , i.e. if all hypotheses based on physical-chemical pathways on a pre-biotic earth end up showing a widening explanatory gap, you're left with very limited reasonable alternatives. An appeal to the
lots of the detailed problems have been made explicit, some have been resolved (e.g., "but if that were true RNA alone without protein would have to have be able to form enzymatically active RNAs" and then people find enzymatically active RNAs). LikewiseI'm still not quite sure where you see a "widening explanatory gap," or even what you mean by the phrase. To me, it looks like starting from a huge gap, starting from Darwin's "warm little pond somewhere" to the first life, to a current state where
And sure, there *might* be some other undiscovered property of matter that permits it to self-organise, but I'd argue that favouring this would be more about a metaphysical commitment.
happening in the field.scientists arent even close to intelligently synthesizing life from non-life in the lab. The problem, Tour says, is that some leading origin-of-life researchers give the impression they are right on the cusp of solving the problem.
The following quote gives the overall vibe (emphasis mine):
"James Tour claims the origin-of-life community is further than ever from solving the mystery of lifes origin, and how the public has gotten the false impression that scientists can synthesize life in the lab. Tour explains that origin-of-life
that had just died a moment before and asked top origin-of-life researchers to engineer it back to life, they couldnt do it. Theyre not even close to being able to do it. And yet all the ingredients, all the building blocks of life are right there, all
Not so, Tour says. He offers the analogy of someone claiming, in the year 1500, that he has the know-how to build a ship to travel to the moon, when no one yet knows even how to build an airplane, car, or car engine. Tour says that if he took a cell
while the goalposts are racing away. Whats left is only the dogmatic assumption among origin-of-life researchers that the first life must have appeared on Earth purely through blind material forces. Tour has made it his mission to show the broader
There are no models that would make such a scenario plausible. AND THE MORE WE LEARN ABOUT CELLULAR COMPLEXITY, THE HARDER THE PROBLEM GETS. Indeed, as Tour puts it, origin-of-life research is like moving down a football field in nanometer increments
And if you read Koonin's argument and did not immediately see the flaws in it, or at least see what researchers in the field would identify as the flaws in it, you haven't been making much of an effort.As for Koonin's argument - it's another example of silly. It's based on a model of the origin of life to which nobody in the field subscribes, something almost as much of a strawman as the tornado in a junkyard making a 747. No need for multiverses.
current state of OoL research I keep suggesting you read Deamer's "Assembling Life". It will tell you honestly what is understood know and what problems remain. You say it's too expensive or hard to get hold of. Up to you. But it's sort of pointless toNot citing Koonin as endorsment, rather to demonstrate I'm not implying a dichotomy.
James Tour is simply incorrect - I mean incorrect about the pack of progress and the "widening explanatory gap." He's certainly correct that the OoL has not been solved, nobody in the field claims otherwise. If it's important to you to understand the
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 10:00:17 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:appear to be products of extensive selection ... In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable." https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 8:55:17 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 1:10:16 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 2:30:16 PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:35:16 AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour'swhich enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which
not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a
speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about
graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic
chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.
--Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand...
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
what am I missing here?"
To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsiderWhat you seem determined to miss is that nobody is objecting to the
is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy,
would you?
idea of testing models of Origins of Life.
The objection is to you tagging on the irrational continuation that if
Tour's model of the OoL isn't well supported, that this means that a supernatural model is then favored.
People have been very very clear about this. How are you missing it?Have I not suggested something rather more nuanced than a simplistic dichotomy? I thought I had been very, very clear about this.
All the same, this issue is not incidental but fundamental to the terms of engagement in this debate. I've discussed it here before at length, but aim to revisit it.PS
Another option, for example, is some version of the multiverse. Koonin appeals to it to help non-supernatural OoL:
"Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems
multiverse is on par with positing supernatural action.Koonin's third option supports my position , i.e. if all hypotheses based on physical-chemical pathways on a pre-biotic earth end up showing a widening explanatory gap, you're left with very limited reasonable alternatives. An appeal to the
lots of the detailed problems have been made explicit, some have been resolved (e.g., "but if that were true RNA alone without protein would have to have be able to form enzymatically active RNAs" and then people find enzymatically active RNAs). LikewiseAnd sure, there *might* be some other undiscovered property of matter that permits it to self-organise, but I'd argue that favouring this would be more about a metaphysical commitment.I'm still not quite sure where you see a "widening explanatory gap," or even what you mean by the phrase. To me, it looks like starting from a huge gap, starting from Darwin's "warm little pond somewhere" to the first life, to a current state where
scientists aren’t even close to intelligently synthesizing life from non-life in the lab. The problem, Tour says, is that some leading origin-of-life researchers give the impression they are right on the cusp of solving the problem.The following quote gives the overall vibe (emphasis mine):
"James Tour claims the origin-of-life community is further than ever from solving the mystery of life’s origin, and how the public has gotten the false impression that scientists can synthesize life in the lab. Tour explains that origin-of-life
that had just died a moment before and asked top origin-of-life researchers to engineer it back to life, they couldn’t do it. They’re not even close to being able to do it. And yet all the ingredients, all the building blocks of life are right there,Not so, Tour says. He offers the analogy of someone claiming, in the year 1500, that he has the know-how to build a ship to travel to the moon, when no one yet knows even how to build an airplane, car, or car engine. Tour says that if he took a cell
while the goalposts are racing away. What’s left is only the dogmatic assumption among origin-of-life researchers that the first life must have appeared on Earth purely through blind material forces. Tour has made it his mission to show the broaderThere are no models that would make such a scenario plausible. AND THE MORE WE LEARN ABOUT CELLULAR COMPLEXITY, THE HARDER THE PROBLEM GETS. Indeed, as Tour puts it, origin-of-life research is like moving down a football field in nanometer increments
And if you read Koonin's argument and did not immediately see the flaws in it, or at least see what researchers in the field would identify as the flaws in it, you haven't been making much of an effort.As for Koonin's argument - it's another example of silly. It's based on a model of the origin of life to which nobody in the field subscribes, something almost as much of a strawman as the tornado in a junkyard making a 747. No need for multiverses.
current state of OoL research I keep suggesting you read Deamer's "Assembling Life". It will tell you honestly what is understood know and what problems remain. You say it's too expensive or hard to get hold of. Up to you. But it's sort of pointless toNot citing Koonin as endorsment, rather to demonstrate I'm not implying a dichotomy.James Tour is simply incorrect - I mean incorrect about the pack of progress and the "widening explanatory gap." He's certainly correct that the OoL has not been solved, nobody in the field claims otherwise. If it's important to you to understand the
On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 01:25:15 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
Debating that "professor" did indeed heavily reduce my opinion about Tour.
What the creationists actually want not taught in public schools is theory of evolution but that has nothing to do with origins of universe or origins of life.
Those are anyway not taught in public schools because we have
too little information to teach about what we do not know.
So all there is are old news about our lack of knowledge, and old PRATT of concluding anything but ignorance from lack of knowledge.
Super powerful beings from other dimensions made it? Does not follow.
On 8/26/23 5:53 AM, MarkE wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 9:00:15 PM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 8:10:15 PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
It's important to recognise the fundamental contention here:Simplified: Does science provide greater evidence for X or Y?
Does science provide greater evidence for naturalistic origin
of life or for transcendent intelligent agency?
There are multiple problems with what you are attempting.
First, you are actually proposing that if science doesn't provide
you with a satisfactory narrative for X, they you think science
supports Y.
There are so many problems that I won't bother covering them
all. But for starters,
Why do you assert this dichotomy of either X or Y?
What is the significance of the test for establishing X?
. is the test reasonable? why? established to whose
. satisfaction? Why them? on what timeline? Why?
There's more if we get into details of X. Tour's implied model
is flawed. The model is implied by the specific tests. So
what if people can't support that particular model, especially
if it's the wrong model?
As for your Y, it's extremely arbitrary, not in a dichotomous
relationship with your X, and is ill-defined on top.
That combination of logical deficiencies makes for a rather
poorly inspired challenge. It seems more like a variant on a
Gish-Gallop than something rooted in scientific thought.
Sure, you can provide some answers for parts of the questions
above. For example, you can invoke that some named scientists
are "experts" so in ways represent some of the better current
authorities. But you won't have established why the authorities
of 2020 are special, as opposed to those of the 1970s, or
fifty years earlier, or 50 years from today. You are implicitly
assigning special significance to Now, something to always
be suspicious of. Willy Wonka and some Oompa Loompas
might have something to say about Verruca Salt.
Now the above isn't a reason to stop asking about the nature
of current best understandings of Origin of Life models.
That's a very legitimate thing to ask. But your proposed leap
from certain states of the answer to that question is dubious,
poorly founded, and ultimately quite silly.
Are you saying that any origins debate on natural vs supernatural causes, on the basis of scientific evidence or lack thereof, is silly?
Scientists discovered that electrons traveled around the nucleus of
atoms. But why didn't they radiate energy (like accelerating electrons
are supposed to do) and fall into the nucleus? The only answer is that
God holds atoms together.
Then scientists found a different, unexpected
answer in quantum mechanics. No supernatural explanation was needed.
The conclusion is that, for billions of years, God held atoms together,
and then God stopped doing that when quantum mechanics was developed.
That's your theory, except as applied to atomic physics instead of abiogenesis. Oh, and abiogenesis has not reached the unexpected answer
yet. In fairness, we may never reach that point. But also in fairness,
we probably will, eventually.
So is the conclusion above silly? You tell me.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 12:00:16 PM UTC+10, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 19:14:08 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com>:
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed >> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. >> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in >2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
IOW, the usual garbage of a credentials assumed to confer
expertise in every field, the "outside expert" fallacy.
Regardless, Tour's arguments should ultimately be taken on their own merits. Yes, someone outside the camp naturally has less voice, all else being equal, but when an accomplished scientist from an overlapping field with highly relevant expertiselaunches a serious, sustained, specific, coherent critique, to the point of declaring your whole project to be "utterly clueless", you might want to give ear, if only because your funders might also be listening.
Tour's arguments align with my own layperson's view formed over many years of contemplating OoL. I for one am breaking out the popcorn.
--which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can >> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree >> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with >> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 8:25:15 AM UTC-4, Öö Tiib wrote:chemistry etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 01:25:15 UTC+3, MarkE wrote:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
Debating that "professor" did indeed heavily reduce my opinion about Tour.
Farina is a nonentity where OOL is concerned, but the relevant issue is: have any of the big guns of OOL ever consented to debate Tour?
What the creationists actually want not taught in public schools is theory of evolution but that has nothing to do with origins of universe or origins
of life.
Creationists are one group, ID theorists like Michael Behe are a completely different group: Behe has actually argued in favor of common descent
in both _The Edge of Evolution_ and _Darwin Devolves._ I think he
took a big loss in sales because this does not sit well with creationists.
Behe doesn't mind the *theory* of evolution, meaning the Modern Synthesis (a.k.a. neo-Darwinism) being taught in the public schools, as long as teachers are
free to explain that it is really a theory of microevolution and can
only take change to the threshold of speciation. Even Ray Martinez,
the species immutabilist, had no trouble with microevolution on that level.
Here in the USA, of course, the vast majority of public school teachers
will avoid that explanation like the plague, and their silence
is perfectly legal according to the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Those are anyway not taught in public schools because we have
too little information to teach about what we do not know.
I'm not sure what you are referring to, but it certainly applies
to not extrapolating from the Modern Synthesis to claim
that it explains how earth life blossomed explosively in
in a mere 550 million years to produce the vast panorama
of present day life.
That would be violating the standard of not teaching about
things they do not know or even have a smidgen of evidence for.
So all there is are old news about our lack of knowledge, and old PRATT of concluding anything but ignorance from lack of knowledge.
Don't use "PRATT" as liberally as some other regular t.o. participants do. You may run afoul of conjectures [speculative, granted]
like the one I make below about that 550 million year panorama.
Super powerful beings from other dimensions made it? Does not follow.
Of course not. If all else fails, we could speculate on two or three
widely spaced visits to earth by beings on our level of intelligence,
due close approaches by a planetary system where they either evolved, or colonized.
Of course, their technology would be several centuries in advance of ours, but there is no reason why we couldn't reach that level in two or three centuries.
Nyikos had to destroy his space alien designer fantasy.
He had to
invoke god-like space aliens from another universe as being responsible
for the Top Six,
and possible multiple different space aliens
responsible for some of the Top Six.
What do you have to do with the
Top Six god-of-the-gaps denial?
The origin of life is #3 of the Top Six.to say, “not enough”, or simply, “I don’t know”.
Ron Okimoto
Of course, the definition of “no satisfactory naturalistic explanation” is disputable: how large must the “gap” be? How many years/dollars of research must be first invested before a valid gap is declared? And even then, one may still choose
God hypothesis” to be more likely. And some may be willing to accept less than another 500 years to reach this conclusion.If after say another 500 years of concerted scientific research into OOL, the gap has not narrowed but in fact widened (and Tour claims the current trend is that it is widening), then one may reasonably conclude that, on balance of evidence, the “
s interpretation of this evidence.Note there is no claim of “proof” in this approach, rather a rational weighing of scientific evidence, subject to the complexities and personal factors inherent in that process. A metaphysical bias (e.g. atheistic or theistic) may influence one’
That’s my framing of this debate. YMMV.
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 06:59:14 -0700 (PDT), MarkE
<mark.w.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 8:55:17?PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 1:10:16?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 2:30:16?PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:35:16?AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16?AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's
productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which
not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a
speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about
graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic
chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.
--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider
is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy,
would you?
What you seem determined to miss is that nobody is objecting to the >> > > > idea of testing models of Origins of Life.
The objection is to you tagging on the irrational continuation that if
Tour's model of the OoL isn't well supported, that this means that >> > > > a supernatural model is then favored.
People have been very very clear about this. How are you missing it?
to be products of extensive selection ... In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable." https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15Have I not suggested something rather more nuanced than a simplistic dichotomy? I thought I had been very, very clear about this.PS
All the same, this issue is not incidental but fundamental to the terms of engagement in this debate. I've discussed it here before at length, but aim to revisit it.
Another option, for example, is some version of the multiverse. Koonin appeals to it to help non-supernatural OoL:
"Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear
multiverse is on par with positing supernatural action.
Koonin's third option supports my position , i.e. if all hypotheses based on physical-chemical pathways on a pre-biotic earth end up showing a widening explanatory gap, you're left with very limited reasonable alternatives. An appeal to the
lots of the detailed problems have been made explicit, some have been resolved (e.g., "but if that were true RNA alone without protein would have to have be able to form enzymatically active RNAs" and then people find enzymatically active RNAs).
And sure, there *might* be some other undiscovered property of matter that permits it to self-organise, but I'd argue that favouring this would be more about a metaphysical commitment.
I'm still not quite sure where you see a "widening explanatory gap," or even what you mean by the phrase. To me, it looks like starting from a huge gap, starting from Darwin's "warm little pond somewhere" to the first life, to a current state where
Likewise for all the pre-biotic synthesis pathways - for many of them we've gone from no plausible idea, to better ideas, there are progressively more and more constraints on the models.
that there's no progress just does not jibe with what'sThat seems to me to be progress and gradual filling in and defining of the gaps, not a "widening explanatory gap." No doubt the problem is not solved, and indeed like lots of other problems in science it may not get solved any time soon, but the idea
happening in the field.
scientists aren’t even close to intelligently synthesizing life from non-life in the lab. The problem, Tour says, is that some leading origin-of-life researchers give the impression they are right on the cusp of solving the problem.The following quote gives the overall vibe (emphasis mine):
"James Tour claims the origin-of-life community is further than ever from solving the mystery of life’s origin, and how the public has gotten the false impression that scientists can synthesize life in the lab. Tour explains that origin-of-life
that had just died a moment before and asked top origin-of-life researchers to engineer it back to life, they couldn’t do it. They’re not even close to being able to do it. And yet all the ingredients, all the building blocks of life are right there,Not so, Tour says. He offers the analogy of someone claiming, in the year 1500, that he has the know-how to build a ship to travel to the moon, when no one yet knows even how to build an airplane, car, or car engine. Tour says that if he took a cell
And yet they assume that purely blind material processes turned prebiotic chemicals into all the key building blocks, and then mindlessly engineered those into the first self-reproducing cell on the early Earth.
while the goalposts are racing away. What’s left is only the dogmatic assumption among origin-of-life researchers that the first life must have appeared on Earth purely through blind material forces. Tour has made it his mission to show the broaderThere are no models that would make such a scenario plausible. AND THE MORE WE LEARN ABOUT CELLULAR COMPLEXITY, THE HARDER THE PROBLEM GETS. Indeed, as Tour puts it, origin-of-life research is like moving down a football field in nanometer increments
As for Koonin's argument - it's another example of silly.
It's based on a model of the origin of life to which nobody in the field subscribes, something almost as much of a strawman as the tornado in a junkyard making a 747.
No need for multiverses.
And if you read Koonin's argument and did not immediately see the flaws in it, or at least see what researchers in the field would identify as the flaws in it, you haven't been making much of an effort.
Not citing Koonin as endorsment, rather to demonstrate I'm not implying a dichotomy.
Citing Koonin doesn't demonstrate that you don't imply a dichotomy. To
the contrary, Koonin's words you quote describe the same dichotomy you imply. As you say, Koonin uses multiverse on par with positing
supernatural action.
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 11:55:16 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 06:59:14 -0700 (PDT), MarkE
<mark.w.e...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 8:55:17?PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 1:10:16?AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 2:30:16?PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 9:35:16?AM UTC+10, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 6:20:16?PM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16?AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
See my reply to MarkE about how Athel is pretending that there is OOL researchI previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's
productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which
not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a
speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about
graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic
chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.
that goes beyond Bill Rogers's comfort zone at the bare beginnings of OOL. Athel, of course, does not dare to hint at where any of that may be found.
Why Athel would identify the following book of his, after having so thoroughlyappear to be products of extensive selection ... In an infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by chance is inevitable." https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15
burned his own bridges to a relevant mention of it, is beyond me.
Athel himself admitted that this book of his gives no information about OOL, but never tried to explain why he couldn't get up to speed in a jiffy--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
about current research. I think he can, but is afraid of what he may learn about the profound ignorance of even all ten OOL researchers that
Tour named, put together.
Athel evidently has no such qualms.To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider
is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy,
would you?
Obviously, because MarkE made no such "irrational continuation."What you seem determined to miss is that nobody is objecting to the
idea of testing models of Origins of Life.
The objection is to you tagging on the irrational continuation that if
Tour's model of the OoL isn't well supported, that this means that
a supernatural model is then favored.
People have been very very clear about this. How are you missing it?
Bill Rogers and "Lawyer Daggett" have indulged in a dirty debating tactic here,
but MarkE is very lenient with them in his response:
Have I not suggested something rather more nuanced than a simplistic dichotomy? I thought I had been very, very clear about this.PS
All the same, this issue is not incidental but fundamental to the terms of engagement in this debate. I've discussed it here before at length, but aim to revisit it.
Another option, for example, is some version of the multiverse. Koonin appeals to it to help non-supernatural OoL:
"Origin of life is a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed, primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems
multiverse is on par with positing supernatural action.
Koonin's third option supports my position , i.e. if all hypotheses based on physical-chemical pathways on a pre-biotic earth end up showing a widening explanatory gap, you're left with very limited reasonable alternatives. An appeal to the
where lots of the detailed problems have been made explicit, some have been resolved (e.g., "but if that were true RNA alone without protein would have to have be able to form enzymatically active RNAs" and then people find enzymatically active RNAs).
And sure, there *might* be some other undiscovered property of matter that permits it to self-organise, but I'd argue that favouring this would be more about a metaphysical commitment.
I'm still not quite sure where you see a "widening explanatory gap," or even what you mean by the phrase. To me, it looks like starting from a huge gap, starting from Darwin's "warm little pond somewhere" to the first life, to a current state
Bill is being intellectually dishonest here. Can you see why, jillery?idea that there's no progress just does not jibe with what's
[I've refrained from addressing you by name up to now because
of the remoteness of the earlier posts from your addition below,
but now I think we are close enough to that addition.]
Do you agree, jillery? If so, can you figure out what pathways Bill Rogers is talking about?Likewise for all the pre-biotic synthesis pathways - for many of them we've gone from no plausible idea, to better ideas, there are progressively more and more constraints on the models.
He never responds to any posts I do in reply to him, so it's a waste of time to ask him.
That seems to me to be progress and gradual filling in and defining of the gaps, not a "widening explanatory gap." No doubt the problem is not solved, and indeed like lots of other problems in science it may not get solved any time soon, but the
scientists aren’t even close to intelligently synthesizing life from non-life in the lab. The problem, Tour says, is that some leading origin-of-life researchers give the impression they are right on the cusp of solving the problem."no progress" is another dirty tactic of Bill AT BEST knocking down a straw man.happening in the field.
The following quote gives the overall vibe (emphasis mine):
"James Tour claims the origin-of-life community is further than ever from solving the mystery of life’s origin, and how the public has gotten the false impression that scientists can synthesize life in the lab. Tour explains that origin-of-life
that had just died a moment before and asked top origin-of-life researchers to engineer it back to life, they couldn’t do it. They’re not even close to being able to do it. And yet all the ingredients, all the building blocks of life are right there,Not so, Tour says. He offers the analogy of someone claiming, in the year 1500, that he has the know-how to build a ship to travel to the moon, when no one yet knows even how to build an airplane, car, or car engine. Tour says that if he took a cell
Here is where Tour is unassailable:increments while the goalposts are racing away. What’s left is only the dogmatic assumption among origin-of-life researchers that the first life must have appeared on Earth purely through blind material forces. Tour has made it his mission to show the
Bill Rogers know that this is the alternative he endorses, and so he is forced to indulge inAnd yet they assume that purely blind material processes turned prebiotic chemicals into all the key building blocks, and then mindlessly engineered those into the first self-reproducing cell on the early Earth.
smoke and mirrors below.
There are no models that would make such a scenario plausible. AND THE MORE WE LEARN ABOUT CELLULAR COMPLEXITY, THE HARDER THE PROBLEM GETS. Indeed, as Tour puts it, origin-of-life research is like moving down a football field in nanometer
Bill is very quick to name a straw man again:As for Koonin's argument - it's another example of silly.
As expected, Bill makes no attempt to say what that model is, nor what is supposedly silly about it.It's based on a model of the origin of life to which nobody in the field subscribes, something almost as much of a strawman as the tornado in a junkyard making a 747.
He just blandly imitates Laplace talking to Napoleon, and ignoring the fact that Laplace
was very specific about HIS model:
No need for multiverses.
And if you read Koonin's argument and did not immediately see the flaws in it, or at least see what researchers in the field would identify as the flaws in it, you haven't been making much of an effort.
Not citing Koonin as endorsment, rather to demonstrate I'm not implying a dichotomy.
Citing Koonin doesn't demonstrate that you don't imply a dichotomy. To"on par" is you using a perennial tactic of yours, which I named
the contrary, Koonin's words you quote describe the same dichotomy you imply. As you say, Koonin uses multiverse on par with positing supernatural action.
The One Shade of Gray Meltdown almost two decades before
I first encountered you, so common it is.
It consists of seizing on one or two isolated details that two
disparate things have in common, and painting them as
being essentially equivalent.
There is at worst a trichotomy: blind material causes defying all apparent odds,
a vast multiverse to overcome those odds, and supernatural design.
Mind you, this is about the *original* OOL, which may have taken place
on another planet or even on another planetary system in our galaxy,
with the resulting life transferred to earth by one kind of panspermia or another.
Depending on how many earth-like exoplanets in our galaxy there have been, this could even give us a tetrachotomy, with the exoplanets taking over
the role of the multiverse in Koon's scenario.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed >> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. >> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in 2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of whichwhich enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can >> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree >> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with >> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about
graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic
chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.
--Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand...what am I missing here?"
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy, would you?
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:20:16 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed >> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in 2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can >> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree >> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with >> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
--Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand...what am I missing here?"
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy, would you?That is Athel's "MO". But at least he seems to be the first in the thread to actually respond to your original post.
What were these 5 big questions? I have tried to watch James Tour's babble twice.
In order;
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Your help is appreciated.
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:20:16 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed >> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in 2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can >> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree >> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with >> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
--Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand...what am I missing here?"
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy, would you?
That is Athel's "MO". But at least he seems to be the first in the thread to actually respond to your original post.
On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him
to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life
over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that
his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast
majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.
Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
Ron Okimoto
On 2023-08-27 10:51:31 +0000, broger...@gmail.com said:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 1:10:16 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
"Origin of life is
a chicken and egg problem: for biological evolution that is governed,
primarily, by natural selection, to take off, efficient systems for
replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of
these systems appear to be products of extensive selection ... In an
infinite universe (multiverse), emergence of highly complex systems by
chance is inevitable."
https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-2-15
Koonin's third option supports my position , i.e. if all hypotheses
based on physical-chemical pathways on a pre-biotic earth end up
showing a widening explanatory gap, you're left with very limited
reasonable alternatives. An appeal to the multiverse is on par with
positing supernatural action. And sure, there *might* be some other
undiscovered property of matter that permits it to self-organise, but
I'd argue that favouring this would be more about a metaphysical
commitment.
I'm still not quite sure where you see a "widening explanatory gap," or even what you mean by the phrase. To me, it looks like starting from a huge gap, starting from Darwin's "warm little pond somewhere"
Darwin's warm little pond should be put to rest. He made no pretence
that it was a fully worked out theory. He wrote a whole long book to
develop the idea of natural selection, and mentioned the origin of life
only twice (as far as I know), as a brief suggestion in a private
letter [presented in very tentative terms: "But if (and oh! what a big
if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond..."], and in a somewhat longer but still brief account in a letter to The Athenaeum.
to the first life, to a current state where lots of the detailed
problems have been made explicit, some have been resolved (e.g., "but
if that were true RNA alone without protein would have to have be able
to form enzymatically active RNAs"
and then people find enzymatically
active RNAs).
Likewise for all the pre-biotic synthesis pathways
- for many of them we've gone from no plausible idea, to better ideas, there
are progressively more and more constraints on the models.
That seems to me to be progress and gradual filling in and defining of the gaps,
not a "widening explanatory gap." No doubt the problem is not solved,
and indeed like lots of other problems in science it may not get solved any time soon, but the idea that there's no progress just does not jibe with what's happening in the field.
RonO wrote:
On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him
to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that
his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.
Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
It's interesting that evolutionist want the designer to be in the gaps. But we do NOT find IDest; trying to fill in the gaps. Quite the contrary,
as for
the IDest, there are no gaps, only the _observed_ complete organism.
OTOH this is where we fine evolution: its advocates searching the fossil record for intermediates: trying to fill these so called gaps between claimed
transitional fossils.
And if one goes strictly by the fossil record, it supports the IDest argument
that intermediate fossils do not exist. It's noteworthy that a common
excuse
for the rarity or absence of intermediates is due to failure to
fossilize, erosion.
predication, decay etc etc. These are excuses. But the reality is, these intermediates fossils are virtually always _unobserved_.
Ron Okimoto
RonO wrote:
On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him
to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
gap that exists.
Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all
creationist of his type have left.
Tour has claimed to understand that
there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life over the billions of years since the origin of life.
Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
It's interesting that evolutionist want the designer to be in the gaps. But we do NOT find IDest; trying to fill in the gaps. Quite the contrary,
as for the IDest, there are no gaps, only the _observed_ complete organism.
OTOH this is where we fine evolution: its advocates searching the fossil record for intermediates: trying to fill these so called gaps between claimed transitional fossils.
And if one goes strictly by the fossil record, it supports the IDest argument that intermediate fossils do not exist.
It's noteworthy that a common excuse
for the rarity or absence of intermediates is due to failure to fossilize, erosion.
predication, decay etc etc. These are excuses. But the reality is, these intermediates fossils are virtually always _unobserved_.
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 2:55:20 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:It's interesting that evolutionist want the designer to be in the gaps. But >> we do NOT find IDest; trying to fill in the gaps. Quite the contrary,
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. >>>> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him
to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all
creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that
there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this
time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life
over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that
his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast
majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still >>> comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.
Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
as for
the IDest, there are no gaps, only the _observed_ complete organism.
OTOH this is where we fine evolution: its advocates searching the fossil
record for intermediates: trying to fill these so called gaps between
claimed
transitional fossils.
And if one goes strictly by the fossil record, it supports the IDest
argument
that intermediate fossils do not exist. It's noteworthy that a common
excuse
for the rarity or absence of intermediates is due to failure to
fossilize, erosion.
predication, decay etc etc. These are excuses. But the reality is, these
intermediates fossils are virtually always _unobserved_.
Every fossil you see is an intermediate fossil. You have yet to make clear what you think an intermediate or transitional fossil should look like.
Why do you think ID predicts that intermediate fossils do not exist? You've said many times that you know nothing (scientifically anyway) about the designer.I think there is empirical evidence of design, hence a designer, But
Ron Okimoto
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 2:55:20 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:It's interesting that evolutionist want the designer to be in the gaps. But
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed >>>> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. >>>> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him >>>> to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can >>>> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree >>>> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with >>>> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life >>> gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all
creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that >>> there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this >>> time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not
want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life >>> over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that >>> his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast
majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still >>> comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy. >>>
Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and >>> what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
we do NOT find IDest; trying to fill in the gaps. Quite the contrary,
as for
the IDest, there are no gaps, only the _observed_ complete organism.
OTOH this is where we fine evolution: its advocates searching the fossil >> record for intermediates: trying to fill these so called gaps between
claimed
transitional fossils.
And if one goes strictly by the fossil record, it supports the IDest
argument
that intermediate fossils do not exist. It's noteworthy that a common
excuse
for the rarity or absence of intermediates is due to failure to
fossilize, erosion.
predication, decay etc etc. These are excuses. But the reality is, these >> intermediates fossils are virtually always _unobserved_.
Every fossil you see is an intermediate fossil. You have yet to make clear what you think an intermediate or transitional fossil should look like.
Transitional fossils are critters with traits common to predecessors and descendants. IE the fossil Archaeopteryx (archae) with characteristics
of both reptiles and birds. Intermediates are the missing links between archae and dinosaurs and between archae and birds.
Why do you think ID predicts that intermediate fossils do not exist? You've said many times that you know nothing (scientifically anyway) about the designer.I think there is empirical evidence of design, hence a designer, But
there is no evidence which points to the identity of the designer. I
might believe the designer is God, but that's belief based on opinion,
not based on evidence.
SO why could the designer not have designed an evolutionary system that would work through common descent and "transitional forms"? In fact, you have suggested that you think new species can evolve from related
species. If that's the case why do you not find intermediate,
transitional fossils between those species?
I think the designer could have, but the evidence is, that it did is
not, is very convincing due to the rarity of the intermediates in the
fossil record. In fact, this rarity of intermediate fossils and the
abrupt appearance of most new forms in the earths strata followed by
stasis and then extinction
by most, is exactly what IDest would expect.
And this is the real characteristics of the fossil record, which was recognized by Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge. They attempted to consolidate this real and observed nature of the fossil record with the theory of evolution. Whether or not they succeeded is besides the point, because their discoveries gave tremendous evidence in support for Intelligent design.
Ron Okimoto
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:20:20 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 2:55:20 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:It's interesting that evolutionist want the designer to be in the gaps. But
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life >>>> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed >>>> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him >>>> to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can >>>> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree >>>> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with >>>> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life >>> gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all
creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that >>> there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this >>> time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not >>> want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life >>> over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that >>> his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast >>> majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still
comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy. >>>
Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and >>> what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
we do NOT find IDest; trying to fill in the gaps. Quite the contrary, >> as for
the IDest, there are no gaps, only the _observed_ complete organism.
OTOH this is where we fine evolution: its advocates searching the fossil
record for intermediates: trying to fill these so called gaps between >> claimed
transitional fossils.
And if one goes strictly by the fossil record, it supports the IDest
argument
that intermediate fossils do not exist. It's noteworthy that a common >> excuse
for the rarity or absence of intermediates is due to failure to
fossilize, erosion.
predication, decay etc etc. These are excuses. But the reality is, these
intermediates fossils are virtually always _unobserved_.
Every fossil you see is an intermediate fossil. You have yet to make clear what you think an intermediate or transitional fossil should look like.
Transitional fossils are critters with traits common to predecessors and descendants. IE the fossil Archaeopteryx (archae) with characteristicsOK. There are many such transitional series, between reptiles and mammals, between ungulates and whales, between various ancient horses and modern ones, fishes to tetrapods, etc.
of both reptiles and birds. Intermediates are the missing links between archae and dinosaurs and between archae and birds.
It's not hard to find them on-line.
Here's an entertaining list
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuqFUdqNYhg
Here's a review of transitional fossils among hoofed mammals
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0136-1
Transitional fossils in the evolution of turtles
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3001370/
Or you could just check some of the references in the wikipedia article on transitional fossils
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
And from the end of that article, a quote about your misuse of Punctuated Equilibrium
"The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge and first presented in 1972[61] is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils.[62] This theory, however, pertains only to well-documentedtransitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between extended periods of morphological
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. Thepunctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.
— Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb[63]"
I hope Ron Dean reads this before trying to answer the post by Bill Rogers which I am answering now.
Ron, I will ask you a question towards the end.
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:15:20 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:20:20 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 2:55:20 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:It's interesting that evolutionist want the designer to be in the gaps. But
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life >>>> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field: >>>>
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him
to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe >>>> uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with >>>> interest.
You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life
gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all >>> creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that
there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this
time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not >>> want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life
over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that
his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast >>> majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still
comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy.
Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
we do NOT find IDest; trying to fill in the gaps. Quite the contrary, >> as for
the IDest, there are no gaps, only the _observed_ complete organism. >> OTOH this is where we fine evolution: its advocates searching the fossil
record for intermediates: trying to fill these so called gaps between >> claimed
transitional fossils.
And if one goes strictly by the fossil record, it supports the IDest >> argument
that intermediate fossils do not exist. It's noteworthy that a common >> excuse
for the rarity or absence of intermediates is due to failure to
fossilize, erosion.
predication, decay etc etc. These are excuses. But the reality is, these
intermediates fossils are virtually always _unobserved_.
Every fossil you see is an intermediate fossil. You have yet to make clear what you think an intermediate or transitional fossil should look like.
There ain't all that much left for that etc. Bill seems to have mined the richest veins already below.Transitional fossils are critters with traits common to predecessors and descendants. IE the fossil Archaeopteryx (archae) with characteristics of both reptiles and birds. Intermediates are the missing links between archae and dinosaurs and between archae and birds.OK. There are many such transitional series, between reptiles and mammals, between ungulates and whales, between various ancient horses and modern ones, fishes to tetrapods, etc.
At the opposite extreme, we haven't a clue as to which non-gliding
animals bats descended from, and what is touted to be a "transitional" between
them is a bat that has claws at the end of the digits that support its efficient wing.
The case of pterosaurs is almost as bad.
It's not hard to find them on-line.
Here's an entertaining list
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuqFUdqNYhgI prefer good solid paleontology to entertainment.
Kathleen Hunt's horse evolution FAQ remains the gold
standard, fleshing out the Equioidea part of the following summary:
Here's a review of transitional fossils among hoofed mammals
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0136-1And here is Kathleen Hunt's excellent article:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
The article linked by Bill Rogers above does a passable job of
explaining that all perissodactyls [1] are descended from
a common perissodactyl ancestor. It is authored by the
anti-ID fanatic Donald Prothero; but here, in his ungulate specialty,
he manages to confine himself to really stupid arguments by creationists, enabling himself to be honest.
However, unlike Kathleen Hunt, whose evolutionary tree of the horse superfamily
is full of ancestor-descendant relationships, Prothero follows the reigning ideology
of "sister group hypotheses good, ancestor-descendant hypotheses bad,"
which is as devoid of sound reasoning as "four legs good, two legs bad"
was in George Orwell's satire _Animal_Farm_,
[1] The order Perissodactyla is comprised of odd-toed ungulates: horses, rhinos, and tapirs, and extinct members of their respective superfamilies, as well as by those of extinct brontotheres and chalicotheres. Except
for the last group, which is secondarily clawed, all are hoofed animals.
Elsewhere among the ungulates, Prothero is rather slapdash:
his "trees" of the camelids and giraffe relatives doesn't seem
to show very convincing relationships, and the same is
true of proboscideans. He does show a good example of a
transitional fossil sirenian, with four fully functional legs and
five-toed feet. Here he comes down hard on creationists
who play the same sort of definitional shell game that Bill Rogers
himself has used in defining "material" to include souls that interact
with bodies.
I'll have plenty more to say about the other two references
the selfsame Bill Rogers gives below, later today or tomorrow.
In sci.bio.paleontology, some time next week, I will also
give some more technical criticisms of Prothero's article.
Transitional fossils in the evolution of turtles
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3001370/
transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between extended periods of morphologicalOr you could just check some of the references in the wikipedia article on transitional fossils
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
And from the end of that article, a quote about your misuse of Punctuated EquilibriumRon, do you know what alleged "misuse" Bill Rogers refers to here?
"The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge and first presented in 1972[61] is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils.[62] This theory, however, pertains only to well-documented
There are several flaws bedeviling this "observation." Keep reading.punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups.
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. The
— Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb[63]"The biggest flaw: there is no such quote on p. 189, to which [63] directs us. Instead, Gould keeps taking issue
with gradualists. In fact, the first paragraph on that page leads off with:
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."
The other flaws are the straw man "no transitional forms," the ambiguous "directional trends" and
un-quantified "major groups."
Remainder deleted, to be replied to later: either today or tomorrow.
What were these 5 big questions? I have tried to watch James Tour's babble twice.Yes, all the yelling does kind of undermine his credibility as a serious critic. If he has strong, reasonable objections based on organic chemistry why not publish in a technical journal? It's not the case the non-mainstream views have no chance of
In order;
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Your help is appreciated.
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:15:19 PM UTC-4, Gary Hurd wrote:getting published. Sabine Hofstedder manages to get her critiques of particle physics published, even though there's billions invested in the current approaches. Big Bang, inflationary cosomology is pretty dominant in the mainstream, but guys like
What were these 5 big questions? I have tried to watch James Tour's babble twice.
In order;
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Your help is appreciated.Yes, all the yelling does kind of undermine his credibility as a serious critic. If he has strong, reasonable objections based on organic chemistry why not publish in a technical journal? It's not the case the non-mainstream views have no chance of
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:15:19 PM UTC-4, Gary Hurd wrote:getting published. Sabine Hofstedder manages to get her critiques of particle physics published, even though there's billions invested in the current approaches. Big Bang, inflationary cosomology is pretty dominant in the mainstream, but guys like
What were these 5 big questions? I have tried to watch James Tour's babble twice.
In order;
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Your help is appreciated.Yes, all the yelling does kind of undermine his credibility as a serious critic. If he has strong, reasonable objections based on organic chemistry why not publish in a technical journal? It's not the case the non-mainstream views have no chance of
I hope Ron Dean reads this before trying to answer the post by Bill Rogers which I am answering now.
Ron, I will ask you a question towards the end.
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:15:20 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:20:20 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 2:55:20 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Transitional fossils are critters with traits common to predecessors and >>> descendants. IE the fossil Archaeopteryx (archae) with characteristics
RonO wrote:
On 8/25/2023 5:21 PM, MarkE wrote:It's interesting that evolutionist want the designer to be in the gaps. But
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life >>>>>>> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed >>>>>>> points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. >>>>>>> Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc which enables him >>>>>>> to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can >>>>>>> be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree >>>>>>> of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with >>>>>>> Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with >>>>>>> interest.
You still do not want to believe in the designer of the origin of life >>>>>> gap that exists. Tour likely doesn't either, but gap denial is all >>>>>> creationist of his type have left. Tour has claimed to understand that >>>>>> there is no ID science, so who cares about what we do not know at this >>>>>> time? It is what is around the gap that Biblical creationists do not >>>>>> want to deal with. Look at all the evidence for the evolution of life >>>>>> over the billions of years since the origin of life. Behe claims that >>>>>> his designer is responsible for some of that evolution, but the vast >>>>>> majority of IDiot creationists do not want to believe in such a
designer. Really, most of the creationist support for the ID scam still >>>>>> comes from YEC, and they can't stand the Top Six evidences for IDiocy. >>>>>>
Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and >>>>>> what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
we do NOT find IDest; trying to fill in the gaps. Quite the contrary, >>>>> as for
the IDest, there are no gaps, only the _observed_ complete organism. >>>>> OTOH this is where we fine evolution: its advocates searching the fossil >>>>> record for intermediates: trying to fill these so called gaps between >>>>> claimed
transitional fossils.
And if one goes strictly by the fossil record, it supports the IDest >>>>> argument
that intermediate fossils do not exist. It's noteworthy that a common >>>>> excuse
for the rarity or absence of intermediates is due to failure to
fossilize, erosion.
predication, decay etc etc. These are excuses. But the reality is, these >>>>> intermediates fossils are virtually always _unobserved_.
Every fossil you see is an intermediate fossil. You have yet to make clear >>>> what you think an intermediate or transitional fossil should look like. >>>>
of both reptiles and birds. Intermediates are the missing links between
archae and dinosaurs and between archae and birds.
OK. There are many such transitional series, between reptiles and mammals, >> between ungulates and whales, between various ancient horses and modern ones,
fishes to tetrapods, etc.
There ain't all that much left for that etc. Bill seems to have mined the richest veins already below.
At the opposite extreme, we haven't a clue as to which non-gliding
animals bats descended from, and what is touted to be a "transitional" between
them is a bat that has claws at the end of the digits that support its efficient wing.
The case of pterosaurs is almost as bad.
It's not hard to find them on-line.
Here's an entertaining list
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuqFUdqNYhg
I prefer good solid paleontology to entertainment.
Kathleen Hunt's horse evolution FAQ remains the gold
standard, fleshing out the Equioidea part of the following summary:
Here's a review of transitional fossils among hoofed mammals
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0136-1
And here is Kathleen Hunt's excellent article:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
The article linked by Bill Rogers above does a passable job of
explaining that all perissodactyls [1] are descended from
a common perissodactyl ancestor. It is authored by the
anti-ID fanatic Donald Prothero; but here, in his ungulate specialty,
he manages to confine himself to really stupid arguments by creationists, enabling himself to be honest.
However, unlike Kathleen Hunt, whose evolutionary tree of the horse superfamily
is full of ancestor-descendant relationships, Prothero follows the reigning ideology
of "sister group hypotheses good, ancestor-descendant hypotheses bad,"
which is as devoid of sound reasoning as "four legs good, two legs bad"
was in George Orwell's satire _Animal_Farm_,
[1] The order Perissodactyla is comprised of odd-toed ungulates: horses, rhinos, and tapirs, and extinct members of their respective superfamilies,
as well as by those of extinct brontotheres and chalicotheres. Except
for the last group, which is secondarily clawed, all are hoofed animals.
Elsewhere among the ungulates, Prothero is rather slapdash:
his "trees" of the camelids and giraffe relatives doesn't seem
to show very convincing relationships, and the same is
true of proboscideans. He does show a good example of a
transitional fossil sirenian, with four fully functional legs and
five-toed feet. Here he comes down hard on creationists
who play the same sort of definitional shell game that Bill Rogers
himself has used in defining "material" to include souls that interact
with bodies.
I'll have plenty more to say about the other two references
the selfsame Bill Rogers gives below, later today or tomorrow.
In sci.bio.paleontology, some time next week, I will also
give some more technical criticisms of Prothero's article.
Transitional fossils in the evolution of turtles
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3001370/
Or you could just check some of the references in the wikipedia article on >> transitional fossils
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
And from the end of that article, a quote about your misuse of Punctuated
Equilibrium
Ron, do you know what alleged "misuse" Bill Rogers refers to here?
"The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and
Niles Eldredge and first presented in 1972[61] is often mistakenly drawn into
the discussion of transitional fossils.[62] This theory, however, pertains >> only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related >> taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually
traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in
morphology between extended periods of morphological stability. To explain >> these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of
genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution. Gould made the
following observation concerning creationist misuse of his work to deny the >> existence of transitional fossils:
There are several flaws bedeviling this "observation." Keep reading.
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. The punctuations occur at the level of species;
directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of >> transitions within major groups.
— Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb[63]"
The biggest flaw: there is no such quote on p. 189, to which [63] directs us. Instead, Gould keeps taking issue
with gradualists. In fact, the first paragraph on that page leads off with:
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."
a
The other flaws are the straw man "no transitional forms," the ambiguous "directional trends" and
un-quantified "major groups."
Remainder deleted, to be replied to later: either today or tomorrow.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
RonO wrote:
Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
It's interesting that evolutionist want the designer to be in the gaps. But we do NOT find IDest; trying to fill in the gaps. Quite the contrary,
as for
the IDest, there are no gaps, only the _observed_ complete organism.
OTOH this is where we fine evolution: its advocates searching the fossil record for intermediates: trying to fill these so called gaps between
claimed transitional fossils.
And if one goes strictly by the fossil record, it supports the IDest
argument that intermediate fossils do not exist.
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 2:50:19 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:20:16 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life >> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in 2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
--Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand...what am I missing here?"
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
Short answer: he would and does. He hates to talk about OOL.To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy, would you?
Longer answer below.
That is Athel's "MO". But at least he seems to be the first in the thread to actually respond to your original post.FWIW.
Athel has all the comments I make about him filtered through intermediates on which he is on talking terms. Naturally, these will be sorely tempted to delete
comments that make it clear that I know what I am taking about.
At one point, I made a remark about how Athel has written a book on
the biochemistry of life, and said that I couldn't understand why he hasn't talked about OOL (abiogenesis). With his background in biochemistry, I couldn't see
why he couldn't get up to speed pretty quickly on OOL.
This got filtered through a sympathizer of Athel's with that last bit snipped,
giving Athel a chance to flame me for being a professor yet not knowing
that the biochemistry of prebiotic evolution is very different from the biochemistry of life.
[Hell, I've known that since 1996, when I read through Francis Crick's
_Life Itself_ with rapt attention.]
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:55:22 AM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:getting published. Sabine Hofstedder manages to get her critiques of particle physics published, even though there's billions invested in the current approaches. Big Bang, inflationary cosomology is pretty dominant in the mainstream, but guys like
On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:15:19 PM UTC-4, Gary Hurd wrote:
What were these 5 big questions? I have tried to watch James Tour's babble twice.
In order;
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Your help is appreciated.Yes, all the yelling does kind of undermine his credibility as a serious critic. If he has strong, reasonable objections based on organic chemistry why not publish in a technical journal? It's not the case the non-mainstream views have no chance of
It would be helpful to now provide a concise compilation of arguments and evidence. I've commented on his YouTube video suggesting as this.recognised OOL experts, anonymously if no-one is willing to step up) and published independently.
What would his chances be now of being accepted for publication by a mainstream journal? But he could/should try. He could publish the reason for rejection if one is given, and either way if publication is refused, have the paper peer reviewed (by
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2nyikos@gmail.com" ><peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting, >that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original >phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not >just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and >limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the >explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and >chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close >together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural >selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are >the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body >plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with >50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I >think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of >theistic evolution would be most ogical
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 4:50:19 PM UTC+10, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:20:16 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life >> research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in 2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour's productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe
uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
--Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand...what am I missing here?"
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
I'll enjoy that consolation :)To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy, would you?That is Athel's "MO". But at least he seems to be the first in the thread to actually respond to your original post.
On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com" ><peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
<Massive snip>
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be considered reasonable?
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original >phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and >chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural >selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are >the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with >50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I >think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of >theistic evolution would be most ogical
On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote:-- Stephen Jay Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_, 1980, p. 189
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com" ><peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in
the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are
characteristically abrupt."
<Massive snip>
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original >phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and >chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural >selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are >the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with >50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I >think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of >theistic evolution would be most ogical
How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now that a designer is required?
Specifically, how have you estimated the
probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be considered reasonable?
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:15:20 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:20:20 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 2:55:20 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
It's noteworthy that a common excuse
for the rarity or absence of intermediates is due to failure to
fossilize, erosion.
predication, decay etc etc. These are excuses. But the reality is, these
intermediates fossils are virtually always _unobserved_.
Every fossil you see is an intermediate fossil.
You have yet to make clear
what you think an intermediate or transitional fossil should look like.
Transitional fossils are critters with traits common to predecessors and >>> descendants. IE the fossil Archaeopteryx (archae) with characteristics >>> of both reptiles and birds. Intermediates are the missing links between >>> archae and dinosaurs and between archae and birds.
OK. There are many such transitional series, between reptiles and mammals,
between ungulates and whales, between various ancient horses and modern ones,
fishes to tetrapods, etc.
There ain't all that much left for that etc. Bill seems to have mined the richest veins already below.
At the opposite extreme, we haven't a clue as to which non-gliding
animals bats descended from, and what is touted to be a "transitional" between
them is a bat that has claws at the end of the digits that support its efficient wing.
The case of pterosaurs is almost as bad.
It's not hard to find them on-line.
Here's an entertaining list
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuqFUdqNYhg
I prefer good solid paleontology to entertainment.
Kathleen Hunt's horse evolution FAQ remains the gold
standard, fleshing out the Equioidea part of the following summary:
Here's a review of transitional fossils among hoofed mammals
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0136-1
And here is Kathleen Hunt's excellent article:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
The article linked by Bill Rogers above does a passable job of
explaining that all perissodactyls [1] are descended from
a common perissodactyl ancestor. It is authored by the
anti-ID fanatic Donald Prothero; but here, in his ungulate specialty,
he manages to confine himself to really stupid arguments by creationists, enabling himself to be honest.
However, unlike Kathleen Hunt, whose evolutionary tree of the horse superfamily
is full of ancestor-descendant relationships, Prothero follows the reigning
ideology of "sister group hypotheses good, ancestor-descendant hypotheses bad,"
which is as devoid of sound reasoning as "four legs good, two legs bad" was in George Orwell's satire _Animal_Farm_,
I read that there was a problem the horse evolution, because
there were so many different species, it was like a bush. The tree in
so many text books was hyothical. - Eldredge
[1] The order Perissodactyla is comprised of odd-toed ungulates: horses, rhinos, and tapirs, and extinct members of their respective superfamilies, as well as by those of extinct brontotheres and chalicotheres. Except
for the last group, which is secondarily clawed, all are hoofed animals.
Elsewhere among the ungulates, Prothero is rather slapdash:
his "trees" of the camelids and giraffe relatives doesn't seem
to show very convincing relationships, and the same is
true of proboscideans. He does show a good example of a
transitional fossil sirenian, with four fully functional legs and five-toed feet. Here he comes down hard on creationists
who play the same sort of definitional shell game that Bill Rogers
himself has used in defining "material" to include souls that interact with bodies.
I'll have plenty more to say about the other two references
the selfsame Bill Rogers gives below, later today or tomorrow.
In sci.bio.paleontology, some time next week, I will also
give some more technical criticisms of Prothero's article.
Transitional fossils in the evolution of turtles
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3001370/
Or you could just check some of the references in the wikipedia article on
transitional fossils
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
And from the end of that article, a quote about your misuse of Punctuated >> Equilibrium
Ron, do you know what alleged "misuse" Bill Rogers refers to here?
I don't know which post this is in reference to.
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 8:40:20 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 2:50:19 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:20:16 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field: >>
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished
scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in 2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour'swhich enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe >> uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with >> interest.
productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which
not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.
--Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand...what am I missing here?"
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy, would you?
Short answer: he would and does. He hates to talk about OOL.
Longer answer below.
That is Athel's "MO". But at least he seems to be the first in the thread to actually respond to your original post.
FWIW.
Athel has all the comments I make about him filtered through intermediates [with whom] he is on talking terms. Naturally, these will be sorely tempted to delete
comments that make it clear that I know what I am taking about.
At one point, I made a remark about how Athel has written a book on
the biochemistry of life, and said that I couldn't understand why he hasn't
talked about OOL (abiogenesis). With his background in biochemistry, I couldn't see
why he couldn't get up to speed pretty quickly on OOL.
How's this for laughs (about Athel)?
"The majority of chemical compounds occurring in biological organisms are carbon compounds, so the association between organic chemistry and biochemistry is so close that biochemistry might be regarded as in essence a branch of organic chemistry. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry
This got filtered through a sympathizer of Athel's with that last bit snipped,
giving Athel a chance to flame me for being a professor yet not knowing that the biochemistry of prebiotic evolution is very different from the biochemistry of life.
Yes, it is said to be a chemical "synthesis" ...sort of like Tour being a synthetic organic chemist".
"Stages in the origin of life range from the well-understood, such as the habitable Earth and the abiotic synthesis of simple molecules"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry
And many more use of the word synthesis in context to OOL.
[Hell, I've known that since 1996, when I read through Francis Crick's _Life Itself_ with rapt attention.]
Don't remember when Athel started posting, by I knew he was a kook about the first time he opened his mouth.
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:15:20 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
"The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and >> Niles Eldredge and first presented in 1972[61] is often mistakenly drawn into
the discussion of transitional fossils.[62] This theory, however, pertains
only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related
taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually >> traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in
morphology between extended periods of morphological stability. To explain
these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of >> genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution. Gould made the >> following observation concerning creationist misuse of his work to deny the
existence of transitional fossils:
OK, Punctuated equilibrium was frequently followed by extinction after a generally long period of stasis, but, due to rapid evolution, and in isoluates, one should not expect to find the
these intermediate fossils.
There are several flaws bedeviling this "observation." Keep reading.
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. The punctuations occur at the level of species;
directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of
transitions within major groups.
— Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb[63]"
Gould and Eldredged described the real nature of the fossil record.
This theory, however, pertains
only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related
taxa over a geologically short period of time.
The interpretation (punctuated equalibrum) of this reality, is not just the sole
purview of G&E.
The biggest flaw: there is no such quote on p. 189, to which [63] directs us.
Instead, Gould keeps taking issue
with gradualists. In fact, the first paragraph on that page leads off with:
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in
the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with 50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of theistic evolution would be most ogical
a
The other flaws are the straw man "no transitional forms," the ambiguous "directional trends" and
un-quantified "major groups."
I've been under the impression that Gould and Eldredge, brought to attention,
the extreme rarity of intermediate forms and the prevalence of stases, traits
which had been overlooked for decades by researchers.
Remainder deleted, to be replied to later: either today or tomorrow.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 3:50:22 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 8:40:20 AM UTC-7, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 2:50:19 AM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:
On Saturday, August 26, 2023 at 3:20:16 PM UTC-7, MarkE wrote:
On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 4:45:16 AM UTC+10, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-08-26 17:14:08 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:
On 2023-08-25 22:21:51 +0000, MarkE said:
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life
research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field: >>
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed
points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims.
Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished >> scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry etc
Yes, but the "etc" doesn't include anything relevant. 43 papers in
2022–2023, none of thm having anything to do with the origin of life.
I previously only looked back two years, but I've now looked at Tour'swhich enables him to mount a serious challenge.
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can
be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree
of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe >> uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with
Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with
interest.
productions back to the beginning of 2013. 343 publications, of which
not a single one is related to the origin of life. If I submitted a
speculative paper about the future of graphene research the reviewers
would (rightly) say that I have no qualifications to write about graphene. If I replied (accurately) that I had a D.Phil. in chemistry
from a major university, and was therefore an expert on all aspects of
chemistry, they not be impressed. I don't care how good an organic chemist Tour is, he has no standing in origin-of-life research.
--Which is why he has posed the challenge as "help me understand...what am I missing here?"
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
To dismiss on principle the questioning of a serious, informed outsider is a kind of appeal to authority. You wouldn't to commit that logical fallacy, would you?
Short answer: he would and does. He hates to talk about OOL.
Longer answer below.
That is Athel's "MO". But at least he seems to be the first in the thread to actually respond to your original post.
FWIW.
Athel has all the comments I make about him filtered through intermediates
[with whom] he is on talking terms. Naturally, these will be sorely tempted to delete
comments that make it clear that I know what I am taking about.
At one point, I made a remark about how Athel has written a book on
the biochemistry of life, and said that I couldn't understand why he hasn't
talked about OOL (abiogenesis). With his background in biochemistry, I couldn't see
why he couldn't get up to speed pretty quickly on OOL.
How's this for laughs (about Athel)?The contrast with Athel's reaction [see what I wrote below] is interesting, that's for sure.
"The majority of chemical compounds occurring in biological organisms are carbon compounds, so the association between organic chemistry and biochemistry is so close that biochemistry might be regarded as in essence a branch of organic chemistry. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry
The Wikipedia quote is at the opposite extreme, of course, but it's a refrain I've heard from Lawyer Daggett,This got filtered through a sympathizer of Athel's with that last bit snipped,
giving Athel a chance to flame me for being a professor yet not knowing that the biochemistry of prebiotic evolution is very different from the biochemistry of life.
and several other over the years. AFAIK Daggett is the analogue of a Facebook "friend" of Athel.
If so, these radically different ideas of biochemistry are not going to be remarked on between them.
Yes, it is said to be a chemical "synthesis" ...sort of like Tour being a synthetic organic chemist".Athel the thesis, Daggett and others the antithesis, and the following the synthesis? :)
"Stages in the origin of life range from the well-understood, such as the habitable Earth and the abiotic synthesis of simple molecules"Where did you find this? It's not in the following webpage:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry
And many more use of the word synthesis in context to OOL.
[Hell, I've known that since 1996, when I read through Francis Crick's _Life Itself_ with rapt attention.]
Don't remember when Athel started posting, by I knew he was a kook about the first time he opened his mouth.He sure found his circle of "Facebook-like friends" in a hurry.
Peter Nyikos
I don't recall us interacting before, Ralph, but this looks like a good time to start.
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:55:22?PM UTC-4, Ralph Page wrote:
On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
-- Stephen Jay Gould, _The Panda's Thumb_, 1980, p. 189"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in
the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are
characteristically abrupt."
<Massive snip>
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original >> >phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and
chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural
selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are >> >the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with
50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I
think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of >> >theistic evolution would be most ogical
You didn't try to address any of Ron's actual comments, Ralph.
Do you see any weaknesses in them that others haven't already commented on?
Wrt Ron's first sentence, some have claimed that the earliest representatives of the ca. 20 phyla at
mid-Cambrian include some organisms that are close enough to belong in the >same phylum, but I haven't seen any examples. There are claims that this or that is a
"basal bilaterian" or "basal lophotrochozoan" but I see no close-looking representatives
of individual Cambrian phyla close enough to them.
How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with >> drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now >> that a designer is required?
"required" is premature; he only said "most [logical]," giving people
a much less easy target to hit.
Specifically, how have you estimated the
probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be >> considered reasonable?
This too is premature, for essentially the same reason. In this area of >science/philosophy of science, "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"
is too high a standard to expect. The correct standard, in line with Ron's >wording, is "preponderance of evidence."
Do these phrases ring a bell? The first is the standard in criminal cases, >the other in lawsuits (tort).
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2nyikos@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original >> phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and
chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural
selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are >> the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with
50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I
think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of
theistic evolution would be most ogical
How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be considered reasonable?
On Sep 1, 2023 at 12:51:59 PM EDT, "Ralph Page" <r...@SOCKSralphpage.com> wrote:Ron do you not remember the list of references I gave you to research on the evolution of a whole list of organs?
On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and >> chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural >> selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with >> 50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I >> think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of >> theistic evolution would be most ogical
How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be
considered reasonable?
You're explaining nothing!
What needs to be explained is this: in addition to physical body changes there is
a least100 organs and limbs that have to change almost symonpusly, and close at the same time, in order to be functioal, for _new_ body plans. Just to say
random mutation (chance) and natural selection is too glib and too simple without
going into some details and some of the steps each organ went through. No body
has even attempted to do this.
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:55:22 AM UTC-7, Ralph Page wrote:
On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with >> drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now >> that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original >>> phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and
chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural
selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are >>> the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with
50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I >>> think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of >>> theistic evolution would be most ogical
probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be >> considered reasonable?
How have you determined that random or near random mutations coupled with drift and natural selection and anything else you can cook up are so likely to
product the life we see now that a designer is not required? Specifically, how
have you estimated the probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is so high as to be considered fact?
On Sep 1, 2023 at 2:56:34 PM EDT, "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:55:22 AM UTC-7, Ralph Page wrote:
On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote: >>
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and >>> chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural >>> selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with >>> 50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I >>> think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of
theistic evolution would be most ogical
drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now
that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the
probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be
considered reasonable?
How have you determined that random or near random mutations coupled with drift and natural selection and anything else you can cook up are so likely to
product the life we see now that a designer is not required? Specifically, how
have you estimated the probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is so high as to be considered fact?
Even though we see many pictorials and illustrations, demonstrating evolution
of intermediate
forms as they go through the many sequential body plans, representing ever higher and higher body
forms.
Virtually, nothing is ever said about the 100 or so organs that have to also go through evolutionary
change, in order to fit and function in the many intermediate and transitional
body forms. Such as
the heart, kidneys, livers etc etc etc from the worm, to the fish, to the amphibians, to the wolf size
mammal, to each of pre-whale forms, to the whale. These organs and body parts
has to go through
many evolutionary changes and some universal ubiquous order But this is never
dealt with why?
On Sep 1, 2023 at 12:51:59 PM EDT, "Ralph Page" <r...@SOCKSralphpage.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and >> chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural >> selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with >> 50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I >> think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of >> theistic evolution would be most ogical
How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be
considered reasonable?
You're explaining nothing!
What needs to be explained is this: in addition to physical body changes there is
a least100 organs and limbs that have to change almost symonpusly, and close at the same time, in order to be functioal, for _new_ body plans. Just to say
random mutation (chance) and natural selection is too glib and too simple without
going into some details and some of the steps each organ went through. No body
has even attempted to do this.
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 12:20:21 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 7:15:20 PM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 6:20:20 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 2:55:20 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
It's noteworthy that a common excuse
for the rarity or absence of intermediates is due to failure to
fossilize, erosion.
predication, decay etc etc. These are excuses. But the reality is, these
intermediates fossils are virtually always _unobserved_.
Every fossil you see is an intermediate fossil.
This is Bill Rogers making a stupid comment. Every species that becomes extinct
without giving rise to other species is an exception.
You have yet to make clear
what you think an intermediate or transitional fossil should look like.
Bill's comment remains stupid regardless of how you define "intermediate", because even he must have realized that you do NOT think every fossil is an intermediate fossil.
Transitional fossils are critters with traits common to predecessors and >>>>> descendants. IE the fossil Archaeopteryx (archae) with characteristics >>>>> of both reptiles and birds. Intermediates are the missing links between >>>>> archae and dinosaurs and between archae and birds.
You do try to distinguish between "intermediate" and "transitional" here, but your distinction lacks the precision I use. Do you recall what it is?
OK. There are many such transitional series, between reptiles and mammals, >>>> between ungulates and whales, between various ancient horses and modern ones,
fishes to tetrapods, etc.
There ain't all that much left for that etc. Bill seems to have mined the >>> richest veins already below.
At the opposite extreme, we haven't a clue as to which non-gliding
animals bats descended from, and what is touted to be a "transitional" between
them is a bat that has claws at the end of the digits that support its
efficient wing.
The case of pterosaurs is almost as bad.
The more knowledgeable creationists do make an issue of bats.
Have you come across a book that does this? ABEKA has a textbook that does.
Anti-creationists and anti-IDers ignore problems like these and keep touting the success stories, like the discoveries that give us a fair picture of whale
evolution.
It's not hard to find them on-line.
Here's an entertaining list
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuqFUdqNYhg
I prefer good solid paleontology to entertainment.
Kathleen Hunt's horse evolution FAQ remains the gold
standard, fleshing out the Equioidea part of the following summary:
Here's a review of transitional fossils among hoofed mammals
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0136-1
And here is Kathleen Hunt's excellent article:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
The article linked by Bill Rogers above does a passable job of
explaining that all perissodactyls [1] are descended from
a common perissodactyl ancestor. It is authored by the
anti-ID fanatic Donald Prothero; but here, in his ungulate specialty,
he manages to confine himself to really stupid arguments by creationists, >>> enabling himself to be honest.
However, unlike Kathleen Hunt, whose evolutionary tree of the horse superfamily
is full of ancestor-descendant relationships, Prothero follows the reigning
ideology of "sister group hypotheses good, ancestor-descendant hypotheses bad,"
which is as devoid of sound reasoning as "four legs good, two legs bad"
was in George Orwell's satire _Animal_Farm_,
I read that there was a problem the horse evolution, because
there were so many different species, it was like a bush. The tree in
so many text books was hyothical. - Eldredge
The "problem" was all in the minds of the creationists, who called it a "tree"
instead of a "lineage" or "a path from the bottom of the tree to the ends of one of the limbs."
I say "ends" because the "limb" leading to "the modern horse" (*Equus*)
has several species involved: one or more species of asses,
at least two species of horses, and three species of zebras.
They either did not realize, or they tried to obscure,
the fact that the sequence (lineage) going from the "dawn horse"
[identified as Hyracotherium in Kathleen Hunt's time]
to "the modern horse" was the "Black Swan" that demolished the
claim that there were no direct paths from a species to another
species that was vastly different from it.
The side branches were there, of course, but dwelling on them
would have been beside the point of this demonstration.
Did you take a look at the tree in the Kathleen Hunt article that I linked above?
If not, then you should do so soon, and see whether
what I wrote just now makes all creationist
talk about that "problem" not worth mentioning.
[1] The order Perissodactyla is comprised of odd-toed ungulates: horses, >>> rhinos, and tapirs, and extinct members of their respective superfamilies, >>> as well as by those of extinct brontotheres and chalicotheres. Except
for the last group, which is secondarily clawed, all are hoofed animals. >>>
Elsewhere among the ungulates, Prothero is rather slapdash:
his "trees" of the camelids and giraffe relatives doesn't seem
to show very convincing relationships, and the same is
true of proboscideans. He does show a good example of a
transitional fossil sirenian, with four fully functional legs and
five-toed feet. Here he comes down hard on creationists
who play the same sort of definitional shell game that Bill Rogers
himself has used in defining "material" to include souls that interact
with bodies.
I'll have plenty more to say about the other two references
the selfsame Bill Rogers gives below, later today or tomorrow.
Correction: Bill has gone back to the topic of the origin of life,
and so, I think this topic of transitionals should go on the back
burner, unless you want to go on discussing it with me.
In sci.bio.paleontology, some time next week, I will also
give some more technical criticisms of Prothero's article.
This, I do plan to do, probably Monday already, because we are
in need of more threads that talk about a broad spectrum
of animals.
I don't know which post this is in reference to.Transitional fossils in the evolution of turtles
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3001370/
Or you could just check some of the references in the wikipedia article on >>>> transitional fossils
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
And from the end of that article, a quote about your misuse of Punctuated >>>> Equilibrium
Ron, do you know what alleged "misuse" Bill Rogers refers to here?
Maybe Bill had several different posts of yours in mind.
I suggest you ask him about it.
Concluded in next reply, to be done after I answer a post by Glenn
on this same thread.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:35:27 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:mice.pdf
On Sep 1, 2023 at 12:51:59 PM EDT, "Ralph Page" <r...@SOCKSralphpage.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and >> chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural >> selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with >> 50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I
think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of
theistic evolution would be most ogical
How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with
drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now
that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be
considered reasonable?
You're explaining nothing!Ron do you not remember the list of references I gave you to research on the evolution of a whole list of organs?
What needs to be explained is this: in addition to physical body changes there is
a least100 organs and limbs that have to change almost symonpusly, and close
at the same time, in order to be functioal, for _new_ body plans. Just to say
random mutation (chance) and natural selection is too glib and too simple without
going into some details and some of the steps each organ went through. No body
has even attempted to do this.
Evolution of the heart
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4459601/
Evolution of the kidney https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Laila-Aboul-Mahasen/publication/316845606_Evolution_of_the_kidney/links/591352e3aca27200fe4b37fe/Evolution-of-the-Kidney.pdf
Evolution of the vascular system https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jth.12253
Evolution of the biliary system (gall bladder) and pancreas https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hiromitsu-Nakauchi-2/publication/8937358_Conversion_of_biliary_system_to_pancreatic_tissue_in_Hes1-deficient_mice/links/0f3175337090eddbb7000000/Conversion-of-biliary-system-to-pancreatic-tissue-in-Hes1-deficient-
Evolution of the thymus https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1365-3083.2001.00854.xexactly must every other organ immediately adapt to take advantage of the increase oxygen availability? Why can't mutations that effect muscle biochemistry be selected for in the new environment they inhabit (ie one with increased oxygen availability)
Evolution of the brain https://www.academia.edu/download/56534237/HBS.ganglion.pdf
Evolution of the inner ear https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/jmor.20880
And you still have not explained why you think all the organs have to change simultaneously.
From before.....
You keep saying "I think this is impossible," but you still have not explained why it's impossible. I gave you the example of the transition from a three chambered heart to a four chambered heart. That will improve oxygenation in arterial blood. Why
So you still have to show that there's some reason why organs cannot possibly evolve gradually, adapting all the while to the new internal environment created by small changes in other organs. For you, for some reason, it seems obviously impossible,but if you want to convince anyone else I think you need to give a more detailed explanation of what exactly you think makes it impossible - what small change in the heart, for example maybe a slight increase in cardiac output, would suddenly mean that
On 8/30/23 11:54 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
It's interesting that evolutionist want the designer to be in the gaps. But >> we do NOT find IDest; trying to fill in the gaps. Quite the contrary,
Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
as for the IDest, there are no gaps, only the _observed_ complete organism.
I don't want the designer to be in gaps. I want the designer to be on a
lab table where I can see it. I bet every scientist feels the same way.
The IDists, however, force gaps upon us by effectively *defining* the designer as a gap, and one that will be forever impossible to fill.
As for what people want, some of us want honesty; we want statements
that don't contradict evidence. And the evidence of history shows
repeatedly that explanations which once were left to the realm of the supernatural are now well explained by natural processes.
We also want utility. IDists offer nothing whatsoever in that direction.
Evolution, on the other hand, has already been put to work solving
problems that human designers found intractable without it. Origins of
life research is almost certain to have practical, useful discoveries
arise from it, too.
OTOH this is where we fine evolution: its advocates searching the fossil
record for intermediates: trying to fill these so called gaps between
claimed transitional fossils.
Do you think there is something wrong with discovering new things about
the world??
And if one goes strictly by the fossil record, it supports the IDest
argument that intermediate fossils do not exist.
Except, of course, for the plethora of intermediate fossils that exist.
What the IDist argument supports is a quote from Kierkegaard: "No one is
so terribly deceived as he who does not himself suspect it."
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 4:50:27 PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:mice.pdf
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:35:27 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
On Sep 1, 2023 at 12:51:59 PM EDT, "Ralph Page" <r...@SOCKSralphpage.com> >>> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>You're explaining nothing!
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and >>>>> chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural >>>>> selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with >>>>> 50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I >>>>> think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of >>>>> theistic evolution would be most ogical
How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with >>>> drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now >>>> that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the
probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be
considered reasonable?
What needs to be explained is this: in addition to physical body changes >>> there is
a least100 organs and limbs that have to change almost symonpusly, and close
at the same time, in order to be functioal, for _new_ body plans. Just to say
random mutation (chance) and natural selection is too glib and too simple >>> without
going into some details and some of the steps each organ went through. No body
has even attempted to do this.
Ron do you not remember the list of references I gave you to research on the >> evolution of a whole list of organs?
Evolution of the heart
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4459601/
Evolution of the kidney
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Laila-Aboul-Mahasen/publication/316845606_Evolution_of_the_kidney/links/591352e3aca27200fe4b37fe/Evolution-of-the-Kidney.pdf
Evolution of the vascular system
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jth.12253
Evolution of the biliary system (gall bladder) and pancreas
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hiromitsu-Nakauchi-2/publication/8937358_Conversion_of_biliary_system_to_pancreatic_tissue_in_Hes1-deficient_mice/links/0f3175337090eddbb7000000/Conversion-of-biliary-system-to-pancreatic-tissue-in-Hes1-deficient-
Evolution of the thymus
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1365-3083.2001.00854.x
Evolution of the brain
https://www.academia.edu/download/56534237/HBS.ganglion.pdf
Evolution of the inner ear
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/jmor.20880
And you still have not explained why you think all the organs have to change >> simultaneously.
From before.....
You keep saying "I think this is impossible," but you still have not
explained why it's impossible. I gave you the example of the transition from >> a three chambered heart to a four chambered heart. That will improve
oxygenation in arterial blood. Why exactly must every other organ immediately
adapt to take advantage of the increase oxygen availability? Why can't
mutations that effect muscle biochemistry be selected for in the new
environment they inhabit (ie one with increased oxygen availability)
gradually over time? Why can't all sorts of other organs adapt to the new
oxygen levels gradually over time? What makes you think that it all has to >> happen together? You still have in your mind this odd idea that there are
complete organisms, in which all internal organs are perfectly matched to one
another, and incomplete, transitional organisms, which somehow are virtually >> impossible because the organs are not perfectly matched yet. That's just not >> how evolution works. There are no perfect, complete organisms - evolution
just selects for "good enough," not for some Platonic ideal of perfection. >> Your own human internal organs are not perfectly matched - they are just good
enough to get the job done most of the time.
So you still have to show that there's some reason why organs cannot possibly
evolve gradually, adapting all the while to the new internal environment
created by small changes in other organs. For you, for some reason, it seems >> obviously impossible, but if you want to convince anyone else I think you
need to give a more detailed explanation of what exactly you think makes it >> impossible - what small change in the heart, for example maybe a slight
increase in cardiac output, would suddenly mean that the kidneys or thymus or
spleen could no longer function? What small change in the small intestine
would suddenly make the lungs stop working?
I'll add the evolution of vision, AKA eyes;
Michael F. Land
2018 “Eyes to See: The Astonishing Variety of Vision in Nature” by Oxford University Press
Nilsson and Pelger,
1994 "A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve" Proceedings of the Royal Society 256: 53-58.
Dan-E. Nilsson, Lars Gislén, Melissa M. Coates, Charlotta Skogh & Anders Garm
2005 “Advanced optics in a jellyfish eye” Nature 435, 201-205 (12 May)
Ivan R Schwab
2011 “Evolution's Witness: How Eyes Evolved” Oxford University Press
Needham, D.M., Yoshizawa, S., Hosaka, T., Poirier, C., Choi, C.J., Hehenberger, E., Irwin, N.A., Wilken, S., Yung, C.M., Bachy, C. and Kurihara, R., 2019. A distinct lineage of giant viruses brings a rhodopsin photosystem to unicellular marine predators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(41), pp.20574-20583.
Paterson, J.R., Edgecombe, G.D. and García-Bellido, D.C., 2020. Disparate compound eyes of Cambrian radiodonts reveal their developmental growth mode and diverse visual ecology. Science advances, 6(49), p.eabc6721. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abc6721
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:35:27 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
On Sep 1, 2023 at 12:51:59 PM EDT, "Ralph Page" <r...@SOCKSralphpage.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote:You're explaining nothing!
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and >>>> chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural >>>> selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with >>>> 50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I >>>> think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of >>>> theistic evolution would be most ogical
How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with >>> drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now >>> that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the
probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be >>> considered reasonable?
What needs to be explained is this: in addition to physical body changes
there is
a least100 organs and limbs that have to change almost symonpusly, and close >> at the same time, in order to be functioal, for _new_ body plans. Just to say
random mutation (chance) and natural selection is too glib and too simple
without
going into some details and some of the steps each organ went through. No body
has even attempted to do this.
I keep wondering what changes you imagine are required.
Physiologically, the hearts and kidneys of all the great apes are capable of functioning as transplanted organs. The same is true going back to baboons.
The only reason that a baboon heart would not work for you in an organ transplant is because of immunity based tissue rejection. But if you were born with that organ, your immune system would have undergone the
same immune tolerance training it does on human heart tissue and so
there would be no immune rejection. It would still beat according to the
same signals, it would still respond to the same hormones.
The same is true for kidneys.
What are these many simultaneous adaptions that you imagine are required.
I am tending to get the idea that you think there are genes that fine tune the
shape and position of an organ, or some other mysterious changes that you think occur as species diversify.
What are these barriers that you refer to? Can be cite specific examples?
And hopefully cite the time frames involved in the changes.
On Sep 1, 2023 at 2:56:34 PM EDT, "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:55:22 AM UTC-7, Ralph Page wrote:
On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote: >>
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and >>> chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural >>> selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with >>> 50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I >>> think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of
theistic evolution would be most ogical
drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now
that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the
probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be
considered reasonable?
How have you determined that random or near random mutations coupled with drift and natural selection and anything else you can cook up are so likely to
product the life we see now that a designer is not required? Specifically, how
have you estimated the probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is so high as to be considered fact?
Even though we see many pictorials and illustrations, demonstrating evolution
of intermediate
forms as they go through the many sequential body plans, representing ever higher and higher body
forms.
Virtually, nothing is ever said about the 100 or so organs that have to also go through evolutionary
change, in order to fit and function in the many intermediate and transitional
body forms.
Such as
the heart, kidneys, livers etc etc etc from the worm, to the fish, to the amphibians, to the wolf size
mammal, to each of pre-whale forms, to the whale. These organs and body parts
has to go through
many evolutionary changes and some universal ubiquous order But this is never
dealt with why?
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:10:26 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:[]
Virtually, nothing is ever said about the 100 or so organs that have to also
go through evolutionary
change, in order to fit and function in the many intermediate and transitional
body forms.
only apart from all the references you have been given before
"I, Ron, have never seen anything being said about these things, though I never looked very hard" =/= virtually nothing is said about these things
[snip]You're explaining nothing!
What needs to be explained is this: in addition to physical body changes there is
a least100 organs and limbs that have to change almost symonpusly, and close at the same time, in order to be functioal, for _new_ body plans. Just to say
random mutation (chance) and natural selection is too glib and too simple without
going into some details and some of the steps each organ went through.
No body has even attempted to do this.
[...] But what are odds of the evolutionary
changes happening by or random, aimless mutations (chance) and natural selection?
On Sep 1, 2023 at 1:37:53 AM EDT, "Mark Isaak" <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 8/30/23 11:54 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
RonO wrote:
It's interesting that evolutionist want the designer to be in the gaps. But >>> we do NOT find IDest; trying to fill in the gaps. Quite the contrary,
Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and
what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
as for the IDest, there are no gaps, only the _observed_ complete organism.
I don't want the designer to be in gaps. I want the designer to be on a
lab table where I can see it. I bet every scientist feels the same way.
The IDists, however, force gaps upon us by effectively *defining* the
designer as a gap, and one that will be forever impossible to fill.
The designer lab table, Be real, you cannot put no designer on lab table, unless hie is deceased. It's really not about the designer, bur rather it's about design. There is evidence of design, but no evidence pointing to the identity of a designer. You no doubt drive an automobile. Yet, you don't
know or care about the desigener of you car. Only about the design (car) itself.
As for what people want, some of us want honesty; we want statementsThe early fathers of modern science had none of the problem that you describe. Many fathers of modern science were religious.
that don't contradict evidence. And the evidence of history shows
repeatedly that explanations which once were left to the realm of the
supernatural are now well explained by natural processes.
We also want utility. IDists offer nothing whatsoever in that direction.
Evolution, on the other hand, has already been put to work solving
problems that human designers found intractable without it. Origins of
life research is almost certain to have practical, useful discoveries
arise from it, too.
Such a Issac Newton, Gegor. Mendel, Roger Bacon, Edward Jenner
to name, but a few.
That's no answer to my statement.OTOH this is where we fine evolution: its advocates searching the fossil >>> record for intermediates: trying to fill these so called gaps between
claimed transitional fossils.
Do you think there is something wrong with discovering new things about
the world??
Just a pretense, most of these intermediates stand alone with no previous lines of ancetors and no immediate linls of dependents.
And if one goes strictly by the fossil record, it supports the IDest
argument that intermediate fossils do not exist.
Except, of course, for the plethora of intermediate fossils that exist.
On Sep 1, 2023 at 12:51:59 PM EDT, "Ralph Page" <rp@SOCKSralphpage.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote: >>You're explaining nothing!
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2nyikos@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original >>> phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and
chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural
selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are >>> the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with
50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I >>> think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of >>> theistic evolution would be most ogical
How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with >> drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now >> that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the
probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be >> considered reasonable?
What needs to be explained is this: in addition to physical body changes
there is
a least100 organs and limbs that have to change almost symonpusly, and close >at the same time, in order to be functioal, for _new_ body plans. Just to say >random mutation (chance) and natural selection is too glib and too simple >without
going into some details and some of the steps each organ went through. No body >has even attempted to do this.
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:10:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
On Sep 1, 2023 at 2:56:34 PM EDT, "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:55:22 AM UTC-7, Ralph Page wrote:Even though we see many pictorials and illustrations, demonstrating evolution
On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with >>>> drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now >>>> that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and >>>>> chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural >>>>> selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with >>>>> 50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I >>>>> think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of >>>>> theistic evolution would be most ogical
probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be
considered reasonable?
How have you determined that random or near random mutations coupled with >>> drift and natural selection and anything else you can cook up are so likely to
product the life we see now that a designer is not required? Specifically, how
have you estimated the probability that this occurred through evolutionary >>> forces is so high as to be considered fact?
of intermediate
forms as they go through the many sequential body plans, representing ever >> higher and higher body
forms.
Virtually, nothing is ever said about the 100 or so organs that have to also >> go through evolutionary
change, in order to fit and function in the many intermediate and transitional
body forms. Such as
the heart, kidneys, livers etc etc etc from the worm, to the fish, to the
amphibians, to the wolf size
mammal, to each of pre-whale forms, to the whale. These organs and body parts
has to go through
many evolutionary changes and some universal ubiquous order But this is never
dealt with why?
What do you mean by "fit"? Do you mean you have no idea what determines
the size of your heart but think it involves a set of genes to control the size
and shape of a human heart? And that these are all differences between humans, and chimps, and gorillas, and orangutangs?
And what do you mean by "higher and higher body forms"?
It isn't a concept that is biologically meaningful..
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 00:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
Burkhard <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:10:26 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:[]
[]Virtually, nothing is ever said about the 100 or so organs that have to also
go through evolutionary
change, in order to fit and function in the many intermediate and transitional
body forms.
only apart from all the references you have been given before
"I, Ron, have never seen anything being said about these things, though I
never looked very hard" =/= virtually nothing is said about these things
Challenging current understanding on science is good. But only if there is real evidence.
Thinking you (generic) can debunk evolution and 'therefore' 'prove' "God
did it" isn't going to work.
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:10:26 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
On Sep 1, 2023 at 2:56:34 PM EDT, "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:55:22 AM UTC-7, Ralph Page wrote:Even though we see many pictorials and illustrations, demonstrating evolution
On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with >>>> drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now >>>> that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and >>>>> chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural >>>>> selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with >>>>> 50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I >>>>> think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of >>>>> theistic evolution would be most ogical
probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be
considered reasonable?
How have you determined that random or near random mutations coupled with >>> drift and natural selection and anything else you can cook up are so likely to
product the life we see now that a designer is not required? Specifically, how
have you estimated the probability that this occurred through evolutionary >>> forces is so high as to be considered fact?
of intermediate
forms as they go through the many sequential body plans, representing ever >> higher and higher body
forms.
Virtually, nothing is ever said about the 100 or so organs that have to also >> go through evolutionary
change, in order to fit and function in the many intermediate and transitional
body forms.
only apart from all the references you have been given before
"I, Ron, have never seen anything being said about these things, though I never looked very hard" =/= virtually nothing is said about these things
Such as
the heart, kidneys, livers etc etc etc from the worm, to the fish, to the
amphibians, to the wolf size
mammal, to each of pre-whale forms, to the whale. These organs and body parts
has to go through
many evolutionary changes and some universal ubiquous order But this is never
dealt with why?
On Sep 6, 2023 at 3:31:02 AM EDT, "Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:10:26 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
On Sep 1, 2023 at 2:56:34 PM EDT, "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:55:22 AM UTC-7, Ralph Page wrote: >>>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Even though we see many pictorials and illustrations, demonstrating evolution
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and
chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural
selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with
50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I
think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of
theistic evolution would be most ogical
drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now
that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the >>>> probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be
considered reasonable?
How have you determined that random or near random mutations coupled with
drift and natural selection and anything else you can cook up are so likely to
product the life we see now that a designer is not required? Specifically, how
have you estimated the probability that this occurred through evolutionary
forces is so high as to be considered fact?
of intermediate
forms as they go through the many sequential body plans, representing ever
higher and higher body
forms.
Virtually, nothing is ever said about the 100 or so organs that have to also
go through evolutionary
change, in order to fit and function in the many intermediate and transitional
body forms.
only apart from all the references you have been given before
"I, Ron, have never seen anything being said about these things, though I never looked very hard" =/= virtually nothing is said about these things
The first and only reference to evolution of the organs, skelition, limbs undergoing evolutionary change was provided by Gary Hurd, which I appreciated. In my searches I did not find this, and I recall nothing on
TO prior to this thread..
However, one would think the evolution of these parts
would have to evolve concurrently,, at the same time in unison,
as to conform amd function in radically altered bodies during evolution
from a single cell to the human species.
And given random mutations and natural selection, random means
aimless, mindless chance, so the odds are horrendously against this
ever happening.
I think design is a much better option. And this design strongly implies a designer. Furthermore, there is no absolute empirical evidence which falsifies a designer existence.
Belief is all there is!
Such as
the heart, kidneys, livers etc etc etc from the worm, to the fish, to the >> amphibians, to the wolf size
mammal, to each of pre-whale forms, to the whale. These organs and body parts
has to go through
many evolutionary changes and some universal ubiquous order But this is never
dealt with why?
On 9/5/23 7:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Sep 1, 2023 at 1:37:53 AM EDT, "Mark Isaak"
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 8/30/23 11:54 AM, Ron Dean wrote:The designer lab table, Be real, you cannot put no designer on lab table,
RonO wrote:
It's interesting that evolutionist want the designer to be in the gaps. But
Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and >>>>> what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
we do NOT find IDest; trying to fill in the gaps. Quite the contrary, >>>> as for the IDest, there are no gaps, only the _observed_ complete organism.
I don't want the designer to be in gaps. I want the designer to be on a >>> lab table where I can see it. I bet every scientist feels the same way. >>> The IDists, however, force gaps upon us by effectively *defining* the
designer as a gap, and one that will be forever impossible to fill.
unless hie is deceased. It's really not about the designer, bur rather it's >> about design. There is evidence of design, but no evidence pointing to the >> identity of a designer. You no doubt drive an automobile. Yet, you don't
know or care about the desigener of you car. Only about the design (car)
itself.
Of course your first statement is false; I have sat on a lab table
myself on occasion, and I am a designer.
And of course it is about design, which MAKES it about the designer.
The designer is what makes design design, and not just shape. And when
I shop for a new car, the first thing I look for is the reputation of
the car maker, which is a measure of the proficiency of the designer.
As for what people want, some of us want honesty; we want statementsThe early fathers of modern science had none of the problem that you
that don't contradict evidence. And the evidence of history shows
repeatedly that explanations which once were left to the realm of the
supernatural are now well explained by natural processes.
We also want utility. IDists offer nothing whatsoever in that direction. >>> Evolution, on the other hand, has already been put to work solving
problems that human designers found intractable without it. Origins of
life research is almost certain to have practical, useful discoveries
arise from it, too.
describe. Many fathers of modern science were religious.
Such a Issac Newton, Gegor. Mendel, Roger Bacon, Edward Jenner
to name, but a few.
And their research was honest and practical. Religion is not a problem.
Basing science on religion is a problem.
That's no answer to my statement.OTOH this is where we fine evolution: its advocates searching the fossil >>>> record for intermediates: trying to fill these so called gaps between
claimed transitional fossils.
Do you think there is something wrong with discovering new things about
the world??
Just a pretense, most of these intermediates stand alone with no previous
And if one goes strictly by the fossil record, it supports the IDest
argument that intermediate fossils do not exist.
Except, of course, for the plethora of intermediate fossils that exist.
lines of ancetors and no immediate linls of dependents.
They are still intermediates. Saying they don't exist is just plain dishonest.
We know life forms changed more-or-less continually over time. We know
that evolution is inevitable and causes life forms to change
more-or-less continually. What more do you need?
On Sep 5, 2023 at 8:27:14 PM EDT, "Lawyer Daggett" <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:10:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
On Sep 1, 2023 at 2:56:34 PM EDT, "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:55:22 AM UTC-7, Ralph Page wrote: >>>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Even though we see many pictorials and illustrations, demonstrating evolution
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and
chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural
selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with
50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I
think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of
theistic evolution would be most ogical
drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now
that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the >>>> probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be
considered reasonable?
How have you determined that random or near random mutations coupled with
drift and natural selection and anything else you can cook up are so likely to
product the life we see now that a designer is not required? Specifically, how
have you estimated the probability that this occurred through evolutionary
forces is so high as to be considered fact?
of intermediate
forms as they go through the many sequential body plans, representing ever
higher and higher body
forms.
Virtually, nothing is ever said about the 100 or so organs that have to also
go through evolutionary
change, in order to fit and function in the many intermediate and transitional
body forms. Such as
the heart, kidneys, livers etc etc etc from the worm, to the fish, to the >> amphibians, to the wolf size
mammal, to each of pre-whale forms, to the whale. These organs and body parts
has to go through
many evolutionary changes and some universal ubiquous order But this is never
dealt with why?
What do you mean by "fit"? Do you mean you have no idea what determines the size of your heart but think it involves a set of genes to control the size
and shape of a human heart? And that these are all differences between humans, and chimps, and gorillas, and orangutangs?
And what do you mean by "higher and higher body forms"?
It isn't a concept that is biologically meaningful..
Nothing you've written demonstrates that you understand my issue. So, there is
no need to continue with you.It's a waste of both your time and mine. time.
On Sep 6, 2023 at 10:57:43 AM EDT, "Mark Isaak" <specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 9/5/23 7:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
On Sep 1, 2023 at 1:37:53 AM EDT, "Mark Isaak"
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 8/30/23 11:54 AM, Ron Dean wrote:The designer lab table, Be real, you cannot put no designer on lab table, >> unless hie is deceased. It's really not about the designer, bur rather it's
RonO wrote:
It's interesting that evolutionist want the designer to be in the gaps. But
Put your designer in the origin of life gap that you know exists, and >>>>> what do you get? Is it the designer that you want to believe in?
we do NOT find IDest; trying to fill in the gaps. Quite the contrary, >>>> as for the IDest, there are no gaps, only the _observed_ complete organism.
I don't want the designer to be in gaps. I want the designer to be on a >>> lab table where I can see it. I bet every scientist feels the same way. >>> The IDists, however, force gaps upon us by effectively *defining* the >>> designer as a gap, and one that will be forever impossible to fill.
about design. There is evidence of design, but no evidence pointing to the
identity of a designer. You no doubt drive an automobile. Yet, you don't >> know or care about the desigener of you car. Only about the design (car) >> itself.
Of course your first statement is false; I have sat on a lab table
myself on occasion, and I am a designer.
OK,but did someone put you on a lab table? I suspect you put yourself
there.
And of course it is about design, which MAKES it about the designer.
The designer is what makes design design, and not just shape. And when
I shop for a new car, the first thing I look for is the reputation of
the car maker, which is a measure of the proficiency of the designer.
As for what people want, some of us want honesty; we want statementsThe early fathers of modern science had none of the problem that you
that don't contradict evidence. And the evidence of history shows
repeatedly that explanations which once were left to the realm of the >>> supernatural are now well explained by natural processes.
We also want utility. IDists offer nothing whatsoever in that direction. >>> Evolution, on the other hand, has already been put to work solving
problems that human designers found intractable without it. Origins of >>> life research is almost certain to have practical, useful discoveries >>> arise from it, too.
describe. Many fathers of modern science were religious.
Such a Issac Newton, Gegor. Mendel, Roger Bacon, Edward Jenner
to name, but a few.
And their research was honest and practical. Religion is not a problem. Basing science on religion is a problem.
I agree 100%!
That's no answer to my statement.OTOH this is where we fine evolution: its advocates searching the fossil
record for intermediates: trying to fill these so called gaps between >>>> claimed transitional fossils.
Do you think there is something wrong with discovering new things about >>> the world??
Just a pretense, most of these intermediates stand alone with no previous >> lines of ancetors and no immediate linls of dependents.
And if one goes strictly by the fossil record, it supports the IDest >>>> argument that intermediate fossils do not exist.
Except, of course, for the plethora of intermediate fossils that exist. >>>
They are still intermediates. Saying they don't exist is just plain dishonest.
Personal slander proves nothing. Fankly, I trust Stephen j. Gould and
Niles Eldredge on this. While, I know both were committed to
evolution they were honest where the fossil record is concerned.
According to G & E most new fossils appear abruptly in the strata
remain in stasis (unchanged) for their tenure on the planet the
disappear without any known dependents. However, this explains
the majority not _all_ fossils, according to them. But abrupt
appearence and stasis, I suspect, is quite common. The
dozens or so "living fossils" are examples.
We know life forms changed more-or-less continually over time. We know that evolution is inevitable and causes life forms to change
more-or-less continually. What more do you need?
I think that the evolutionary change of vocal organs, skeletons, body parts and
body shapes from the water worm to homo sapiens had to evolve concurrently together, at the same time. I have difficulties with this. I think design is the better
option.
[...]
However, one would think the evolution of these parts
would have to evolve concurrently, at the same time in unison, so
as to conform amd function in radically altered bodies during evolution
from a single cell to the human species.
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>ROTFLMAO!
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
Lawyer Dagger wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 7:35:27?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:I seem to have a serious problem getting my question or the issue >understood.
On Sep 1, 2023 at 12:51:59 PM EDT, "Ralph Page" <r...@SOCKSralphpage.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>You're explaining nothing!
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and >>>>> chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural >>>>> selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with >>>>> 50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I >>>>> think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of >>>>> theistic evolution would be most ogical
How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with >>>> drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now >>>> that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the
probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be
considered reasonable?
What needs to be explained is this: in addition to physical body changes >>> there is
a least100 organs and limbs that have to change almost symonpusly, and close
at the same time, in order to be functioal, for _new_ body plans. Just to say
random mutation (chance) and natural selection is too glib and too simple >>> without
going into some details and some of the steps each organ went through. No body
has even attempted to do this.
I keep wondering what changes you imagine are required.
Physiologically, the hearts and kidneys of all the great apes are capable of >> functioning as transplanted organs. The same is true going back to baboons. >>
The only reason that a baboon heart would not work for you in an organ
transplant is because of immunity based tissue rejection. But if you were
born with that organ, your immune system would have undergone the
same immune tolerance training it does on human heart tissue and so
there would be no immune rejection. It would still beat according to the
same signals, it would still respond to the same hormones.
The same is true for kidneys.
What are these many simultaneous adaptions that you imagine are required.
I am tending to get the idea that you think there are genes that fine tune the
shape and position of an organ, or some other mysterious changes that you
think occur as species diversify.
What are these barriers that you refer to? Can be cite specific examples?
And hopefully cite the time frames involved in the changes.
In the depiction of evolution from single cell to humans, note: the site >below,
organs, skeletons, limbs had to come into existence. Then, in order to
fit and function
in the dozens of transitional forms, shown in the site below.
These organs had to undergo to considerable evolutionary change, and to
some
degree of unison, or together near the same time, in order to fit and >function
in all or most of these stages as shown in the site below. You might
skip some
of the depicted transitional forms, since some skeletons, and limbs
could be shared
between some body forms and a few decedents. But what are odds of the >evolutionary
changes happening by or random, aimless mutations (chance) and natural >selection?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StqZI9pMq0U
On Sep 6, 2023 at 4:21:43 AM EDT, ""Kerr-Mudd, John"" <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:Unless you are rich and/or powerful in the US or live in a place where you don't have to, (World != USA).
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 00:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
Burkhard <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 1:10:26 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:[]
[]Virtually, nothing is ever said about the 100 or so organs that have to also
go through evolutionary
change, in order to fit and function in the many intermediate and transitional
body forms.
only apart from all the references you have been given before
"I, Ron, have never seen anything being said about these things, though I >>> never looked very hard" =/= virtually nothing is said about these things >>>
Challenging current understanding on science is good. But only if there is >> real evidence.
Thinking you (generic) can debunk evolution and 'therefore' 'prove' "God
did it" isn't going to work.
Proof? There is only two proofs
Proof-1. While alive, you are going to pay taxes.
Proof-2. You are going to die!
On Sep 1, 2023 at 2:56:34 PM EDT, "Glenn" <GlennSheldon@msn.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:55:22 AM UTC-7, Ralph Page wrote:Even though we see many pictorials and illustrations, demonstrating evolution of intermediate
On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with >>> drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now >>> that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and >>>> chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural >>>> selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with >>>> 50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I >>>> think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of >>>> theistic evolution would be most ogical
probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be >>> considered reasonable?
How have you determined that random or near random mutations coupled with
drift and natural selection and anything else you can cook up are so likely to
product the life we see now that a designer is not required? Specifically, how
have you estimated the probability that this occurred through evolutionary >> forces is so high as to be considered fact?
forms as they go through the many sequential body plans, representing ever higher and higher body
forms.
Virtually, nothing is ever said about the 100 or so organs that have to also go through evolutionary
change, in order to fit and function in the many intermediate and transitional
body forms. Such as
the heart, kidneys, livers etc etc etc from the worm, to the fish, to the amphibians, to the wolf size
mammal, to each of pre-whale forms, to the whale. These organs and body parts has to go through
many evolutionary changes and some universal ubiquous order But this is never dealt with why?
On Sep 5, 2023 at 8:27:14 PM EDT, "Lawyer Daggett" <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:10:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Nothing you've written demonstrates that you understand my issue.
On Sep 1, 2023 at 2:56:34 PM EDT, "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:55:22 AM UTC-7, Ralph Page wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Even though we see many pictorials and illustrations, demonstrating evolution
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and >>>>>> chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural >>>>>> selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with >>>>>> 50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I >>>>>> think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of
theistic evolution would be most ogical
drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now
that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the >>>>> probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be
considered reasonable?
How have you determined that random or near random mutations coupled with >>>> drift and natural selection and anything else you can cook up are so likely to
product the life we see now that a designer is not required? Specifically, how
have you estimated the probability that this occurred through evolutionary >>>> forces is so high as to be considered fact?
of intermediate
forms as they go through the many sequential body plans, representing ever >>> higher and higher body
forms.
Virtually, nothing is ever said about the 100 or so organs that have to also
go through evolutionary
change, in order to fit and function in the many intermediate and transitional
body forms. Such as
the heart, kidneys, livers etc etc etc from the worm, to the fish, to the >>> amphibians, to the wolf size
mammal, to each of pre-whale forms, to the whale. These organs and body parts
has to go through
many evolutionary changes and some universal ubiquous order But this is never
dealt with why?
What do you mean by "fit"? Do you mean you have no idea what determines
the size of your heart but think it involves a set of genes to control the size
and shape of a human heart? And that these are all differences between
humans, and chimps, and gorillas, and orangutangs?
And what do you mean by "higher and higher body forms"?
It isn't a concept that is biologically meaningful..
So, there is
no need to continue with you.It's a waste of both your time and mine. time.
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >> On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:ROTFLMAO!
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I thinking about?"
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>abilities."
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >> On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>ROTFLMAO!
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds, >> >> have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats >> >> eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar >> >> system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing
one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves during flighthttps://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called 礎lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity varying from
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you
can see properly what people have actually written.
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves during flight and
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:ROTFLMAO!
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing abilities."
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called blind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity varying from one
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29 PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:abilities."
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >> On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>ROTFLMAO!
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar >> >> system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the >> outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I >> thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing
from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves duringhttps://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called 礎lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity varying
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so youIt's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
can see properly what people have actually written.
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>abilities."
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >> On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>ROTFLMAO!
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds, >> >> have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats >> >> eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar >> >> system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing
one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves during flighthttps://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called 礎lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity varying from
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you
can see properly what people have actually written.
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:abilities."
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>ROTFLMAO!
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the >> > >> outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I >> > >> thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing
one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves during flight
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity varying from
It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/ >> >
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you
can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>abilities."
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> > On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >> > >> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >> > >> >> wrote:ROTFLMAO!
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing
from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves during
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity varying
It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/ >> >
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you
can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:40:28 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
On Sep 5, 2023 at 8:27:14 PM EDT, "Lawyer Daggett" <j.nobel...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:10:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Nothing you've written demonstrates that you understand my issue. So, there is
On Sep 1, 2023 at 2:56:34 PM EDT, "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:55:22 AM UTC-7, Ralph Page wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>Even though we see many pictorials and illustrations, demonstrating evolution
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and >>>>>>> chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural >>>>>>> selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with >>>>>>> 50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I
think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of
theistic evolution would be most ogical
drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now
that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the >>>>>> probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be
considered reasonable?
How have you determined that random or near random mutations coupled with >>>>> drift and natural selection and anything else you can cook up are so likely to
product the life we see now that a designer is not required? Specifically, how
have you estimated the probability that this occurred through evolutionary
forces is so high as to be considered fact?
of intermediate
forms as they go through the many sequential body plans, representing ever >>>> higher and higher body
forms.
Virtually, nothing is ever said about the 100 or so organs that have to also
go through evolutionary
change, in order to fit and function in the many intermediate and transitional
body forms. Such as
the heart, kidneys, livers etc etc etc from the worm, to the fish, to the >>>> amphibians, to the wolf size
mammal, to each of pre-whale forms, to the whale. These organs and body parts
has to go through
many evolutionary changes and some universal ubiquous order But this is never
dealt with why?
What do you mean by "fit"? Do you mean you have no idea what determines
the size of your heart but think it involves a set of genes to control the size
and shape of a human heart? And that these are all differences between
humans, and chimps, and gorillas, and orangutangs?
And what do you mean by "higher and higher body forms"?
It isn't a concept that is biologically meaningful..
no need to continue with you.It's a waste of both your time and mine. time.
Ron, your claims are rather obviously rooted in ignorance.
Ignorance is a natural state so nothing to be ashamed of, until you leverage your ignorance of things to make claims that they don't exist.
Specifically, you are claiming that evolution of organs is largely ignored. That's shocking in that it is a part of high school biology. You did not study biology in high school. Fine. Some of us did, and in college, and
in grad school, and subsequently in our professional careers. We find
your claims difficult to match up with reality. Multiple people have been trying to get you to be usefully specific about your claims. It seems as
if you are playing monkey hear no, see no, speak no evil to avoid them.
Hearts. As pointed out, the evolution of hearts is a mainstay of introductory biology. It has been for a long time. So we get the basics of a progression from an open circulatory system with a very primitive pump up to modern examples of mammalian and avian 4 chambered hearts.
Furthermore, in the last 25 years significant work in developmental
biology has investigated how hearts come to be in developing embryos.
This has been done in multiple species looking at the function of
individual genes.
Yet you assert that nobody talks about it. How do you think that claim
of yours is perceived by people who know something about that body
of knowledge? Your claim makes no sense to us.
As many of use have spent time as teachers, I suggest that we have in
common an experience that odd questions and claims are often rooted
in unstated misconceptions.
Some of us have been trying to root out what unstated misconceptions
may be underlying your puzzling claims. I will say that you have been unresponsive and evasive.
My guess is that you have weird misconceptions about what is required
for a heart to be a squirrel heart, a monkey heart, or a cow heart. But you don't offer us any specifics so we can't quite figure out what you think
the specific problems are.
Or are you just worried about what's required to go from a pulsing vein
to a 4 chambered heart? Or is it that you think the odds of developing a
more sophisticated heart, and a more sophisticated set of lungs, and
more sophisticated kidneys are things whereby you have to multiply probabilities so in combo they become less likely?
There exist good responses to any of that but you have not made
your objection clear.
Refining ones questions to be clear and exacting is essential. You
seem to be resistant to doing so.
On 9/6/23 1:13 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
However, one would think the evolution of these parts
would have to evolve concurrently, at the same time in unison, so
as to conform amd function in radically altered bodies during evolution
from a single cell to the human species.
So what if they do? You can change one part of the body slightly
without disabling the rest. Then another change to another part of the
body, then another, then another. Some would occur sequentially, but
some changes would overlap; the population would include variants of old
and new pancreases at the same time it had old and new bone marrow, for example. Changes occurring in something approaching unison are not a problem.
As I noted in another post, such changes happen much more radically inHow is proof possible?
every growing organism. Granted, the mechanism of change is entirely different, but it at least shows proof that such an occurrence is possible.
On Sep 6, 2023 at 4:56:31 PM EDT, "Lawyer Daggett" <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:40:28 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
On Sep 5, 2023 at 8:27:14 PM EDT, "Lawyer Daggett" <j.nobel...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:10:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> On Sep 1, 2023 at 2:56:34 PM EDT, "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote: >>>>Nothing you've written demonstrates that you understand my issue. So, there is
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:55:22 AM UTC-7, Ralph Page wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote:Even though we see many pictorials and illustrations, demonstrating evolution
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and
chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural
selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with
50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I
think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of
theistic evolution would be most ogical
drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now
that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the >>>>>> probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be
considered reasonable?
How have you determined that random or near random mutations coupled with
drift and natural selection and anything else you can cook up are so likely to
product the life we see now that a designer is not required? Specifically, how
have you estimated the probability that this occurred through evolutionary
forces is so high as to be considered fact?
of intermediate
forms as they go through the many sequential body plans, representing ever
higher and higher body
forms.
Virtually, nothing is ever said about the 100 or so organs that have to also
go through evolutionary
change, in order to fit and function in the many intermediate and transitional
body forms. Such as
the heart, kidneys, livers etc etc etc from the worm, to the fish, to the
amphibians, to the wolf size
mammal, to each of pre-whale forms, to the whale. These organs and body parts
has to go through
many evolutionary changes and some universal ubiquous order But this is never
dealt with why?
What do you mean by "fit"? Do you mean you have no idea what determines >>> the size of your heart but think it involves a set of genes to control the size
and shape of a human heart? And that these are all differences between >>> humans, and chimps, and gorillas, and orangutangs?
And what do you mean by "higher and higher body forms"?
It isn't a concept that is biologically meaningful..
no need to continue with you.It's a waste of both your time and mine. time.
Ron, your claims are rather obviously rooted in ignorance.
Ignorance is a natural state so nothing to be ashamed of, until you leverage
your ignorance of things to make claims that they don't exist.
Specifically, you are claiming that evolution of organs is largely ignored.
That's shocking in that it is a part of high school biology. You did not study biology in high school. Fine. Some of us did, and in college, and
in grad school, and subsequently in our professional careers. We find
your claims difficult to match up with reality. Multiple people have been trying to get you to be usefully specific about your claims. It seems as if you are playing monkey hear no, see no, speak no evil to avoid them.
Hearts. As pointed out, the evolution of hearts is a mainstay of introductory
biology. It has been for a long time. So we get the basics of a progression
from an open circulatory system with a very primitive pump up to modern examples of mammalian and avian 4 chambered hearts.
Furthermore, in the last 25 years significant work in developmental biology has investigated how hearts come to be in developing embryos.
This has been done in multiple species looking at the function of individual genes.
Yet you assert that nobody talks about it. How do you think that claim
of yours is perceived by people who know something about that body
of knowledge? Your claim makes no sense to us.
As many of use have spent time as teachers, I suggest that we have in common an experience that odd questions and claims are often rooted
in unstated misconceptions.
Some of us have been trying to root out what unstated misconceptions
may be underlying your puzzling claims. I will say that you have been unresponsive and evasive.
My guess is that you have weird misconceptions about what is required
for a heart to be a squirrel heart, a monkey heart, or a cow heart. But you
don't offer us any specifics so we can't quite figure out what you think the specific problems are.
Or are you just worried about what's required to go from a pulsing vein
to a 4 chambered heart? Or is it that you think the odds of developing a more sophisticated heart, and a more sophisticated set of lungs, and
more sophisticated kidneys are things whereby you have to multiply probabilities so in combo they become less likely?
There exist good responses to any of that but you have not made
your objection clear.
Refining ones questions to be clear and exacting is essential. You
seem to be resistant to doing so.
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be at work.
On Sep 6, 2023 at 4:56:31 PM EDT, "Lawyer Daggett" <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com> >wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:40:28?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. When body >forms
On Sep 5, 2023 at 8:27:14 PM EDT, "Lawyer Daggett" <j.nobel...@gmail.com> >>> wrote:Ron, your claims are rather obviously rooted in ignorance.
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:10:26?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Nothing you've written demonstrates that you understand my issue. So, there is
On Sep 1, 2023 at 2:56:34 PM EDT, "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote: >>>>>
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:55:22?AM UTC-7, Ralph Page wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>Even though we see many pictorials and illustrations, demonstrating evolution
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and
chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural
selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with
50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I
think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of
theistic evolution would be most ogical
drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now
that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the >>>>>>> probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be
considered reasonable?
How have you determined that random or near random mutations coupled with
drift and natural selection and anything else you can cook up are so likely to
product the life we see now that a designer is not required? Specifically, how
have you estimated the probability that this occurred through evolutionary
forces is so high as to be considered fact?
of intermediate
forms as they go through the many sequential body plans, representing ever
higher and higher body
forms.
Virtually, nothing is ever said about the 100 or so organs that have to also
go through evolutionary
change, in order to fit and function in the many intermediate and transitional
body forms. Such as
the heart, kidneys, livers etc etc etc from the worm, to the fish, to the >>>>> amphibians, to the wolf size
mammal, to each of pre-whale forms, to the whale. These organs and body parts
has to go through
many evolutionary changes and some universal ubiquous order But this is never
dealt with why?
What do you mean by "fit"? Do you mean you have no idea what determines >>>> the size of your heart but think it involves a set of genes to control the size
and shape of a human heart? And that these are all differences between >>>> humans, and chimps, and gorillas, and orangutangs?
And what do you mean by "higher and higher body forms"?
It isn't a concept that is biologically meaningful..
no need to continue with you.It's a waste of both your time and mine. time. >>
Ignorance is a natural state so nothing to be ashamed of, until you leverage >> your ignorance of things to make claims that they don't exist.
Specifically, you are claiming that evolution of organs is largely ignored. >> That's shocking in that it is a part of high school biology. You did not
study biology in high school. Fine. Some of us did, and in college, and
in grad school, and subsequently in our professional careers. We find
your claims difficult to match up with reality. Multiple people have been
trying to get you to be usefully specific about your claims. It seems as
if you are playing monkey hear no, see no, speak no evil to avoid them.
Hearts. As pointed out, the evolution of hearts is a mainstay of introductory
biology. It has been for a long time. So we get the basics of a progression >> from an open circulatory system with a very primitive pump up to modern
examples of mammalian and avian 4 chambered hearts.
Furthermore, in the last 25 years significant work in developmental
biology has investigated how hearts come to be in developing embryos.
This has been done in multiple species looking at the function of
individual genes.
Yet you assert that nobody talks about it. How do you think that claim
of yours is perceived by people who know something about that body
of knowledge? Your claim makes no sense to us.
As many of use have spent time as teachers, I suggest that we have in
common an experience that odd questions and claims are often rooted
in unstated misconceptions.
Some of us have been trying to root out what unstated misconceptions
may be underlying your puzzling claims. I will say that you have been
unresponsive and evasive.
My guess is that you have weird misconceptions about what is required
for a heart to be a squirrel heart, a monkey heart, or a cow heart. But you >> don't offer us any specifics so we can't quite figure out what you think
the specific problems are.
Or are you just worried about what's required to go from a pulsing vein
to a 4 chambered heart? Or is it that you think the odds of developing a
more sophisticated heart, and a more sophisticated set of lungs, and
more sophisticated kidneys are things whereby you have to multiply
probabilities so in combo they become less likely?
There exist good responses to any of that but you have not made
your objection clear.
Refining ones questions to be clear and exacting is essential. You
seem to be resistant to doing so.
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, skeliton >etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be at work.
On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 19:57:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 6, 2023 at 4:56:31 PM EDT, "Lawyer Daggett" <j.nobel...@gmail.com> >wrote:
I'm pretty sure we all understand your position. Several organ systemsOn Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:40:28?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. When body
On Sep 5, 2023 at 8:27:14 PM EDT, "Lawyer Daggett" <j.nobel...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:10:26?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>> On Sep 1, 2023 at 2:56:34 PM EDT, "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote: >>>>>Nothing you've written demonstrates that you understand my issue. So, there is
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:55:22?AM UTC-7, Ralph Page wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote:Even though we see many pictorials and illustrations, demonstrating evolution
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and
chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural
selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with
50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I
think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of
theistic evolution would be most ogical
drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now
that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the
probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be
considered reasonable?
How have you determined that random or near random mutations coupled with
drift and natural selection and anything else you can cook up are so likely to
product the life we see now that a designer is not required? Specifically, how
have you estimated the probability that this occurred through evolutionary
forces is so high as to be considered fact?
of intermediate
forms as they go through the many sequential body plans, representing ever
higher and higher body
forms.
Virtually, nothing is ever said about the 100 or so organs that have to also
go through evolutionary
change, in order to fit and function in the many intermediate and transitional
body forms. Such as
the heart, kidneys, livers etc etc etc from the worm, to the fish, to the
amphibians, to the wolf size
mammal, to each of pre-whale forms, to the whale. These organs and body parts
has to go through
many evolutionary changes and some universal ubiquous order But this is never
dealt with why?
What do you mean by "fit"? Do you mean you have no idea what determines >>>> the size of your heart but think it involves a set of genes to control the size
and shape of a human heart? And that these are all differences between >>>> humans, and chimps, and gorillas, and orangutangs?
And what do you mean by "higher and higher body forms"?
It isn't a concept that is biologically meaningful..
no need to continue with you.It's a waste of both your time and mine. time.
Ron, your claims are rather obviously rooted in ignorance.
Ignorance is a natural state so nothing to be ashamed of, until you leverage
your ignorance of things to make claims that they don't exist.
Specifically, you are claiming that evolution of organs is largely ignored.
That's shocking in that it is a part of high school biology. You did not >> study biology in high school. Fine. Some of us did, and in college, and >> in grad school, and subsequently in our professional careers. We find
your claims difficult to match up with reality. Multiple people have been >> trying to get you to be usefully specific about your claims. It seems as >> if you are playing monkey hear no, see no, speak no evil to avoid them. >>
Hearts. As pointed out, the evolution of hearts is a mainstay of introductory
biology. It has been for a long time. So we get the basics of a progression
from an open circulatory system with a very primitive pump up to modern >> examples of mammalian and avian 4 chambered hearts.
Furthermore, in the last 25 years significant work in developmental
biology has investigated how hearts come to be in developing embryos.
This has been done in multiple species looking at the function of
individual genes.
Yet you assert that nobody talks about it. How do you think that claim
of yours is perceived by people who know something about that body
of knowledge? Your claim makes no sense to us.
As many of use have spent time as teachers, I suggest that we have in
common an experience that odd questions and claims are often rooted
in unstated misconceptions.
Some of us have been trying to root out what unstated misconceptions
may be underlying your puzzling claims. I will say that you have been
unresponsive and evasive.
My guess is that you have weird misconceptions about what is required
for a heart to be a squirrel heart, a monkey heart, or a cow heart. But you
don't offer us any specifics so we can't quite figure out what you think >> the specific problems are.
Or are you just worried about what's required to go from a pulsing vein >> to a 4 chambered heart? Or is it that you think the odds of developing a >> more sophisticated heart, and a more sophisticated set of lungs, and
more sophisticated kidneys are things whereby you have to multiply
probabilities so in combo they become less likely?
There exist good responses to any of that but you have not made
your objection clear.
Refining ones questions to be clear and exacting is essential. You
seem to be resistant to doing so.
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution >of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be at work.
must have evolved more or less together. You think that evolution alone
just isn't sufficient to accomplish the task so the logical explanation is that external help (designer) is necessary.
I'm trying to understand why you think evolution alone isn't sufficient. Do you think if there was more time, or larger populations of organisms, evolution could accopmplish the task?
On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 19:57:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 6, 2023 at 4:56:31 PM EDT, "Lawyer Daggett" <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 3:40:28?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. When body
On Sep 5, 2023 at 8:27:14 PM EDT, "Lawyer Daggett" <j.nobel...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:10:26?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Nothing you've written demonstrates that you understand my issue. So, there is
On Sep 1, 2023 at 2:56:34 PM EDT, "Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:55:22?AM UTC-7, Ralph Page wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2023 04:16:38 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote:Even though we see many pictorials and illustrations, demonstrating evolution
On Aug 31, 2023 at 11:43:29 AM EDT, "peter2...@gmail.com"<Massive snip>
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most modern phyla appeared during the Cambrian, and I have problems accepting,How have you determined that random, or near random mutations coupled with
that there are actually forms bridging the separations between the original
phyla. Secondly, the evolution
of the massive whale from a single cell to some wolf size mammal involves, not
just the evolution of body forms, but also as many as 100 internal organs and
limbs. But given the random mutations and natural selection is offered as the
explanation, random means aimless, hazardous, purposeless, mindless and
chance. The 100 organs and body parts had to evolve in a near parallel, close
together at near the same time or en masse in order to survive. Natural
selection can select only the mutations provided by random chance. What are
the odds of this happening multiple times with the numerous intermediate body
plans, not to mention the new body parts and against the odds even with
50+million year time span. Where did the new coded information arise?. I
think, this takes faith! If this happened, a guiding hand of some form of
theistic evolution would be most ogical
drift and natural selection are so unlikely to produce the life we see now
that a designer is required? Specifically, how have you estimated the >>>>>>>> probability that this occurred through evolutionary forces is too low to be
considered reasonable?
How have you determined that random or near random mutations coupled with
drift and natural selection and anything else you can cook up are so likely to
product the life we see now that a designer is not required? Specifically, how
have you estimated the probability that this occurred through evolutionary
forces is so high as to be considered fact?
of intermediate
forms as they go through the many sequential body plans, representing ever
higher and higher body
forms.
Virtually, nothing is ever said about the 100 or so organs that have to also
go through evolutionary
change, in order to fit and function in the many intermediate and transitional
body forms. Such as
the heart, kidneys, livers etc etc etc from the worm, to the fish, to the
amphibians, to the wolf size
mammal, to each of pre-whale forms, to the whale. These organs and body parts
has to go through
many evolutionary changes and some universal ubiquous order But this is never
dealt with why?
What do you mean by "fit"? Do you mean you have no idea what determines >>>>> the size of your heart but think it involves a set of genes to control the size
and shape of a human heart? And that these are all differences between >>>>> humans, and chimps, and gorillas, and orangutangs?
And what do you mean by "higher and higher body forms"?
It isn't a concept that is biologically meaningful..
no need to continue with you.It's a waste of both your time and mine. time.
Ron, your claims are rather obviously rooted in ignorance.
Ignorance is a natural state so nothing to be ashamed of, until you leverage
your ignorance of things to make claims that they don't exist.
Specifically, you are claiming that evolution of organs is largely ignored. >>> That's shocking in that it is a part of high school biology. You did not >>> study biology in high school. Fine. Some of us did, and in college, and
in grad school, and subsequently in our professional careers. We find
your claims difficult to match up with reality. Multiple people have been >>> trying to get you to be usefully specific about your claims. It seems as >>> if you are playing monkey hear no, see no, speak no evil to avoid them.
Hearts. As pointed out, the evolution of hearts is a mainstay of introductory
biology. It has been for a long time. So we get the basics of a progression >>> from an open circulatory system with a very primitive pump up to modern
examples of mammalian and avian 4 chambered hearts.
Furthermore, in the last 25 years significant work in developmental
biology has investigated how hearts come to be in developing embryos.
This has been done in multiple species looking at the function of
individual genes.
Yet you assert that nobody talks about it. How do you think that claim
of yours is perceived by people who know something about that body
of knowledge? Your claim makes no sense to us.
As many of use have spent time as teachers, I suggest that we have in
common an experience that odd questions and claims are often rooted
in unstated misconceptions.
Some of us have been trying to root out what unstated misconceptions
may be underlying your puzzling claims. I will say that you have been
unresponsive and evasive.
My guess is that you have weird misconceptions about what is required
for a heart to be a squirrel heart, a monkey heart, or a cow heart. But you >>> don't offer us any specifics so we can't quite figure out what you think >>> the specific problems are.
Or are you just worried about what's required to go from a pulsing vein
to a 4 chambered heart? Or is it that you think the odds of developing a >>> more sophisticated heart, and a more sophisticated set of lungs, and
more sophisticated kidneys are things whereby you have to multiply
probabilities so in combo they become less likely?
There exist good responses to any of that but you have not made
your objection clear.
Refining ones questions to be clear and exacting is essential. You
seem to be resistant to doing so.
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time;
otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be at work.
I'm pretty sure we all understand your position. Several organ systems
must have evolved more or less together. You think that evolution alone
just isn't sufficient to accomplish the task so the logical explanation is that external help (designer) is necessary.
I'm trying to understand why you think evolution alone isn't sufficient. Do you think if there was more time, or larger populations of organisms, evolution could accopmplish the task?
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. When body forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be at work.
On Sep 6, 2023 at 11:35:34 PM EDT, "Mark Isaak" <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 9/6/23 1:13 PM, Ron Dean wrote:East to say, as a matter of faith, yes! But just - so- stories are not falsifiable.
[...]
However, one would think the evolution of these parts
would have to evolve concurrently, at the same time in unison, so
as to conform amd function in radically altered bodies during evolution
from a single cell to the human species.
So what if they do? You can change one part of the body slightly
without disabling the rest. Then another change to another part of the
body, then another, then another. Some would occur sequentially, but
some changes would overlap; the population would include variants of old
and new pancreases at the same time it had old and new bone marrow, for
example. Changes occurring in something approaching unison are not a
problem.
But random is aimless, chance; no different than flipping coins.
As I noted in another post, such changes happen much more radically inHow is proof possible?
every growing organism. Granted, the mechanism of change is entirely
different, but it at least shows proof that such an occurrence is possible.
On Sep 6, 2023 at 11:35:34 PM EDT, "Mark Isaak" ><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 9/6/23 1:13 PM, Ron Dean wrote:East to say, as a matter of faith, yes! But just - so- stories are not >falsifiable.
[...]
However, one would think the evolution of these parts
would have to evolve concurrently, at the same time in unison, so
as to conform amd function in radically altered bodies during evolution
from a single cell to the human species.
So what if they do? You can change one part of the body slightly
without disabling the rest. Then another change to another part of the
body, then another, then another. Some would occur sequentially, but
some changes would overlap; the population would include variants of old
and new pancreases at the same time it had old and new bone marrow, for
example. Changes occurring in something approaching unison are not a
problem.
But random is aimless, chance; no different than flipping coins.
As I noted in another post, such changes happen much more radically in
every growing organism. Granted, the mechanism of change is entirely
different, but it at least shows proof that such an occurrence is possible. >How is proof possible?
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:abilities."
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >> >> > >> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >> >> > >> >> wrote:ROTFLMAO!
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical >> >> > >> piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing
from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves during
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity varying
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you
can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 9:15:30?PM UTC-4, Ralph Page wrote:
On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 19:57:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> wrote: <snip>
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. When bodyI'm pretty sure we all understand your position. Several organ systems
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time;
otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution >> >of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be at work.
must have evolved more or less together. You think that evolution alone
just isn't sufficient to accomplish the task so the logical explanation is >> that external help (designer) is necessary.
I'm trying to understand why you think evolution alone isn't sufficient. Do >> you think if there was more time, or larger populations of organisms,
evolution could accopmplish the task?
There's a joke I'm about to butcher to attempt a point.
If the mighty and tall giraffe hadn't evolved longer bones,
his legs wouldn't be able to reach the ground.
I wonder about the extent to which Ron's complaint is similar.
Let me attempt to illustrate. If we grant that the reticulated giraffe
is in some sense a new body plan (it isn't the way body plan is usually
used by biologists, but ...).
Is the concern that for some ancestral population of shorter animals
to evolve into giraffes they not only need to get mutations to grow
their bones longer, they need to grow their arteries and veins longer,
and they need to grow more skin. Is he saying that it's too much to
imagine that all those "mutations" occur at the same time? Or what
if their right foreleg grew longer but not the left? How could evolution >coordinate that?
And no, I'm not going to taste your hemlock tea.
On Sep 8, 2023 at 9:11:07 PM EDT, "Ralph Page" <rp@SOCKSralphpage.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 19:57:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote: >>
On Sep 6, 2023 at 4:56:31 PM EDT, "Lawyer Daggett" <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com>
wrote:
My guess is that you have weird misconceptions about what is requiredYou still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. When body
for a heart to be a squirrel heart, a monkey heart, or a cow heart. But you
don't offer us any specifics so we can't quite figure out what you think >>>> the specific problems are.
Or are you just worried about what's required to go from a pulsing vein >>>> to a 4 chambered heart? Or is it that you think the odds of developing a >>>> more sophisticated heart, and a more sophisticated set of lungs, and
more sophisticated kidneys are things whereby you have to multiply
probabilities so in combo they become less likely?
There exist good responses to any of that but you have not made
your objection clear.
Refining ones questions to be clear and exacting is essential. You
seem to be resistant to doing so.
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time;
otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution >>> of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be at work.
I'm pretty sure we all understand your position. Several organ systems
must have evolved more or less together. You think that evolution alone
just isn't sufficient to accomplish the task so the logical explanation is >> that external help (designer) is necessary.
I'm trying to understand why you think evolution alone isn't sufficient. Do >> you think if there was more time, or larger populations of organisms,
evolution could accopmplish the task?
Oh, It's so easy to say all the vital organs just through natural selection >and natural selection over time was just able to do this. No details, no >examples, no direct evidence of the numerous stages necessary. Such is >impossible, because the odds were too great.
I just don't have your faith
On Sat, 09 Sep 2023 03:51:00 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 8, 2023 at 9:11:07 PM EDT, "Ralph Page" <rp@SOCKSralphpage.com> wrote: >>
On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 19:57:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Sep 6, 2023 at 4:56:31 PM EDT, "Lawyer Daggett" <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com>
wrote:
<big snip>
My guess is that you have weird misconceptions about what is required >>>>> for a heart to be a squirrel heart, a monkey heart, or a cow heart. But youYou still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. When body
don't offer us any specifics so we can't quite figure out what you think >>>>> the specific problems are.
Or are you just worried about what's required to go from a pulsing vein >>>>> to a 4 chambered heart? Or is it that you think the odds of developing a >>>>> more sophisticated heart, and a more sophisticated set of lungs, and >>>>> more sophisticated kidneys are things whereby you have to multiply
probabilities so in combo they become less likely?
There exist good responses to any of that but you have not made
your objection clear.
Refining ones questions to be clear and exacting is essential. You
seem to be resistant to doing so.
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >>>> otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution >>>> of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be at work.
I'm pretty sure we all understand your position. Several organ systems
must have evolved more or less together. You think that evolution alone >>> just isn't sufficient to accomplish the task so the logical explanation is >>> that external help (designer) is necessary.
I'm trying to understand why you think evolution alone isn't sufficient. Do >>> you think if there was more time, or larger populations of organisms,
evolution could accopmplish the task?
Oh, It's so easy to say all the vital organs just through natural selection >>and natural selection over time was just able to do this. No details, no >>examples, no direct evidence of the numerous stages necessary. Such is >>impossible, because the odds were too great.
OK, I'll try one more time. Why do you think the odds are too great?
I just don't see the problem.
Reasonable estimates of mutation rates have been measured.
Reasonable estimates of time the duration available can be inferred from >observed fossils of various precursor species.
Reasonable estimates of the populations, lengths of a generation and growth >rates of the various species over that time have been made through >observations of similar extant animals we now see.
I just don't have your faith
I'd say no more faith than to say an unknown designer that's never been >observed somehow showed up and did it. Certainly I can't (and don't) say
the odds are too great that a designer was involved, but I can say it looks >like a designer isn't needed.
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>abilities."
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >> >> > wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>ROTFLMAO!
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it. >> >> > >> >>
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical >> >> > >> piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing
from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves during
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity varying
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you >> >> > can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
Jillery 1, Glenn 0
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:55:30?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:abilities."
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >> >> >> > wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>ROTFLMAO!
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it. >> >> >> > >> >>
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing
varying from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you >> >> >> > can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
Jillery 1, Glenn 0
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
And you're an idiot.
On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 17:00:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>hearing abilities."
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:55:30?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>ROTFLMAO!
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced
varying from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity
Yeah, I get that a lot from you. What I don't get from you are things like the evidence that evolution provided humans with echolocation. Surely you can blabber some just so story out, or overwhelming reasoning and logic behind the reason you claim, as<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you
can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
Jillery 1, Glenn 0
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
And you're an idiot.Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.
--
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:35:31 AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:hearing abilities."
On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 17:00:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:55:30?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >> >> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>ROTFLMAO!
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced
varying from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity
in Martin's words, "developed a sophisticated sonar system of navigation to compensate.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you
can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
Jillery 1, Glenn 0
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Yeah, I get that a lot from you. What I don't get from you are things like the evidence that evolution provided humans with echolocation. Surely you can blabber some just so story out, or overwhelming reasoning and logic behind the reason you claim, asAnd you're an idiot.Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.
--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_echolocation
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:35:31?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:hearing abilities."
On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 17:00:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:55:30?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>ROTFLMAO!
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced
varying from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity
Yeah, I get that a lot from you.Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you
can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
Jillery 1, Glenn 0
And you're an idiot.
--
What I don't get from you are things like the evidence that evolution provided humans with echolocation.
Surely you can blabber some just so story out, or overwhelming reasoning and logic behind the reason you claim, as in Martin's words, "developed a sophisticated sonar system of navigation to compensate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_echolocation
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 22:35:04 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>hearing abilities."
wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:35:31?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 17:00:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:55:30?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >> >> >> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>ROTFLMAO!
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced
varying from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity
Don't like that I note your willfully stupid trolls? Then stopYeah, I get that a lot from you.Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you
can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
Jillery 1, Glenn 0
And you're an idiot.
--
posting your willfully stupid trolls. Not sure how even you *still*
don't understand this.
What I don't get from you are things like the evidence that evolution provided humans with echolocation.Read for comprehension.
Glad to help you with that. If only you were honest and realized what that means to your implied claim that evolution provided humans with echolocation.Surely you can blabber some just so story out, or overwhelming reasoning and logic behind the reason you claim, as in Martin's words, "developed a sophisticated sonar system of navigation to compensate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_echolocationYes, humans are animals. Thanks for affirming.
--
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:abilities."
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote: >> > >> On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>ROTFLMAO!
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar >> > >> >> system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the >> > >> outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I >> > >> thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing
one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves during flight
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity varying from
It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you
can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 1:35:33?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:hearing abilities."
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 22:35:04 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:35:31?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 17:00:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:55:30?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >> >> >> >> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>ROTFLMAO!
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced
varying from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity
Don't like that I note your willfully stupid trolls? Then stopYeah, I get that a lot from you.Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you
can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
Jillery 1, Glenn 0
And you're an idiot.
--
posting your willfully stupid trolls. Not sure how even you *still*
don't understand this.
Empty claims, troll behavior.
What I don't get from you are things like the evidence that evolution provided humans with echolocation.Read for comprehension.
Evasion. Very few humans have developed any ability to echolocate. You as much as explicitly claim that evolution provided humans with echolocation. Yet there is nothing to read, since you provide no response.
Glad to help you with that. If only you were honest and realized what that means to your implied claim that evolution provided humans with echolocation.Surely you can blabber some just so story out, or overwhelming reasoning and logic behind the reason you claim, as in Martin's words, "developed a sophisticated sonar system of navigation to compensate.Yes, humans are animals. Thanks for affirming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_echolocation
--
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>abilities."
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> > On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >> > >> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >> > >> >> wrote:ROTFLMAO!
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing
from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves during
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity varying
It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/ >> >
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you
can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.So where did humans get the ability to develop and utilise radar if it
did not come from evolution?
Did the intelligent designer originally design humans with that
ability but put in some kind of a pause button so that they would not
be able to avail of the ability for thousands of years?
Or did the intelligent designer originally leave out the ability but
come back and add in some thousands of years later?
Feel free to come up with some other explanation of your own.
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 12:35:36?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:abilities."
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >> >> > >> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >> >> > >> >> wrote:ROTFLMAO!
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing
from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves during
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity varying
So where did humans get the ability to develop and utilise radar if itIt's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/ >> >> >
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you
can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
did not come from evolution?
Did the intelligent designer originally design humans with that
ability but put in some kind of a pause button so that they would not
be able to avail of the ability for thousands of years?
Or did the intelligent designer originally leave out the ability but
come back and add in some thousands of years later?
Feel free to come up with some other explanation of your own.
Was there an explanation in that rant of how and why evolution provided humans with echolocation?
You as well as jillery know you can't, and that humans as a species do not echolocate as do some animals such as bats.
But you will lie and cheat to support evolution over creationism, and apparently will attribute human intelligence, along with everything else you can think of, to unguided evolution. Typical atheist behavior.
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 12:35:36?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:abilities."
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >> >> > >> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >> >> > >> >> wrote:ROTFLMAO!
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical >> >> > >> piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing
from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves during
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity varying
So where did humans get the ability to develop and utilise radar if itIt's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you
can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
did not come from evolution?
Did the intelligent designer originally design humans with that
ability but put in some kind of a pause button so that they would not
be able to avail of the ability for thousands of years?
Or did the intelligent designer originally leave out the ability but
come back and add in some thousands of years later?
Feel free to come up with some other explanation of your own.
Was there an explanation in that rant of how and why evolution provided humans with echolocation?
You as well as jillery know you can't, and that humans as a species do not echolocate as do some animals such as bats.
But you will lie and cheat to support evolution over creationism, and apparently will attribute human intelligence, along with everything else you can think of, to unguided evolution. Typical atheist behavior.
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 12:35:36?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:abilities."
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >> >> > >> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >> >> > >> >> wrote:ROTFLMAO!
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing
from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves during
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity varying
So where did humans get the ability to develop and utilise radar if itIt's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/ >> >> >
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you
can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
did not come from evolution?
Did the intelligent designer originally design humans with that
ability but put in some kind of a pause button so that they would not
be able to avail of the ability for thousands of years?
Or did the intelligent designer originally leave out the ability but
come back and add in some thousands of years later?
Feel free to come up with some other explanation of your own.
Was there an explanation in that rant of how and why evolution provided humans with echolocation?
You as well as jillery know you can't, and that humans as a species do not echolocate as do some animals such as bats.
But you will lie and cheat to support evolution over creationism, and apparently will attribute human intelligence, along with everything else you can think of, to unguided evolution. Typical atheist behavior.
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So,
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again.
When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part,
skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time;
otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be
at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left
foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no
muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw.
Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another
place make those first small changes all the more important, and small changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad
infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me,
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com>abilities."
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:ROTFLMAO!
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it. >>>>>>>>>>
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar >>>>>>>>>> system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical >>>>>>>> piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the >>>>>>>> outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I >>>>>>>> thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing
from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves during
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity varying
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/ >>>>>>
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you >>>>>> can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
Jillery 1, Glenn 0
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Mark Isaak wrote:How hard have you looked?
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again.
When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part,
skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time;
otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution >> of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be
at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw. Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in anotherI'm back to T.O. on a limited basis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
place make those first small changes all the more important, and small changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad
infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me, same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So,
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside direction. Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as
the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases, multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000 genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So,
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again.
When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part,
skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time;
otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution >>> of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be
at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left
foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no
muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw.
Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another
place make those first small changes all the more important, and small
changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two
changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad
infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me,
I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis. >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside direction. >Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as
the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases, >multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000 >genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job!
On Sat, 09 Sep 2023 03:51:00 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 8, 2023 at 9:11:07 PM EDT, "Ralph Page" <rp@SOCKSralphpage.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 19:57:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote: >>>
On Sep 6, 2023 at 4:56:31 PM EDT, "Lawyer Daggett" <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com>
wrote:
<big snip>
My guess is that you have weird misconceptions about what is required >>>>> for a heart to be a squirrel heart, a monkey heart, or a cow heart. But youYou still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. When body
don't offer us any specifics so we can't quite figure out what you think >>>>> the specific problems are.
Or are you just worried about what's required to go from a pulsing vein >>>>> to a 4 chambered heart? Or is it that you think the odds of developing a >>>>> more sophisticated heart, and a more sophisticated set of lungs, and >>>>> more sophisticated kidneys are things whereby you have to multiply
probabilities so in combo they become less likely?
There exist good responses to any of that but you have not made
your objection clear.
Refining ones questions to be clear and exacting is essential. You
seem to be resistant to doing so.
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >>>> otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution >>>> of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be at work.
I'm pretty sure we all understand your position. Several organ systems
must have evolved more or less together. You think that evolution alone >>> just isn't sufficient to accomplish the task so the logical explanation is >>> that external help (designer) is necessary.
I'm trying to understand why you think evolution alone isn't sufficient. Do >>> you think if there was more time, or larger populations of organisms,
evolution could accopmplish the task?
Oh, It's so easy to say all the vital organs just through natural selection >> and natural selection over time was just able to do this. No details, no
examples, no direct evidence of the numerous stages necessary. Such is
impossible, because the odds were too great.
OK, I'll try one more time. Why do you think the odds are too great?
I just don't see the problem.
Reasonable estimates of mutation rates have been measured.
Reasonable estimates of time the duration available can be inferred from observed fossils of various precursor species.
Reasonable estimates of the populations, lengths of a generation and growth rates of the various species over that time have been made through observations of similar extant animals we now see.
I just don't have your faith
I'd say no more faith than to say an unknown designer that's never been observed somehow showed up and did it. Certainly I can't (and don't) say
the odds are too great that a designer was involved, but I can say it looks like a designer isn't needed.
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 22:35:04 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com>abilities."
wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:35:31?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 17:00:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:55:30?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:ROTFLMAO!
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical >>>>>>>>>>>> piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing
varying from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity
Yeah, I get that a lot from you.Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you >>>>>>>>>> can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
Jillery 1, Glenn 0
And you're an idiot.
--
Don't like that I note your willfully stupid trolls? Then stop
posting your willfully stupid trolls. Not sure how even you *still*
don't understand this.
What I don't get from you are things like the evidence that evolution provided humans with echolocation.
Read for comprehension.
Surely you can blabber some just so story out, or overwhelming reasoning and logic behind the reason you claim, as in Martin's words, "developed a sophisticated sonar system of navigation to compensate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_echolocation
Yes, humans are animals. Thanks for affirming.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 22:35:04 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com>If humans are just animals, then where does human worth or humanity come from? If we are just animals, no different, no better than the chimp;
wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:35:31?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 17:00:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>Yeah, I get that a lot from you.
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:55:30?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7,<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin >>>>>>>>>> Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), GlennIt's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" >>>>>>>>>> (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all >>>>>>>>>> and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of >>>>>>>>>> most humans" (Britannica).
<GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin >>>>>>>>>>>> Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn
<GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron DeanROTFLMAO!
<rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
With eyes having worked out so well in other species >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat >>>>>>>>>>>>> comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer >>>>>>>>>>>>> looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, >>>>>>>>>>>>> "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just >>>>>>>>>>>> lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally >>>>>>>>>>>> not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight >>>>>>>>>>>> keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats >>>>>>>>>>>> are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced >>>>>>>>>>>> hearing abilities."
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind >>>>>>>>>>>>
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and >>>>>>>>>>>> Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly >>>>>>>>>>>> called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate >>>>>>>>>>>> since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity >>>>>>>>>>>> varying from one species to another. Both megabat and
microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one >>>>>>>>>>>> another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across >>>>>>>>>>>> landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to >>>>>>>>>>>> orient themselves during flight and to find food. Most >>>>>>>>>>>> microbats use echolocation to navigate and find food, and >>>>>>>>>>>> they tend to have smaller eyes, although they, too, use >>>>>>>>>>>> vision during their daily activities and to detect objects >>>>>>>>>>>> outside the effective range of echolocation, which is about >>>>>>>>>>>> thirty-three to sixty-six feet (ten to twenty meters). Some >>>>>>>>>>>> bats are also capable of visual pattern discrimination, >>>>>>>>>>>> which may assist fruit or nectar bats in finding food." >>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses >>>>>>>>>>> so you
can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution >>>>>>>>> has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
Jillery 1, Glenn 0
And you're an idiot.
--
Don't like that I note your willfully stupid trolls? Then stop
posting your willfully stupid trolls. Not sure how even you *still*
don't understand this.
What I don't get from you are things like the evidence that evolution
provided humans with echolocation.
Read for comprehension.
Surely you can blabber some just so story out, or overwhelming
reasoning and logic behind the reason you claim, as in Martin's
words, "developed a sophisticated sonar system of navigation to
compensate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_echolocation
Yes, humans are animals. Thanks for affirming.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
the dog; the pig or any other animal, then it's
only because we are arrogant, self-centered with sufficient power to
assign value to ourselves which
we deny other animals.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me,
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again.
When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part,
skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time;
otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified
evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be
at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left
foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no
muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw.
Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another
place make those first small changes all the more important, and small
changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the first
two changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad
infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So,
I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside
direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as
the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases, multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000 genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job!
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:35:44 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:How hard have you looked?
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So,
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again.
When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part,
skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >>>> otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution >>>> of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be
at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left
foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no
muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw.
Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another
place make those first small changes all the more important, and small
changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two
changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad
infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me,
I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside direction. >> Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as
the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases,
multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000
genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job!
[...]What do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_ intermediate sequence of fossils?
broger...@gmail.com wrote:Why do you think it is that naming deleterious mutations is so much easier than naming beneficial ones?
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:35:44 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:How hard have you looked?
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. >>>> When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, >>>> skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >>>> otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be >>>> at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left
foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no
muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw. >>> Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another
place make those first small changes all the more important, and small >>> changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two >>> changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad
infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me, >> same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So, >> I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as
the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases, >> multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000 >> genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job!
I could name about six mutations which are beneficial. However, these
are exceedingly rare.And faulty DNA is far more likely, and natural selection is not very effective. However, the
DNA molecule itself, comes with its own proof-reading and repair
mechanisms.
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:31:57 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:Just for one example, you noted sickle-cell disease. Did you
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. >>>> When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, >>>> skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >>>> otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be >>>> at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left
foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no
muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw. >>> Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another
place make those first small changes all the more important, and small >>> changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two >>> changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad
infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me, >> same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So, >> I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as
the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases, >> multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000 >> genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job! >>
read enough about it to know that it's actually beneficial
to the majority in an environment where malaria is endemic?
https://sickle-cell.com/clinical/malaria
It's only when inherited from *both* parents that it's a
problem.
Even if only one parent has it, it can be passed on to offspring, who
then could be married to another person with the disease.
And serious cancers strike most victims *after* breeding
age, and are therefore shielded from selection to a large
degree.
This is true, but almost everyone has a bout with cancer if they live
long enough. A few years ago I lost, my 6 year old granddaughter to cancer.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/age
Maybe if you tried to learn more from reliable sources, and
stopped uncritically reading with an inherent
"anti-evolution" bias, you'd be better off.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:31:57 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:Just for one example, you noted sickle-cell disease. Did you
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So,
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again.
When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part,
skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >>>> otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution >>>> of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be
at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left
foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no
muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw.
Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another
place make those first small changes all the more important, and small
changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two
changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad
infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me,
I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside direction. >> Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as
the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases,
multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000
genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job!
read enough about it to know that it's actually beneficial
to the majority in an environment where malaria is endemic?
https://sickle-cell.com/clinical/malaria
It's only when inherited from *both* parents that it's a
problem.
And serious cancers strike most victims *after* breeding
age, and are therefore shielded from selection to a large
degree.
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/age
Maybe if you tried to learn more from reliable sources, and
stopped uncritically reading with an inherent
"anti-evolution" bias, you'd be better off.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:31:57 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:Just for one example, you noted sickle-cell disease. Did you
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So,
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again.
When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part,
skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >>>> otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution >>>> of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be
at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left
foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no
muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw.
Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another
place make those first small changes all the more important, and small
changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two
changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad
infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me,
I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside direction. >> Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as
the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases,
multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000
genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job!
read enough about it to know that it's actually beneficial
to the majority in an environment where malaria is endemic?
https://sickle-cell.com/clinical/malaria
It's only when inherited from *both* parents that it's a
problem.
And serious cancers strike most victims *after* breeding
age, and are therefore shielded from selection to a large
degree.
https://www.healthline.com/health/can-someone-with-
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/age
Maybe if you tried to learn more from reliable sources, and
stopped uncritically reading with an inherent
"anti-evolution" bias, you'd be better off.
Bob Casanova wrote:Yes, that's how such inheritance works. Do you think that
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:31:57 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:Just for one example, you noted sickle-cell disease. Did you
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again.
When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, >>>>> skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >>>>> otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution >>>>> of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be >>>>> at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left
foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no
muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw.
Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another
place make those first small changes all the more important, and small >>>> changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two >>>> changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad
infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me, >>> same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as
the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases,
multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000 >>> genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job! >>>
read enough about it to know that it's actually beneficial
to the majority in an environment where malaria is endemic?
https://sickle-cell.com/clinical/malaria
It's only when inherited from *both* parents that it's a
problem.
Even if only one parent has it, it can be passed on to offspring, who
then could be married to another person with the disease.
And serious cancers strike most victims *after* breeding
age, and are therefore shielded from selection to a large
degree.
This is true, but almost everyone has a bout with cancer if they live
long enough.
A few years ago I lost, my 6 year old granddaughter to cancer.
--
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/age
Maybe if you tried to learn more from reliable sources, and
stopped uncritically reading with an inherent
"anti-evolution" bias, you'd be better off.
On 9/22/23 4:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me,
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again.
When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body
part, skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >>>> otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified
evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must
be at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left
foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no
muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw.
Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another
place make those first small changes all the more important, and
small changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the
first two changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat
ad infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So,
I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside
direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as
the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases,
multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000
genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
In humans, off the top of my head, adult lactose tolerance, high
altitude adaptation, and sickle-cell anemia come to mind. Possibly also resistance to alcohol addiction. The list is far greater for non-humans (although the myriad cases of drug and pesticide resistance are
beneficial only to the organisms with the mutations, not to the humans applying the poisons.)
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job!
Again, I call your attention to the fact that engineers -- REAL LIFE INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS! -- use the equivalent of natural selection
(coupled with random mutation) to design things that are too complex for
them to deal with by other means.
jillery wrote:hearing abilities."
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 22:35:04 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:35:31?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 17:00:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:55:30?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>ROTFLMAO!
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced
varying from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind >>>>>>>>>>>
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity
Yeah, I get that a lot from you.Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you
can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
Jillery 1, Glenn 0
And you're an idiot.
--
Don't like that I note your willfully stupid trolls? Then stop
posting your willfully stupid trolls. Not sure how even you *still*
don't understand this.
What I don't get from you are things like the evidence that evolution provided humans with echolocation.
Read for comprehension.
Surely you can blabber some just so story out, or overwhelming reasoning and logic behind the reason you claim, as in Martin's words, "developed a sophisticated sonar system of navigation to compensate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_echolocation
Yes, humans are animals. Thanks for affirming.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
If humans are just animals, then where does human worth or humanity come from? If we are just animals, no different, no better than the chimp;
the dog; the pig or any other animal, then it's
only because we are arrogant, self-centered with sufficient power to
assign value to ourselves which
we deny other animals.
Mark Isaak wrote:........
On 9/22/23 4:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me, >> same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So, >> I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. >>>> When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body
part, skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >>>> otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified
evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must
be at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left
foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no
muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw. >>> Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another
place make those first small changes all the more important, and
small changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the
first two changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat >>> ad infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside
direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as
the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases, >> multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000 >> genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
In humans, off the top of my head, adult lactose tolerance, high
altitude adaptation, and sickle-cell anemia come to mind. Possibly also resistance to alcohol addiction. The list is far greater for non-humans (although the myriad cases of drug and pesticide resistance are
beneficial only to the organisms with the mutations, not to the humans applying the poisons.)
For the few possible beneficial mutations there are hundreds of defective genes.
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job!
Again, I call your attention to the fact that engineers -- REAL LIFE INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS! -- use the equivalent of natural selection
(coupled with random mutation) to design things that are too complex for them to deal with by other means.
Exactly! "Intelligent designers". And there are numerous things in
nature that's more complex
than anything we (engineers) have ever designed. The cell for example,
is for more complex than anything ever designed by human engineers. And homeobox genes are incrediable examples
of intelligent conception and origin. These master control genes are ancient, unchanged and throughout the animal kingdom, controling the
body forms, organ and limb placement in all
animals. The fact that most of the hox genes are across all animals vertibrates and invertabrites
this supposidly ultimate and final proof that evolution of all animals
is from a common ancestor. But this could just as well be pointing to an intellingent designer. To the unbiased this commonality is a clear
example of an engineering precept, regardless of whether it's the result
of natural processeses or intelligent design.
As far as I'm concerned a designer/God must be absolutely and positively ruled out before natural
processes is in evidene as the cause. So far, this has _not_ been accomplished. One can believe or
not, but one can not know!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/homeobox-gene
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 11:35:45?AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:31:57 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:Just for one example, you noted sickle-cell disease. Did you
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again.
When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, >> >>>> skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >> >>>> otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be >> >>>> at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left
foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no
muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw. >> >>> Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another
place make those first small changes all the more important, and small >> >>> changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two >> >>> changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad
infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me, >> >> same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So, >> >> I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as >> >> the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases, >> >> multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000
genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job! >> >>
read enough about it to know that it's actually beneficial
to the majority in an environment where malaria is endemic?
https://sickle-cell.com/clinical/malaria
It's only when inherited from *both* parents that it's a
problem.
are more likely than the AS's to die from malaria, and the SS's are very likely to die from sickle cell disease. Once P. falciparum is no longer an issue, as in the case of American descendants of enslaved Africans, sickle cell trait will gradually beEven if only one parent has it, it can be passed on to offspring, who
then could be married to another person with the disease.
Yes, that's true. That's why sickle cell can only persist (long term) in populations exposed to falciparum malaria. In places where P. falciparum is prevalent, the heterozygote (AS) has a selective advantage over either homozygote, AA or SS. The AA's
This is true, but almost everyone has a bout with cancer if they live
And serious cancers strike most victims *after* breeding
age, and are therefore shielded from selection to a large
degree.
long enough. A few years ago I lost, my 6 year old granddaughter to cancer. >> >
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/age
Maybe if you tried to learn more from reliable sources, and
stopped uncritically reading with an inherent
"anti-evolution" bias, you'd be better off.
On 9/22/23 5:51 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 22:35:04 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com>If humans are just animals, then where does human worth or humanity
wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:35:31?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 17:00:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>Yeah, I get that a lot from you.
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:55:30?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7,<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin >>>>>>>>>>> Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), GlennIt's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" >>>>>>>>>>> (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all >>>>>>>>>>> and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of >>>>>>>>>>> most humans" (Britannica).
<GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin >>>>>>>>>>>>> Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn
<GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron DeanROTFLMAO!
<rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat >>>>>>>>>>>>>> comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just >>>>>>>>>>>>> lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally >>>>>>>>>>>>> not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight >>>>>>>>>>>>> keener than that of most humans. The misconception that >>>>>>>>>>>>> bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and >>>>>>>>>>>>> enhanced hearing abilities."
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind >>>>>>>>>>>>>
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and >>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly >>>>>>>>>>>>> called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate >>>>>>>>>>>>> since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity >>>>>>>>>>>>> varying from one species to another. Both megabat and >>>>>>>>>>>>> microbats rely on vision during social interactions with >>>>>>>>>>>>> one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating >>>>>>>>>>>>> across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on >>>>>>>>>>>>> vision to orient themselves during flight and to find food. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Most microbats use echolocation to navigate and find food, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and they tend to have smaller eyes, although they, too, use >>>>>>>>>>>>> vision during their daily activities and to detect objects >>>>>>>>>>>>> outside the effective range of echolocation, which is about >>>>>>>>>>>>> thirty-three to sixty-six feet (ten to twenty meters). Some >>>>>>>>>>>>> bats are also capable of visual pattern discrimination, >>>>>>>>>>>>> which may assist fruit or nectar bats in finding food." >>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses >>>>>>>>>>>> so you
can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution >>>>>>>>>> has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
Jillery 1, Glenn 0
And you're an idiot.
--
Don't like that I note your willfully stupid trolls? Then stop
posting your willfully stupid trolls. Not sure how even you *still*
don't understand this.
What I don't get from you are things like the evidence that
evolution provided humans with echolocation.
Read for comprehension.
Surely you can blabber some just so story out, or overwhelming
reasoning and logic behind the reason you claim, as in Martin's
words, "developed a sophisticated sonar system of navigation to
compensate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_echolocation
Yes, humans are animals. Thanks for affirming.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
come from? If we are just animals, no different, no better than the
chimp; the dog; the pig or any other animal, then it's
only because we are arrogant, self-centered with sufficient power to
assign value to ourselves which
we deny other animals.
Why is it that people think something's character changes if they put
the word "just" in front of it? I wonder if Ron will give up religion
when I point out that what he worships is just a god.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 2:55:45 AM UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:hearing abilities."
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 22:35:04 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:35:31?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 17:00:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:55:30?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>ROTFLMAO!
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced
varying from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind >>>>>>>>>>>
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity
Yeah, I get that a lot from you.Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you
can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
Jillery 1, Glenn 0
And you're an idiot.
--
Don't like that I note your willfully stupid trolls? Then stop
posting your willfully stupid trolls. Not sure how even you *still* don't understand this.
What I don't get from you are things like the evidence that evolution provided humans with echolocation.
Read for comprehension.
Surely you can blabber some just so story out, or overwhelming reasoning and logic behind the reason you claim, as in Martin's words, "developed a sophisticated sonar system of navigation to compensate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_echolocation
Yes, humans are animals. Thanks for affirming.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
If humans are just animals, then where does human worth or humanity come from? If we are just animals, no different, no better than the chimp;If Americans are just humans, how come only they have the right to vote in US elections?
the dog; the pig or any other animal, then it's
only because we are arrogant, self-centered with sufficient power to assign value to ourselves which
we deny other animals.
On 9/22/23 4:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]What do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_
intermediate sequence of fossils?
Yes. Not for bats, but for others, including equines, clams, whales, titanotheres, and hominids.
The real question is, what are you going to do about it?
1) Examine those fossils, and if they appear genuine, change your
worldview.
2) Ignore them for so long that you can again pretend they don't exist.
3) Something else: __________________
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:31:57 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:Just for one example, you noted sickle-cell disease. Did you
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again.
When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, >>>>> skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >>>>> otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution >>>>> of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be >>>>> at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left
foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no
muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw.
Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another
place make those first small changes all the more important, and small >>>> changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two >>>> changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad
infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me, >>> same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as
the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases,
multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000 >>> genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job! >>>
read enough about it to know that it's actually beneficial
to the majority in an environment where malaria is endemic?
https://sickle-cell.com/clinical/malaria
It's only when inherited from *both* parents that it's a
problem.
And serious cancers strike most victims *after* breeding
age, and are therefore shielded from selection to a large
degree.
It's called a disease, sickle cell is a painful deadly disease: in 2020
- 600.000 people died from the disease. It's not uncommon that in Africa >marriage between people, with the disease. The disease is passed down to >offspring. The same year, it's estimated that 240 million people came
down with the
disease. Sickle Cell disease is primarily an African disease, but some
10% of Black-Americans have the sickle cell disease. As I understand it, >people with 2 parents with the disease, the offspring do not have the >protection. But are at a higher risk of severe SCD.
This still applies.https://www.healthline.com/health/can-someone-with-
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/age
Maybe if you tried to learn more from reliable sources, and
stopped uncritically reading with an inherent
"anti-evolution" bias, you'd be better off.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 5:51 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 22:35:04 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>If humans are just animals, then where does human worth or humanity
wrote:
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:35:31?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 9 Sep 2023 17:00:43 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>> wrote:Yeah, I get that a lot from you.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 10:55:30?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>> wrote:Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7,<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin >>>>>>>>>>> Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), GlennIt's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" >>>>>>>>>>> (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all >>>>>>>>>>> and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of >>>>>>>>>>> most humans" (Britannica).
<GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin >>>>>>>>>>>>> Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn
<GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron DeanROTFLMAO!
<rdhall...@gmail.com>
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat >>>>>>>>>>>>>> comical
piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer >>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just >>>>>>>>>>>>> lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally >>>>>>>>>>>>> not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight >>>>>>>>>>>>> keener than that of most humans. The misconception that >>>>>>>>>>>>> bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and >>>>>>>>>>>>> enhanced hearing abilities."
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind >>>>>>>>>>>>>
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and >>>>>>>>>>>>> Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly >>>>>>>>>>>>> called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate >>>>>>>>>>>>> since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity >>>>>>>>>>>>> varying from one species to another. Both megabat and >>>>>>>>>>>>> microbats rely on vision during social interactions with >>>>>>>>>>>>> one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating >>>>>>>>>>>>> across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on >>>>>>>>>>>>> vision to orient themselves during flight and to find food. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Most microbats use echolocation to navigate and find food, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and they tend to have smaller eyes, although they, too, use >>>>>>>>>>>>> vision during their daily activities and to detect objects >>>>>>>>>>>>> outside the effective range of echolocation, which is about >>>>>>>>>>>>> thirty-three to sixty-six feet (ten to twenty meters). Some >>>>>>>>>>>>> bats are also capable of visual pattern discrimination, >>>>>>>>>>>>> which may assist fruit or nectar bats in finding food." >>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses >>>>>>>>>>>> so you
can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution >>>>>>>>>> has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
Jillery 1, Glenn 0
And you're an idiot.
--
Don't like that I note your willfully stupid trolls? Then stop
posting your willfully stupid trolls. Not sure how even you *still*
don't understand this.
What I don't get from you are things like the evidence that
evolution provided humans with echolocation.
Read for comprehension.
Surely you can blabber some just so story out, or overwhelming
reasoning and logic behind the reason you claim, as in Martin's
words, "developed a sophisticated sonar system of navigation to
compensate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_echolocation
Yes, humans are animals. Thanks for affirming.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
come from? If we are just animals, no different, no better than the
chimp; the dog; the pig or any other animal, then it's
only because we are arrogant, self-centered with sufficient power to
assign value to ourselves which
we deny other animals.
Why is it that people think something's character changes if they put
the word "just" in front of it? I wonder if Ron will give up religion when I point out that what he worships is just a god.
I noticed that you had no comment on what I actually wrote. No opinion? "Just" means of no
more value or importance than "other" animals. If this is true, then
it's just as wrong to
kill a hog or cow for food, as another human. Or is it that we, somehow,
are better than the
hog or cow? Please explain your reasoning.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 5:51 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
Yes, humans are animals. Thanks for affirming.If humans are just animals, then where does human worth or humanity
come from? If we are just animals, no different, no better than the
chimp; the dog; the pig or any other animal, then it's
only because we are arrogant, self-centered with sufficient power to
assign value to ourselves which
we deny other animals.
Why is it that people think something's character changes if they put
the word "just" in front of it? I wonder if Ron will give up religion
when I point out that what he worships is just a god.
I noticed that you had no comment on what I actually wrote. No opinion? >"Just" means of no
more value or importance than "other" animals. If this is true, then
it's just as wrong to
kill a hog or cow for food, as another human. Or is it that we, somehow,
are better than the
hog or cow? Please explain your reasoning.
To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During
this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution
as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist
accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I
to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a
Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that
where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
On 23/09/2023 20:19, Ron Dean wrote:
To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. DuringThe theory of evolution predicts X. When we developed suitable
this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution
as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I
to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
technology we observed X. Denton erroneously claims that the theory of evolution predicts Y, and is therefore a "theory in crisis". Surely you
can see that is not a convincing argument.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:47:38 -0400, Ron Deanabilities."
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:ROTFLMAO!
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it. >>>>>>>>>>>
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical >>>>>>>>> piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing
from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves during
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity varying
In other words, you don't know shit about bat evolution.What do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you >>>>>>> can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
Jillery 1, Glenn 0
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_ >intermediate sequence of fossils?
Your questions above are non sequitur. You seem to have misunderstood
the exchange above. Here's a clue for you; it has almost nothing to
do with bat evolution. Contrary to Glenn's claim, that most humans
generally don't echolocate is not a failure of evolution, but instead
is because evolution has provided them with other senses that work
better in their environment.
--
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 5:00:47 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
On 23/09/2023 20:19, Ron Dean wrote:That's easy to counter. Evolution predicts Y, but when we developed suitable tyechnology we didn't observe Y, and is therefore a theory in crisis. Surely you can see that is not a convincing argument for you.
To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. DuringThe theory of evolution predicts X. When we developed suitable
this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution
as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist
accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I
to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a
Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that
where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
technology we observed X. Denton erroneously claims that the theory of
evolution predicts Y, and is therefore a "theory in crisis". Surely you
can see that is not a convincing argument.
Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 5:00:47 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:
On 23/09/2023 20:19, Ron Dean wrote:That's easy to counter. Evolution predicts Y, but when we developed suitable tyechnology we didn't observe Y, and is therefore a theory in crisis. Surely you can see that is not a convincing argument for you.
To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During >>> this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution >>> as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientistThe theory of evolution predicts X. When we developed suitable
accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I >>> to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a >>> Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that >>> where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
technology we observed X. Denton erroneously claims that the theory of
evolution predicts Y, and is therefore a "theory in crisis". Surely you >> can see that is not a convincing argument.
Yes, evolution changes. look at Neanderthal Man for example. I remember
when he was a bent over ape-like man. Now put him in a suit, he could
pass as a modern human. Another is Piltdown Man,
Piltdown, discovered in 1912 accepted as human ancestor for 40 years.
It's curious, that no PhD thesis are found, that were based on the
Piltdown Man.
On 23/09/2023 20:19, Ron Dean wrote:
To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During
this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution
as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist
accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I
to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a
Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that
where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
The theory of evolution predicts X. When we developed suitable
technology we observed X. Denton erroneously claims that the theory of evolution predicts Y, and is therefore a "theory in crisis". Surely you
can see that is not a convincing argument.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 23/09/2023 20:19, Ron Dean wrote:How the hell would you know, you have to read the goddamn book!
To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During
this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw
evolution as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because
scientist accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact.
So, who was I to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend
during an exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a
Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that
where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
The theory of evolution predicts X. When we developed suitable
technology we observed X. Denton erroneously claims that the theory of
evolution predicts Y, and is therefore a "theory in crisis". Surely
you can see that is not a convincing argument.
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:15:47 PM UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 5:00:47 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote: >>>> On 23/09/2023 20:19, Ron Dean wrote:Yes, evolution changes. look at Neanderthal Man for example. I remember
That's easy to counter. Evolution predicts Y, but when we developed suitable tyechnology we didn't observe Y, and is therefore a theory in crisis. Surely you can see that is not a convincing argument for you.To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During >>>>> this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution >>>>> as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientistThe theory of evolution predicts X. When we developed suitable
accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I >>>>> to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a >>>>> Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that >>>>> where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
technology we observed X. Denton erroneously claims that the theory of >>>> evolution predicts Y, and is therefore a "theory in crisis". Surely you >>>> can see that is not a convincing argument.
when he was a bent over ape-like man. Now put him in a suit, he could
pass as a modern human. Another is Piltdown Man,
Piltdown, discovered in 1912 accepted as human ancestor for 40 years.
It's curious, that no PhD thesis are found, that were based on the
Piltdown Man.
what steps did you take to find any?
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:47:38 -0400, Ron Deanabilities."
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:ROTFLMAO!
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it. >>>>>>>>>>>>
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical >>>>>>>>>> piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing
from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves during
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity varying
What do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you >>>>>>>> can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
Jillery 1, Glenn 0
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_
intermediate sequence of fossils?
Your questions above are non sequitur. You seem to have misunderstood
the exchange above. Here's a clue for you; it has almost nothing to
do with bat evolution. Contrary to Glenn's claim, that most humans
generally don't echolocate is not a failure of evolution, but instead
is because evolution has provided them with other senses that work
better in their environment.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Bob Casanova wrote:OK, I'm now convinced that you have no interest in answering
On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 12:29:17 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:While that is all correct, it's irrelevant to the question.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:31:57 -0400, the following appearedIt's called a disease, sickle cell is a painful deadly disease: in 2020
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:Just for one example, you noted sickle-cell disease. Did you
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. >>>>>>> When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, >>>>>>> skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >>>>>>> otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be >>>>>>> at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left >>>>>> foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no >>>>>> muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw. >>>>>> Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another >>>>>> place make those first small changes all the more important, and small >>>>>> changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two >>>>>> changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad
infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me, >>>>> same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So, >>>>> I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as >>>>> the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases, >>>>> multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000 >>>>> genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job! >>>>>
read enough about it to know that it's actually beneficial
to the majority in an environment where malaria is endemic?
https://sickle-cell.com/clinical/malaria
It's only when inherited from *both* parents that it's a
problem.
And serious cancers strike most victims *after* breeding
age, and are therefore shielded from selection to a large
degree.
- 600.000 people died from the disease. It's not uncommon that in Africa >>> marriage between people, with the disease. The disease is passed down to >>> offspring. The same year, it's estimated that 240 million people came
down with the
disease. Sickle Cell disease is primarily an African disease, but some
10% of Black-Americans have the sickle cell disease. As I understand it, >>> people with 2 parents with the disease, the offspring do not have the
protection. But are at a higher risk of severe SCD.
See my post from 09/23 at (on my computer) 09:48. Then
address *that* post, in which I addressed you comments and
added further references.
This still applies.
https://www.healthline.com/health/can-someone-with-
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/age
Maybe if you tried to learn more from reliable sources, and
stopped uncritically reading with an inherent
"anti-evolution" bias, you'd be better off.
I have not always been a defender of ID. In fact I was like you and many >other unquestioning evolutionist. Since all scientist accepted
evolution as fact, who was I to question evolution, and I didn't
question it, I just accepted on trust of scientist.
On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 12:29:17 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:While that is all correct, it's irrelevant to the question.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:31:57 -0400, the following appearedIt's called a disease, sickle cell is a painful deadly disease: in 2020
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:Just for one example, you noted sickle-cell disease. Did you
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. >>>>>> When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, >>>>>> skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >>>>>> otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be >>>>>> at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left >>>>> foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no
muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw. >>>>> Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another >>>>> place make those first small changes all the more important, and small >>>>> changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two >>>>> changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad
infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me, >>>> same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So, >>>> I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as >>>> the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases, >>>> multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000 >>>> genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job! >>>>
read enough about it to know that it's actually beneficial
to the majority in an environment where malaria is endemic?
https://sickle-cell.com/clinical/malaria
It's only when inherited from *both* parents that it's a
problem.
And serious cancers strike most victims *after* breeding
age, and are therefore shielded from selection to a large
degree.
- 600.000 people died from the disease. It's not uncommon that in Africa
marriage between people, with the disease. The disease is passed down to
offspring. The same year, it's estimated that 240 million people came
down with the
disease. Sickle Cell disease is primarily an African disease, but some
10% of Black-Americans have the sickle cell disease. As I understand it,
people with 2 parents with the disease, the offspring do not have the
protection. But are at a higher risk of severe SCD.
See my post from 09/23 at (on my computer) 09:48. Then
address *that* post, in which I addressed you comments and
added further references.
This still applies.
https://www.healthline.com/health/can-someone-with-
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/age
Maybe if you tried to learn more from reliable sources, and
stopped uncritically reading with an inherent
"anti-evolution" bias, you'd be better off.
On 24/09/2023 19:33, Burkhard wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:15:47 PM UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 5:00:47 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote: >>>> On 23/09/2023 20:19, Ron Dean wrote:Yes, evolution changes. look at Neanderthal Man for example. I remember >> when he was a bent over ape-like man. Now put him in a suit, he could
That's easy to counter. Evolution predicts Y, but when we developed suitable tyechnology we didn't observe Y, and is therefore a theory in crisis. Surely you can see that is not a convincing argument for you.To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During >>>>> this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution >>>>> as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist >>>>> accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I >>>>> to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during anThe theory of evolution predicts X. When we developed suitable
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a >>>>> Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that >>>>> where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is >>>>> allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
technology we observed X. Denton erroneously claims that the theory of >>>> evolution predicts Y, and is therefore a "theory in crisis". Surely you >>>> can see that is not a convincing argument.
pass as a modern human. Another is Piltdown Man,
Piltdown, discovered in 1912 accepted as human ancestor for 40 years.
It's curious, that no PhD thesis are found, that were based on the
Piltdown Man.
what steps did you take to find any?
My recollection was that the creationist talking point was to claim a
large number of dissertations on Piltdown.
https://richardhartersworld.com/piltdown-2/#doctoral_theses
But he might actually be right. The above link reports that a search for such dissertations came up negative. (Two post-exposure dissertations,
but they may well be on sociology/history of science rather than palaeontology.) I didn't find anything from a short session with Google.
--
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me,
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again.
When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body
part, skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >>>>> otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified
evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must
be at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left
foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no
muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a
claw. Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in
another place make those first small changes all the more important,
and small changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that
the first two changes created and allow them to change even more.
Repeat ad infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So,
I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside
direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as
the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases,
multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over
6,000
genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
In humans, off the top of my head, adult lactose tolerance, high
altitude adaptation, and sickle-cell anemia come to mind. Possibly
also resistance to alcohol addiction. The list is far greater for
non-humans (although the myriad cases of drug and pesticide resistance
are beneficial only to the organisms with the mutations, not to the
humans applying the poisons.)
For the few possible beneficial mutations there are hundreds of defective genes.
Exactly! "Intelligent designers". And there are numerous things inWhere is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job!
Again, I call your attention to the fact that engineers -- REAL LIFE
INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS! -- use the equivalent of natural selection
(coupled with random mutation) to design things that are too complex
for them to deal with by other means.
nature that's more complex
than anything we (engineers) have ever designed. The cell for example,
is for more complex than anything ever designed by human engineers. And homeobox genes are incrediable examples
of intelligent conception and origin. These master control genes are
ancient, unchanged and throughout the animal kingdom, controling the
body forms, organ and limb placement in all
animals. The fact that most of the hox genes are across all animals vertibrates and invertabrites
this supposidly ultimate and final proof that evolution of all animals
is from a common ancestor. But this could just as well be pointing to an intellingent designer. To the unbiased this commonality is a clear
example of an engineering precept, regardless of whether it's the result
of natural processeses or intelligent design.
As far as I'm concerned a designer/God must be absolutely and positively ruled out before natural
processes is in evidene as the cause. So far, this has _not_ been accomplished. One can believe or
not, but one can not know!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/homeobox-gene
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 5:51 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 10 Sep 2023 22:35:04 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com> >>>> wrote:If humans are just animals, then where does human worth or humanity
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 7:35:31?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:[...]
Yes, humans are animals. Thanks for affirming.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
come from? If we are just animals, no different, no better than the
chimp; the dog; the pig or any other animal, then it's
only because we are arrogant, self-centered with sufficient power to
assign value to ourselves which
we deny other animals.
Why is it that people think something's character changes if they put
the word "just" in front of it? I wonder if Ron will give up religion
when I point out that what he worships is just a god.
I noticed that you had no comment on what I actually wrote. No opinion? "Just" means of no
more value or importance than "other" animals. If this is true, then
it's just as wrong to
kill a hog or cow for food, as another human. Or is it that we, somehow,
are better than the
hog or cow? Please explain your reasoning.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]What do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_
intermediate sequence of fossils?
Yes. Not for bats, but for others, including equines, clams, whales,
titanotheres, and hominids.
The real question is, what are you going to do about it?
To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During
this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution
as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist
accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I
to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a
Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that
where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
1) Examine those fossils, and if they appear genuine, change your
worldview.
I have, it's my contention that after Darwin, people who accepted
Darwin's view then set as a goal to find evidence which could be used
to demonstrate the reality of evolution. By this method one can
"prove" anything.
2) Ignore them for so long that you can again pretend they don't exist.
Point, is intermediate fossils are few and far in between.
3) Something else: __________________Yes! Have you read anything from a ID est legitimate material by and ID
est, rather than a critique of ID?
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 12:29:17 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:While that is all correct, it's irrelevant to the question.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:31:57 -0400, the following appearedIt's called a disease, sickle cell is a painful deadly disease: in 2020
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:Just for one example, you noted sickle-cell disease. Did you
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. >>>>>>> When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, >>>>>>> skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >>>>>>> otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be >>>>>>> at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left >>>>>> foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no >>>>>> muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw. >>>>>> Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another >>>>>> place make those first small changes all the more important, and small >>>>>> changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two >>>>>> changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad
infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me, >>>>> same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So, >>>>> I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as >>>>> the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases, >>>>> multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000 >>>>> genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job! >>>>>
read enough about it to know that it's actually beneficial
to the majority in an environment where malaria is endemic?
https://sickle-cell.com/clinical/malaria
It's only when inherited from *both* parents that it's a
problem.
And serious cancers strike most victims *after* breeding
age, and are therefore shielded from selection to a large
degree.
- 600.000 people died from the disease. It's not uncommon that in Africa >>> marriage between people, with the disease. The disease is passed down to >>> offspring. The same year, it's estimated that 240 million people came
down with the
disease. Sickle Cell disease is primarily an African disease, but some
10% of Black-Americans have the sickle cell disease. As I understand it, >>> people with 2 parents with the disease, the offspring do not have the
protection. But are at a higher risk of severe SCD.
See my post from 09/23 at (on my computer) 09:48. Then
address *that* post, in which I addressed you comments and
added further references.
This still applies.
https://www.healthline.com/health/can-someone-with-
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/age
Maybe if you tried to learn more from reliable sources, and
stopped uncritically reading with an inherent
"anti-evolution" bias, you'd be better off.
I have not always been a defender of ID. In fact I was like you and many >other unquestioning evolutionist. Since all scientist accepted
evolution as fact, who was I to question evolution, and I didn't
question it, I just accepted on trust of scientist.
jillery wrote:abilities."
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:47:38 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:ROTFLMAO!
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical >>>>>>>>>>> piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing
from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves during
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity varying
What do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you >>>>>>>>> can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
Jillery 1, Glenn 0
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_
intermediate sequence of fossils?
Your questions above are non sequitur. You seem to have misunderstood
the exchange above. Here's a clue for you; it has almost nothing to
do with bat evolution. Contrary to Glenn's claim, that most humans
generally don't echolocate is not a failure of evolution, but instead
is because evolution has provided them with other senses that work
better in their environment.
It's curious! A few days ago I saw on TV about a blind man who makes >clicking sounds as he moves about. And the returning echo striking his
ears, in his mind he is able to get an image of his surroundings. Isn't
this a form of echolocation? I found it again on You Tube. >https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Izc7Rjb7ywA/maxresdefault.jpg
Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 5:00:47?AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:Yes, evolution changes. look at Neanderthal Man for example. I remember
On 23/09/2023 20:19, Ron Dean wrote:That's easy to counter. Evolution predicts Y, but when we developed suitable tyechnology we didn't observe Y, and is therefore a theory in crisis. Surely you can see that is not a convincing argument for you.
To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. DuringThe theory of evolution predicts X. When we developed suitable
this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution >>>> as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist
accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I >>>> to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a
Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that
where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
technology we observed X. Denton erroneously claims that the theory of
evolution predicts Y, and is therefore a "theory in crisis". Surely you
can see that is not a convincing argument.
when he was a bent over ape-like man. Now put him in a suit, he could
pass as a modern human. Another is Piltdown Man,
Piltdown, discovered in 1912 accepted as human ancestor for 40 years.
It's curious, that no PhD thesis are found, that were based on the
Piltdown Man.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 7:15:46?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:abilities."
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:47:38 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>ROTFLMAO!
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it.
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical >> >>>>>>>>> piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing
varying from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity
What do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you >> >>>>>>> can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
Jillery 1, Glenn 0
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_
intermediate sequence of fossils?
Your questions above are non sequitur. You seem to have misunderstood
the exchange above. Here's a clue for you; it has almost nothing to
do with bat evolution. Contrary to Glenn's claim, that most humans
generally don't echolocate is not a failure of evolution, but instead
is because evolution has provided them with other senses that work
better in their environment.
In other words, you don't know shit about bat evolution.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]What do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_
intermediate sequence of fossils?
Yes. Not for bats, but for others, including equines, clams, whales,
titanotheres, and hominids.
The real question is, what are you going to do about it?
To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During
this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution
as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist
accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I
to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a
Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that
where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
1) Examine those fossils, and if they appear genuine, change your
worldview.
I have, it's my contention that after Darwin, people who accepted
Darwin's view then set as a goal to find evidence which could be used
to demonstrate the reality of evolution. By this method one can
"prove" anything.
2) Ignore them for so long that you can again pretend they don't exist.
Point, is intermediate fossils are few and far in between. In searching
for evidence to support
evolution, what they find can be described as "best in the field". that
is what seems to best fit into a predetermined concept.
When 98% of all species that ever lived, went extinct, without leaving
any decedents, there is no way to know whether or not any proclaimed
fossil intermediate was an actual ancestor. I suspect what we have is
wistful expectations.
3) Something else: __________________Yes! Have you read anything from a ID est legitimate material by and ID
est, rather than a critique of ID?
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:00:47 PM UTC+2, Ernest Major wrote:
On 24/09/2023 19:33, Burkhard wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:15:47 PM UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:My recollection was that the creationist talking point was to claim a
Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 5:00:47 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote: >>>>>> On 23/09/2023 20:19, Ron Dean wrote:Yes, evolution changes. look at Neanderthal Man for example. I remember >>>> when he was a bent over ape-like man. Now put him in a suit, he could
That's easy to counter. Evolution predicts Y, but when we developed suitable tyechnology we didn't observe Y, and is therefore a theory in crisis. Surely you can see that is not a convincing argument for you.To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During >>>>>>> this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution >>>>>>> as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist >>>>>>> accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I >>>>>>> to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an >>>>>>> exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by aThe theory of evolution predicts X. When we developed suitable
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a >>>>>>> Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that >>>>>>> where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is >>>>>>> allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
technology we observed X. Denton erroneously claims that the theory of >>>>>> evolution predicts Y, and is therefore a "theory in crisis". Surely you >>>>>> can see that is not a convincing argument.
pass as a modern human. Another is Piltdown Man,
Piltdown, discovered in 1912 accepted as human ancestor for 40 years.
It's curious, that no PhD thesis are found, that were based on the
Piltdown Man.
what steps did you take to find any?
large number of dissertations on Piltdown.
https://richardhartersworld.com/piltdown-2/#doctoral_theses
But he might actually be right. The above link reports that a search for
such dissertations came up negative. (Two post-exposure dissertations,
but they may well be on sociology/history of science rather than
palaeontology.) I didn't find anything from a short session with Google.
--
There are a number of PhDs on Piltdown, but mostly "post scandal", so indeed history of science. While I would not be surprised if there are no contemporary
PhDs, for numerous reasons (much fewer PhDs during at that point in time to
start with) I don't think it is possible to verify this claim, not without extensive
international archival research at least. Databases such as ProQuest are patchy
for this time even for English language works, and even more so for foreign language,
As I said, difficult to prove one way or the other, but Ron has the tendency to
reason from "I do not know X" to "nobody knows X", so it would be his job to explain on what data he based his latest claim.
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 17:14:34 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:OK, I'm now convinced that you have no interest in answering
On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 12:29:17 -0400, the following appearedI have not always been a defender of ID. In fact I was like you and many
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:While that is all correct, it's irrelevant to the question.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:31:57 -0400, the following appearedIt's called a disease, sickle cell is a painful deadly disease: in 2020 >>>> - 600.000 people died from the disease. It's not uncommon that in Africa >>>> marriage between people, with the disease. The disease is passed down to >>>> offspring. The same year, it's estimated that 240 million people came
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:Just for one example, you noted sickle-cell disease. Did you
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. >>>>>>>> When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, >>>>>>>> skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >>>>>>>> otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be >>>>>>>> at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left >>>>>>> foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no >>>>>>> muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw. >>>>>>> Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another >>>>>>> place make those first small changes all the more important, and small >>>>>>> changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two >>>>>>> changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad
infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me, >>>>>> same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So, >>>>>> I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as >>>>>> the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases, >>>>>> multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000
genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job! >>>>>>
read enough about it to know that it's actually beneficial
to the majority in an environment where malaria is endemic?
https://sickle-cell.com/clinical/malaria
It's only when inherited from *both* parents that it's a
problem.
And serious cancers strike most victims *after* breeding
age, and are therefore shielded from selection to a large
degree.
down with the
disease. Sickle Cell disease is primarily an African disease, but some >>>> 10% of Black-Americans have the sickle cell disease. As I understand it, >>>> people with 2 parents with the disease, the offspring do not have the
protection. But are at a higher risk of severe SCD.
See my post from 09/23 at (on my computer) 09:48. Then
address *that* post, in which I addressed you comments and
added further references.
This still applies.
https://www.healthline.com/health/can-someone-with-
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/age
Maybe if you tried to learn more from reliable sources, and
stopped uncritically reading with an inherent
"anti-evolution" bias, you'd be better off.
other unquestioning evolutionist. Since all scientist accepted
evolution as fact, who was I to question evolution, and I didn't
question it, I just accepted on trust of scientist.
anything which refutes your beliefs, since apparently you
ignored the references I provided (still visible above).
Have a nice day.
'Thank you, and You too have a pleasant day!
On 9/23/23 10:21 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:For the few possible beneficial mutations there are hundreds of defective
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me, >>>> same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So, >>>> I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once
again. When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body
part, skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same
time;
otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified
evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must >>>>>> be at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the
left foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing
(with no muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is
still a claw. Small changes can occur in one place, while small
changes in another place make those first small changes all the
more important, and small changes in a third place eliminate a
lesser weakness that the first two changes created and allow them
to change even more. Repeat ad infinitum. You see a problem where
there is none.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside
direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as >>>> the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases, >>>> multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over
6,000
genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
In humans, off the top of my head, adult lactose tolerance, high
altitude adaptation, and sickle-cell anemia come to mind. Possibly
also resistance to alcohol addiction. The list is far greater for
non-humans (although the myriad cases of drug and pesticide
resistance are beneficial only to the organisms with the mutations,
not to the humans applying the poisons.)
;
genes.
So?
Exactly! "Intelligent designers". And there are numerous things inWhere is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its
job!
Again, I call your attention to the fact that engineers -- REAL LIFE
INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS! -- use the equivalent of natural selection
(coupled with random mutation) to design things that are too complex
for them to deal with by other means.
nature that's more complex
than anything we (engineers) have ever designed. The cell for example,
is for more complex than anything ever designed by human engineers.
And homeobox genes are incrediable examples
of intelligent conception and origin. These master control genes are
ancient, unchanged and throughout the animal kingdom, controling the
body forms, organ and limb placement in all
animals. The fact that most of the hox genes are across all animals
vertibrates and invertabrites
this supposidly ultimate and final proof that evolution of all animals
is from a common ancestor. But this could just as well be pointing to
an intellingent designer. To the unbiased this commonality is a clear
example of an engineering precept, regardless of whether it's the
result of natural processeses or intelligent design.
So you believe that evolution was and is God's tool for creation of
living things.
As far as I'm concerned a designer/God must be absolutely and
positively ruled out before natural
processes is in evidene as the cause. So far, this has _not_ been
accomplished. One can believe or
not, but one can not know!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/homeobox-gene
Do you believe medical examiners must always absolutely and positively
rule out God or supernatural causes of death before declaring a natural cause? Why or why not?
On 9/23/23 12:19 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During
[...]What do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_
intermediate sequence of fossils?
Yes. Not for bats, but for others, including equines, clams, whales,
titanotheres, and hominids.
The real question is, what are you going to do about it?
;
this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution
as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist
accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I
to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a
Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that
where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
1) Examine those fossils, and if they appear genuine, change yourI have, it's my contention that after Darwin, people who accepted
worldview.
;
Darwin's view then set as a goal to find evidence which could be used
to demonstrate the reality of evolution. By this method one can
"prove" anything.
Except the support for evolution comes from at least half a dozen very different and independent directions.
2) Ignore them for so long that you can again pretend they don't exist.Point, is intermediate fossils are few and far in between.
;
But there are more than enough to disprove creationism.
3) Something else: __________________Yes! Have you read anything from a ID est legitimate material by and
ID est, rather than a critique of ID?
Yes, of course. Not only read it, but thought about it. Do you agree
with ID theorists you refer to that one of the creator gods is evil?
Burkhard wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:00:47 PM UTC+2, Ernest Major wrote:
On 24/09/2023 19:33, Burkhard wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:15:47 PM UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> Glenn wrote:My recollection was that the creationist talking point was to claim a
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 5:00:47 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:Yes, evolution changes. look at Neanderthal Man for example. I remember >>>> when he was a bent over ape-like man. Now put him in a suit, he could >>>> pass as a modern human. Another is Piltdown Man,
On 23/09/2023 20:19, Ron Dean wrote:That's easy to counter. Evolution predicts Y, but when we developed suitable tyechnology we didn't observe Y, and is therefore a theory in crisis. Surely you can see that is not a convincing argument for you.
To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. DuringThe theory of evolution predicts X. When we developed suitable
this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution
as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist >>>>>>> accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I
to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an >>>>>>> exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a
Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that
where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is >>>>>>> allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
technology we observed X. Denton erroneously claims that the theory of
evolution predicts Y, and is therefore a "theory in crisis". Surely you
can see that is not a convincing argument.
Piltdown, discovered in 1912 accepted as human ancestor for 40 years. >>>> It's curious, that no PhD thesis are found, that were based on the
Piltdown Man.
what steps did you take to find any?
large number of dissertations on Piltdown.
https://richardhartersworld.com/piltdown-2/#doctoral_theses
But he might actually be right. The above link reports that a search for >> such dissertations came up negative. (Two post-exposure dissertations,
but they may well be on sociology/history of science rather than
palaeontology.) I didn't find anything from a short session with Google. >>
--
There are a number of PhDs on Piltdown, but mostly "post scandal", so indeed
history of science. While I would not be surprised if there are no contemporary
PhDs, for numerous reasons (much fewer PhDs during at that point in time to
start with) I don't think it is possible to verify this claim, not without extensive
international archival research at least. Databases such as ProQuest are patchy
for this time even for English language works, and even more so for foreign language,
As I said, difficult to prove one way or the other, but Ron has the tendency to
reason from "I do not know X" to "nobody knows X", so it would be his job to
explain on what data he based his latest claim.
I made no claims regarding Piltdown Man and PhD thesis. But I do find it curious
that there were none regarding Piltdown Man or its "discovery".
suspected
fraud for 40 years, between 1912 and 1953? Why or why not?
I made no claims regarding Piltdown Man and PhD thesis. But I do find it curious
that there were none regarding Piltdown Man or its "discovery". Was it a suspected
fraud for 40 years, between 1912 and 1953? Why or why not?
Bob Casanova wrote:[ snip for focus ]
.OK, I'm now convinced that you have no interest in answering
anything which refutes your beliefs, since apparently you
ignored the references I provided (still visible above).
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one. And all too
many people with these faulty genes pass them on down to decedents. Furthermore, the benefical mutations often come with negative side-effects. For example two parents with the sickle cell disease.
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 17:08:06 -0400, Ron Deanabilities."
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:47:38 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:ROTFLMAO!
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical >>>>>>>>>>>> piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced hearing
varying from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity
It's curious! A few days ago I saw on TV about a blind man who makesWhat do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you >>>>>>>>>> can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
Jillery 1, Glenn 0
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_
intermediate sequence of fossils?
Your questions above are non sequitur. You seem to have misunderstood
the exchange above. Here's a clue for you; it has almost nothing to
do with bat evolution. Contrary to Glenn's claim, that most humans
generally don't echolocate is not a failure of evolution, but instead
is because evolution has provided them with other senses that work
better in their environment.
clicking sounds as he moves about. And the returning echo striking his
ears, in his mind he is able to get an image of his surroundings. Isn't
this a form of echolocation? I found it again on You Tube.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Izc7Rjb7ywA/maxresdefault.jpg
Yes. That's my point. Which disproves Glenn's expressed point. Did
you have a point?
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 13:10:57 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 5:00:47?AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:Yes, evolution changes. look at Neanderthal Man for example. I remember
On 23/09/2023 20:19, Ron Dean wrote:That's easy to counter. Evolution predicts Y, but when we developed suitable tyechnology we didn't observe Y, and is therefore a theory in crisis. Surely you can see that is not a convincing argument for you.
To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During >>>>> this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution >>>>> as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientistThe theory of evolution predicts X. When we developed suitable
accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I >>>>> to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a >>>>> Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that >>>>> where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
technology we observed X. Denton erroneously claims that the theory of >>>> evolution predicts Y, and is therefore a "theory in crisis". Surely you >>>> can see that is not a convincing argument.
when he was a bent over ape-like man. Now put him in a suit, he could
pass as a modern human. Another is Piltdown Man,
Piltdown, discovered in 1912 accepted as human ancestor for 40 years.
It's curious, that no PhD thesis are found, that were based on the
Piltdown Man.
It's odd that you criticize science for changing its consensus as it discovers new evidence,Actually, that's not true. I know that science discovers new evidence
zero objective evidence for them. Why is that?
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one.
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 17:14:34 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 12:29:17 -0400, the following appearedI have not always been a defender of ID. In fact I was like you and many
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:While that is all correct, it's irrelevant to the question.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:31:57 -0400, the following appearedIt's called a disease, sickle cell is a painful deadly disease: in 2020 >>>> - 600.000 people died from the disease. It's not uncommon that in Africa >>>> marriage between people, with the disease. The disease is passed down to >>>> offspring. The same year, it's estimated that 240 million people came
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:Just for one example, you noted sickle-cell disease. Did you
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. >>>>>>>> When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, >>>>>>>> skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >>>>>>>> otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be >>>>>>>> at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left >>>>>>> foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no >>>>>>> muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw. >>>>>>> Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another >>>>>>> place make those first small changes all the more important, and small >>>>>>> changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two >>>>>>> changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad
infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me, >>>>>> same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So, >>>>>> I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as >>>>>> the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases, >>>>>> multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000
genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job! >>>>>>
read enough about it to know that it's actually beneficial
to the majority in an environment where malaria is endemic?
https://sickle-cell.com/clinical/malaria
It's only when inherited from *both* parents that it's a
problem.
And serious cancers strike most victims *after* breeding
age, and are therefore shielded from selection to a large
degree.
down with the
disease. Sickle Cell disease is primarily an African disease, but some >>>> 10% of Black-Americans have the sickle cell disease. As I understand it, >>>> people with 2 parents with the disease, the offspring do not have the
protection. But are at a higher risk of severe SCD.
See my post from 09/23 at (on my computer) 09:48. Then
address *that* post, in which I addressed you comments and
added further references.
This still applies.
https://www.healthline.com/health/can-someone-with-
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/age
Maybe if you tried to learn more from reliable sources, and
stopped uncritically reading with an inherent
"anti-evolution" bias, you'd be better off.
other unquestioning evolutionist. Since all scientist accepted
evolution as fact, who was I to question evolution, and I didn't
question it, I just accepted on trust of scientist.
That was your problem. That which is accepted without evidence can as
easily be refuted without evidence. Your personal anecdote
demonstrates this.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 15:19:23 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During
[...]What do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_
intermediate sequence of fossils?
Yes. Not for bats, but for others, including equines, clams, whales,
titanotheres, and hominids.
The real question is, what are you going to do about it?
this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution
as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist
accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I
to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a
Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that
where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
Why do you value Michael Denton's opinions above the multitude of
scientists who reject his arguments?
1) Examine those fossils, and if they appear genuine, change yourI have, it's my contention that after Darwin, people who accepted
worldview.
Darwin's view then set as a goal to find evidence which could be used
to demonstrate the reality of evolution. By this method one can
"prove" anything.
Point, is intermediate fossils are few and far in between. In searching
2) Ignore them for so long that you can again pretend they don't exist.
for evidence to support
evolution, what they find can be described as "best in the field". that
is what seems to best fit into a predetermined concept.
When 98% of all species that ever lived, went extinct, without leaving
any decedents, there is no way to know whether or not any proclaimed
fossil intermediate was an actual ancestor. I suspect what we have is
wistful expectations.
3) Something else: __________________Yes! Have you read anything from a ID est legitimate material by and ID
est, rather than a critique of ID?
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 9:25:48 PM UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 10:00:47 PM UTC+2, Ernest Major wrote: >>>> On 24/09/2023 19:33, Burkhard wrote:I made no claims regarding Piltdown Man and PhD thesis. But I do find it
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 7:15:47 PM UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> Glenn wrote:My recollection was that the creationist talking point was to claim a
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 5:00:47 AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote:Yes, evolution changes. look at Neanderthal Man for example. I remember >>>>>> when he was a bent over ape-like man. Now put him in a suit, he could >>>>>> pass as a modern human. Another is Piltdown Man,
On 23/09/2023 20:19, Ron Dean wrote:That's easy to counter. Evolution predicts Y, but when we developed suitable tyechnology we didn't observe Y, and is therefore a theory in crisis. Surely you can see that is not a convincing argument for you.
To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During >>>>>>>>> this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolutionThe theory of evolution predicts X. When we developed suitable >>>>>>>> technology we observed X. Denton erroneously claims that the theory of >>>>>>>> evolution predicts Y, and is therefore a "theory in crisis". Surely you
as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist >>>>>>>>> accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I
to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an >>>>>>>>> exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a >>>>>>>>> Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that >>>>>>>>> where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is >>>>>>>>> allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
can see that is not a convincing argument.
Piltdown, discovered in 1912 accepted as human ancestor for 40 years. >>>>>> It's curious, that no PhD thesis are found, that were based on the >>>>>> Piltdown Man.
what steps did you take to find any?
large number of dissertations on Piltdown.
https://richardhartersworld.com/piltdown-2/#doctoral_theses
But he might actually be right. The above link reports that a search for >>>> such dissertations came up negative. (Two post-exposure dissertations, >>>> but they may well be on sociology/history of science rather than
palaeontology.) I didn't find anything from a short session with Google. >>>>
--
There are a number of PhDs on Piltdown, but mostly "post scandal", so indeed
history of science. While I would not be surprised if there are no contemporary
PhDs, for numerous reasons (much fewer PhDs during at that point in time to >>> start with) I don't think it is possible to verify this claim, not without extensive
international archival research at least. Databases such as ProQuest are patchy
for this time even for English language works, and even more so for foreign language,
As I said, difficult to prove one way or the other, but Ron has the tendency to
reason from "I do not know X" to "nobody knows X", so it would be his job to
explain on what data he based his latest claim.
curious
that there were none regarding Piltdown Man or its "discovery".
So in one and the same sentence, you say you made no claim regarding PhDs
and Piltdown - and then make the claim there were no PhDs on Piltdown?
Even by your standards that level of inconsistency is amazing
Was it a
suspected
fraud for 40 years, between 1912 and 1953? Why or why not?
It was suspected by some right from the beginning, others were less skeptical. During the time period in question where two world wars which decimated generations of young researchers, which led to a drop in
PhDs across all subjects, and interruptions of international scientific collaboration, just for starters.
The arguably, the British wanted it to be true, after two traumatic wars that dislodged the Empire as a world power, "having been the cradle of
humanity" was emotionally appealing - which explains why skeptics
came mainly from outside the UK, and as a result had limited access to
the originals, while supporters came from the UK
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/23/23 10:21 AM, Ron Dean wrote:The cause of death is sometimes unknown.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:For the few possible beneficial mutations there are hundreds of
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once
again. When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body
part, skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same >>>>>>> time;
otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified
evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else
must be at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the
left foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing
(with no muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is
still a claw. Small changes can occur in one place, while small
changes in another place make those first small changes all the
more important, and small changes in a third place eliminate a
lesser weakness that the first two changes created and allow them
to change even more. Repeat ad infinitum. You see a problem where >>>>>> there is none.
me,
same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again.
So,
I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside
direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as >>>>> the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone
diseases,
multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over
6,000
genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
In humans, off the top of my head, adult lactose tolerance, high
altitude adaptation, and sickle-cell anemia come to mind. Possibly
also resistance to alcohol addiction. The list is far greater for
non-humans (although the myriad cases of drug and pesticide
resistance are beneficial only to the organisms with the mutations,
not to the humans applying the poisons.)
;
defective
genes.
So?
Exactly! "Intelligent designers". And there are numerous things inWhere is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its
job!
Again, I call your attention to the fact that engineers -- REAL LIFE
INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS! -- use the equivalent of natural selection
(coupled with random mutation) to design things that are too complex
for them to deal with by other means.
nature that's more complex
than anything we (engineers) have ever designed. The cell for
example, is for more complex than anything ever designed by human
engineers. And homeobox genes are incrediable examples
of intelligent conception and origin. These master control genes are
ancient, unchanged and throughout the animal kingdom, controling the
body forms, organ and limb placement in all
animals. The fact that most of the hox genes are across all animals
vertibrates and invertabrites
this supposidly ultimate and final proof that evolution of all
animals is from a common ancestor. But this could just as well be
pointing to an intellingent designer. To the unbiased this
commonality is a clear example of an engineering precept, regardless
of whether it's the result of natural processeses or intelligent design.
So you believe that evolution was and is God's tool for creation of
living things.
As far as I'm concerned a designer/God must be absolutely and
positively ruled out before natural
processes is in evidene as the cause. So far, this has _not_ been
accomplished. One can believe or
not, but one can not know!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/homeobox-gene
Do you believe medical examiners must always absolutely and positively
rule out God or supernatural causes of death before declaring a
natural cause? Why or why not?
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/23/23 12:19 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During
[...]What do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_
intermediate sequence of fossils?
Yes. Not for bats, but for others, including equines, clams,
whales, titanotheres, and hominids.
The real question is, what are you going to do about it?
;
this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw
evolution as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because
scientist accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact.
So, who was I to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend
during an exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a
Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that
where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
1) Examine those fossils, and if they appear genuine, change yourI have, it's my contention that after Darwin, people who accepted
worldview.
;
Darwin's view then set as a goal to find evidence which could be
used to demonstrate the reality of evolution. By this method one can
"prove" anything.
Except the support for evolution comes from at least half a dozen very
different and independent directions.
2) Ignore them for so long that you can again pretend they don't exist. >>> >Point, is intermediate fossils are few and far in between.
But there are more than enough to disprove creationism.
Why your obsession with creationism? It's not the same as ID.
Intelligent design is strictly about the evidence of design, it's3) Something else: __________________Yes! Have you read anything from a ID est legitimate material by and
ID est, rather than a critique of ID?
Yes, of course. Not only read it, but thought about it. Do you agree
with ID theorists you refer to that one of the creator gods is evil?
nothing about gods good or evil.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:35:48 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
.
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the
detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one. And all too
many people with these faulty genes pass them on down to decedents.
Furthermore, the benefical mutations often come with negative side-effects. >> For example two parents with the sickle cell disease.
There's been some repetition about this claim about detrimental mutations being so common. I'm here to let you know that an excellent opportunity exists and it's related to sickle cell disease.
For many decades, it's been practice in some countries to test the blood
of every newborn. The testing is fascination, and has evolved over time
but the result is that we have an extensive database of mutations to the hemoglobin genes. And we have studied the phenotypes of most of them.
This means that we have an example of almost every possible point mutation that can exist within the hemoglobin gene cluster. Most interesting are the ones that exist in Exons --- the part of the genes that encode amino acids
of the protein sequence.>
So if you've followed me, we have at our hands a chance to address your assertion about how very abundant harmful mutations are. What does
your intuition tell you?
It's an awful lot of information and a quick search of the usual places didn't turn up where somebody has already done the counting for me.
If I do the counting, I'll probably have to download and parse the database. I haven't done that in the last 5 years so I'm slightly rusty and may have to download some tools to help me.
But I won't do it unless you make a guess. If others are curious and can do some searches for HbVar and find some on-line resources.
On 25/09/2023 20:20, Ron Dean wrote:
I made no claims regarding Piltdown Man and PhD thesis. But I do find
it curious
that there were none regarding Piltdown Man or its "discovery". Was it
a suspected
fraud for 40 years, between 1912 and 1953? Why or why not?
You did make a claim about Piltdown and Ph.Ds - "It's curious, that no
PhD thesis are found, that were based on the Piltdown Man" - which as Burkhard notes you've just repeated.
It was suspected for most of those 40 years that it was a chimera - a coincidental cooccurence of human and non-human bones. During the later
part of those years it was also an anomaly - inconsistent with the human fossil record in general.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:35:48 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
.
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the >> detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one. And all too
many people with these faulty genes pass them on down to decedents.
Furthermore, the benefical mutations often come with negative side-effects.
For example two parents with the sickle cell disease.
There's been some repetition about this claim about detrimental mutations being so common. I'm here to let you know that an excellent opportunity exists and it's related to sickle cell disease.
For many decades, it's been practice in some countries to test the blood of every newborn. The testing is fascination, and has evolved over time but the result is that we have an extensive database of mutations to the hemoglobin genes. And we have studied the phenotypes of most of them.
This means that we have an example of almost every possible point mutation that can exist within the hemoglobin gene cluster. Most interesting are the
ones that exist in Exons --- the part of the genes that encode amino acids of the protein sequence.>
So if you've followed me, we have at our hands a chance to address your assertion about how very abundant harmful mutations are. What does
your intuition tell you?
It's an awful lot of information and a quick search of the usual places didn't turn up where somebody has already done the counting for me.
If I do the counting, I'll probably have to download and parse the database.
I haven't done that in the last 5 years so I'm slightly rusty and may have to
download some tools to help me.
But I won't do it unless you make a guess. If others are curious and can do
some searches for HbVar and find some on-line resources.
Wikipedia list 6,000 know genetic diseases and disorders.
So, it seems that as long as the human species exist the list will only grow,
and no doubt this will continue throughout the various animal species.
It's interesting a new study, not widely circulated is that the human species
and many other species have been around 100,000 to 200,000 years. https://phys.org/news/2018-05-special-humanity-tiny-dna-differences.html
This study on evolution has receive limited circulation. Wonder why? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325270582_Why_should_mitochondria_define_species
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the >> detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one.
On 9/25/23 12:32 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the
detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one.
Can you back that up? In E.coli, one in ten functional mutations are beneficial[*]. I'm not sure what the ratio is in humans and other
animals, but my impression is that the ratio harmful / neutral /
beneficial mutations is around 15:300:1. I am probably way off, but probably not as far off as you.
[*] L. Perfeito et al., 2007. Adaptive mutations in bacteria: High rate
and small effects. Science 317: 813-815.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 25/09/2023 20:20, Ron Dean wrote:
I made no claims regarding Piltdown Man and PhD thesis. But I do find
it curious
that there were none regarding Piltdown Man or its "discovery". Was
it a suspected
fraud for 40 years, between 1912 and 1953? Why or why not?
You did make a claim about Piltdown and Ph.Ds - "It's curious, that no
PhD thesis are found, that were based on the Piltdown Man" - which as
Burkhard notes you've just repeated.
Okay, in this respect, I did. This was an assumption on my part, in regards to _my_ experience searching or such evidence, and finding none.
But this was a deliberate fraud by someone with the desire to _provide_
It was suspected for most of those 40 years that it was a chimera - a
coincidental cooccurence of human and non-human bones. During the
later part of those years it was also an anomaly - inconsistent with
the human fossil record in general.
"evidence" in support of evolution.
On 9/25/23 12:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/23/23 10:21 AM, Ron Dean wrote:The cause of death is sometimes unknown.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:For the few possible beneficial mutations there are hundreds of
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once
again. When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body >>>>>>>> part, skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same >>>>>>>> time;
otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified >>>>>>>> evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else
must be at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the >>>>>>> left foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing
(with no muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is >>>>>>> still a claw. Small changes can occur in one place, while small
changes in another place make those first small changes all the
more important, and small changes in a third place eliminate a
lesser weakness that the first two changes created and allow them >>>>>>> to change even more. Repeat ad infinitum. You see a problem
where there is none.
to me,
same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working
again. So,
I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside
direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems,
such as
the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone
diseases,
multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are
over 6,000
genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
In humans, off the top of my head, adult lactose tolerance, high
altitude adaptation, and sickle-cell anemia come to mind. Possibly
also resistance to alcohol addiction. The list is far greater for
non-humans (although the myriad cases of drug and pesticide
resistance are beneficial only to the organisms with the mutations,
not to the humans applying the poisons.)
;
defective
genes.
So?
Exactly! "Intelligent designers". And there are numerous things inWhere is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on
its job!
Again, I call your attention to the fact that engineers -- REAL
LIFE INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS! -- use the equivalent of natural
selection (coupled with random mutation) to design things that are
too complex for them to deal with by other means.
nature that's more complex
than anything we (engineers) have ever designed. The cell for
example, is for more complex than anything ever designed by human
engineers. And homeobox genes are incrediable examples
of intelligent conception and origin. These master control genes are
ancient, unchanged and throughout the animal kingdom, controling the
body forms, organ and limb placement in all
animals. The fact that most of the hox genes are across all animals
vertibrates and invertabrites
this supposidly ultimate and final proof that evolution of all
animals is from a common ancestor. But this could just as well be
pointing to an intellingent designer. To the unbiased this
commonality is a clear example of an engineering precept, regardless
of whether it's the result of natural processeses or intelligent
design.
So you believe that evolution was and is God's tool for creation of
living things.
As far as I'm concerned a designer/God must be absolutely and
positively ruled out before natural
processes is in evidene as the cause. So far, this has _not_ been
accomplished. One can believe or
not, but one can not know!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/homeobox-gene
Do you believe medical examiners must always absolutely and
positively rule out God or supernatural causes of death before
declaring a natural cause? Why or why not?
First, you didn't answer either question. I assume that means you
flinch in terror from the issue raised.
And what about the other 95% of cases? Should medical examiners list "supernatural act of God" as a possible cause? Why or why not?
On 9/25/23 7:24 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 25/09/2023 20:20, Ron Dean wrote:Okay, in this respect, I did. This was an assumption on my part, in
I made no claims regarding Piltdown Man and PhD thesis. But I do
find it curious
that there were none regarding Piltdown Man or its "discovery". Was
it a suspected
fraud for 40 years, between 1912 and 1953? Why or why not?
You did make a claim about Piltdown and Ph.Ds - "It's curious, that
no PhD thesis are found, that were based on the Piltdown Man" - which
as Burkhard notes you've just repeated.
;
regards
to _my_ experience searching or such evidence, and finding none.
But this was a deliberate fraud by someone with the desire to _provide_
It was suspected for most of those 40 years that it was a chimera - a
coincidental cooccurence of human and non-human bones. During the
later part of those years it was also an anomaly - inconsistent with
the human fossil record in general.
"evidence" in support of evolution.
You are again making assertions based only on your personal biases.
There is no evidence that the fraudster had any desire to provide
evidence to support evolution.
unlikely motive. First, there was no need to support evolution; it was
well supported and widely believed already. Second, the *worst* way to support something is with a fraud that could later be uncovered.
The forger's motive was likely, in the main, publicity and notoriety, if
not for himself personally, at least for his neighborhood, and which he
could enjoy privately.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 10:15:48 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:There is this list from wikipedia.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:35:48 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Wikipedia list 6,000 know genetic diseases and disorders.
Bob Casanova wrote:
.
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the >>>> detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one. And all too
many people with these faulty genes pass them on down to decedents.
Furthermore, the benefical mutations often come with negative side-effects.
For example two parents with the sickle cell disease.
There's been some repetition about this claim about detrimental mutations >>> being so common. I'm here to let you know that an excellent opportunity
exists and it's related to sickle cell disease.
For many decades, it's been practice in some countries to test the blood >>> of every newborn. The testing is fascination, and has evolved over time
but the result is that we have an extensive database of mutations to the >>> hemoglobin genes. And we have studied the phenotypes of most of them.
This means that we have an example of almost every possible point mutation >>> that can exist within the hemoglobin gene cluster. Most interesting are the >>> ones that exist in Exons --- the part of the genes that encode amino acids >>> of the protein sequence.>
So if you've followed me, we have at our hands a chance to address your
assertion about how very abundant harmful mutations are. What does
your intuition tell you?
It's an awful lot of information and a quick search of the usual places
didn't turn up where somebody has already done the counting for me.
If I do the counting, I'll probably have to download and parse the database.
I haven't done that in the last 5 years so I'm slightly rusty and may have to
download some tools to help me.
But I won't do it unless you make a guess. If others are curious and can do >>> some searches for HbVar and find some on-line resources.
So, it seems that as long as the human species exist the list will only
grow,
and no doubt this will continue throughout the various animal species.
It's interesting a new study, not widely circulated is that the human
species
and many other species have been around 100,000 to 200,000 years.
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-special-humanity-tiny-dna-differences.html
This study on evolution has receive limited circulation. Wonder why?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325270582_Why_should_mitochondria_define_species
You didn't answer my question. What fraction of mutations to hemoglobin
do you think are deleterious? We have data I can check. You keep asserting
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the >>>> detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one.
Want to see real data? Where is your number from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 10:15:48 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:35:48 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Wikipedia list 6,000 know genetic diseases and disorders.
Bob Casanova wrote:
.
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the >>>> detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one. And all too
many people with these faulty genes pass them on down to decedents.
Furthermore, the benefical mutations often come with negative side-effects.
For example two parents with the sickle cell disease.
There's been some repetition about this claim about detrimental mutations >>> being so common. I'm here to let you know that an excellent opportunity
exists and it's related to sickle cell disease.
For many decades, it's been practice in some countries to test the blood >>> of every newborn. The testing is fascination, and has evolved over time
but the result is that we have an extensive database of mutations to the >>> hemoglobin genes. And we have studied the phenotypes of most of them.
This means that we have an example of almost every possible point mutation >>> that can exist within the hemoglobin gene cluster. Most interesting are the >>> ones that exist in Exons --- the part of the genes that encode amino acids >>> of the protein sequence.>
So if you've followed me, we have at our hands a chance to address your
assertion about how very abundant harmful mutations are. What does
your intuition tell you?
It's an awful lot of information and a quick search of the usual places
didn't turn up where somebody has already done the counting for me.
If I do the counting, I'll probably have to download and parse the database.
I haven't done that in the last 5 years so I'm slightly rusty and may have to
download some tools to help me.
But I won't do it unless you make a guess. If others are curious and can do >>> some searches for HbVar and find some on-line resources.
So, it seems that as long as the human species exist the list will only
grow,
and no doubt this will continue throughout the various animal species.
It's interesting a new study, not widely circulated is that the human
species
and many other species have been around 100,000 to 200,000 years.
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-special-humanity-tiny-dna-differences.html
This study on evolution has receive limited circulation. Wonder why?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325270582_Why_should_mitochondria_define_species
You didn't answer my question. What fraction of mutations to hemoglobin
do you think are deleterious? We have data I can check. You keep asserting
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the >>>> detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one.
Want to see real data? Where is your number from?
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 17:14:34 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:OK, I'm now convinced that you have no interest in answering
On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 12:29:17 -0400, the following appearedI have not always been a defender of ID. In fact I was like you and many >>> other unquestioning evolutionist. Since all scientist accepted
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:While that is all correct, it's irrelevant to the question.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:31:57 -0400, the following appearedIt's called a disease, sickle cell is a painful deadly disease: in 2020 >>>>> - 600.000 people died from the disease. It's not uncommon that in Africa >>>>> marriage between people, with the disease. The disease is passed down to >>>>> offspring. The same year, it's estimated that 240 million people came >>>>> down with the
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:Just for one example, you noted sickle-cell disease. Did you
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So, >>>>>>> I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. >>>>>>>>> When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, >>>>>>>>> skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time;
otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be >>>>>>>>> at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left >>>>>>>> foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no >>>>>>>> muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw. >>>>>>>> Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another >>>>>>>> place make those first small changes all the more important, and small >>>>>>>> changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two
changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad >>>>>>>> infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as >>>>>>> the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases, >>>>>>> multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000
genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans. >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job!
read enough about it to know that it's actually beneficial
to the majority in an environment where malaria is endemic?
https://sickle-cell.com/clinical/malaria
It's only when inherited from *both* parents that it's a
problem.
And serious cancers strike most victims *after* breeding
age, and are therefore shielded from selection to a large
degree.
disease. Sickle Cell disease is primarily an African disease, but some >>>>> 10% of Black-Americans have the sickle cell disease. As I understand it, >>>>> people with 2 parents with the disease, the offspring do not have the >>>>> protection. But are at a higher risk of severe SCD.
See my post from 09/23 at (on my computer) 09:48. Then
address *that* post, in which I addressed you comments and
added further references.
This still applies.
https://www.healthline.com/health/can-someone-with-
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/age
Maybe if you tried to learn more from reliable sources, and
stopped uncritically reading with an inherent
"anti-evolution" bias, you'd be better off.
evolution as fact, who was I to question evolution, and I didn't
question it, I just accepted on trust of scientist.
anything which refutes your beliefs, since apparently you
ignored the references I provided (still visible above).
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the >detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one.
And all too
many people with these faulty genes pass them on down to decedents. >Furthermore, the benefical mutations often come with negative side-effects. >For example two parents with the sickle cell disease.
--
Have a nice day.
'Thank you, and You too have a pleasant day!
Wikipedia list 6,000 know genetic diseases and disorders.
So, it seems that as long as the human species exist the list will only
grow,
and no doubt this will continue throughout the various animal species.
It's interesting a new study, not widely circulated is that the human
species
and many other species have been around 100,000 to 200,000 years. https://phys.org/news/2018-05-special-humanity-tiny-dna-differences.html
This study on evolution has receive limited circulation. Wonder why? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325270582_Why_should_mitochondria_define_species
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:35:48?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
.Wikipedia list 6,000 know genetic diseases and disorders.
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the
detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one. And all too
many people with these faulty genes pass them on down to decedents.
Furthermore, the benefical mutations often come with negative side-effects. >>> For example two parents with the sickle cell disease.
There's been some repetition about this claim about detrimental mutations
being so common. I'm here to let you know that an excellent opportunity
exists and it's related to sickle cell disease.
For many decades, it's been practice in some countries to test the blood
of every newborn. The testing is fascination, and has evolved over time
but the result is that we have an extensive database of mutations to the
hemoglobin genes. And we have studied the phenotypes of most of them.
This means that we have an example of almost every possible point mutation >> that can exist within the hemoglobin gene cluster. Most interesting are the >> ones that exist in Exons --- the part of the genes that encode amino acids >> of the protein sequence.>
So if you've followed me, we have at our hands a chance to address your
assertion about how very abundant harmful mutations are. What does
your intuition tell you?
It's an awful lot of information and a quick search of the usual places
didn't turn up where somebody has already done the counting for me.
If I do the counting, I'll probably have to download and parse the database. >> I haven't done that in the last 5 years so I'm slightly rusty and may have to
download some tools to help me.
But I won't do it unless you make a guess. If others are curious and can do >> some searches for HbVar and find some on-line resources.
So, it seems that as long as the human species exist the list will only
grow,
and no doubt this will continue throughout the various animal species.
It's interesting a new study, not widely circulated is that the human
species
and many other species have been around 100,000 to 200,000 years. >https://phys.org/news/2018-05-special-humanity-tiny-dna-differences.html
This study on evolution has receive limited circulation. Wonder why? >https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325270582_Why_should_mitochondria_define_species
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 15:19:23 -0400, Ron DeanI question that anyone who read this book, can reject it on the basis of
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During
[...]What do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_
intermediate sequence of fossils?
Yes. Not for bats, but for others, including equines, clams, whales,
titanotheres, and hominids.
The real question is, what are you going to do about it?
this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution
as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist
accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I
to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a
Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that
where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
Why do you value Michael Denton's opinions above the multitude of
scientists who reject his arguments?
what was scientific opinion, at the time of it publication.
But things
change. That
which _was_ accepted by scientist changes as new discoveries are made.
Obviously no!
1) Examine those fossils, and if they appear genuine, change yourI have, it's my contention that after Darwin, people who accepted
worldview.
Darwin's view then set as a goal to find evidence which could be used
to demonstrate the reality of evolution. By this method one can
"prove" anything.
Point, is intermediate fossils are few and far in between. In searching
2) Ignore them for so long that you can again pretend they don't exist. >>>>
for evidence to support
evolution, what they find can be described as "best in the field". that
is what seems to best fit into a predetermined concept.
When 98% of all species that ever lived, went extinct, without leaving
any decedents, there is no way to know whether or not any proclaimed
fossil intermediate was an actual ancestor. I suspect what we have is
wistful expectations.
3) Something else: __________________Yes! Have you read anything from a ID est legitimate material by and ID
est, rather than a critique of ID?
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 15:19:23 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During
[...]What do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_ >>>> intermediate sequence of fossils?
Yes. Not for bats, but for others, including equines, clams, whales, >>> titanotheres, and hominids.
The real question is, what are you going to do about it?
this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution
as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist
accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I
to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a
Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that
where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
Why do you value Michael Denton's opinions above the multitude of scientists who reject his arguments?
I question that anyone who read this book, can reject it on the basis of what
was scientific opinion, at the time of it publication. But things
change. That
which _was_ accepted by scientist changes as new discoveries are made.
1) Examine those fossils, and if they appear genuine, change yourI have, it's my contention that after Darwin, people who accepted
worldview.
Darwin's view then set as a goal to find evidence which could be used
to demonstrate the reality of evolution. By this method one can
"prove" anything.
Point, is intermediate fossils are few and far in between. In searching >> for evidence to support
2) Ignore them for so long that you can again pretend they don't exist. >>>
evolution, what they find can be described as "best in the field". that >> is what seems to best fit into a predetermined concept.
When 98% of all species that ever lived, went extinct, without leaving
any decedents, there is no way to know whether or not any proclaimed
fossil intermediate was an actual ancestor. I suspect what we have is
wistful expectations.
3) Something else: __________________Yes! Have you read anything from a ID est legitimate material by and ID >> est, rather than a critique of ID?
Obviously no!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 12:32 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the >> detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one.
Can you back that up? In E.coli, one in ten functional mutations are beneficial[*]. I'm not sure what the ratio is in humans and other animals, but my impression is that the ratio harmful / neutral / beneficial mutations is around 15:300:1. I am probably way off, but probably not as far off as you.Wikipedia list 6,000 genetic diseases and disorders. I searched for
a list of beneficial mutations, and found no such list. I know you and
a few others can list a handful of beneficial mutations, but they are
vastly outnumbered by determental mutations and the genetic diseases
and disorders they cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
[*] L. Perfeito et al., 2007. Adaptive mutations in bacteria: High rate and small effects. Science 317: 813-815.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 10:45:48 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 12:32 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the >> detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one.
Why do you keep ignoring the simple explanation for this that I've given you twice already?Can you back that up? In E.coli, one in ten functional mutations are beneficial[*]. I'm not sure what the ratio is in humans and other animals, but my impression is that the ratio harmful / neutral / beneficial mutations is around 15:300:1. I am probably way off, but probably not as far off as you.Wikipedia list 6,000 genetic diseases and disorders. I searched for
a list of beneficial mutations, and found no such list. I know you and
a few others can list a handful of beneficial mutations, but they are vastly outnumbered by determental mutations and the genetic diseases
and disorders they cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
[*] L. Perfeito et al., 2007. Adaptive mutations in bacteria: High rate and small effects. Science 317: 813-815.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 12:32 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the >> detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one.
Can you back that up? In E.coli, one in ten functional mutations are beneficial[*]. I'm not sure what the ratio is in humans and other animals, but my impression is that the ratio harmful / neutral / beneficial mutations is around 15:300:1. I am probably way off, but probably not as far off as you.Wikipedia list 6,000 genetic diseases and disorders. I searched for
a list of beneficial mutations, and found no such list.
a few others can list a handful of beneficial mutations, but they are
vastly outnumbered by determental mutations and the genetic diseases
and disorders they cause.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 25/09/2023 20:20, Ron Dean wrote:
I made no claims regarding Piltdown Man and PhD thesis. But I do find
it curious
that there were none regarding Piltdown Man or its "discovery". Was it
a suspected
fraud for 40 years, between 1912 and 1953? Why or why not?
You did make a claim about Piltdown and Ph.Ds - "It's curious, that no
PhD thesis are found, that were based on the Piltdown Man" - which as Burkhard notes you've just repeated.
Okay, in this respect, I did. This was an assumption on my part, in regards to _my_ experience searching or such evidence, and finding none.
It was suspected for most of those 40 years that it was a chimera - a coincidental cooccurence of human and non-human bones. During the later part of those years it was also an anomaly - inconsistent with the human fossil record in general.
But this was a deliberate fraud by someone with the desire to _provide_ "evidence" in support of evolution.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 3:35:48 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
.
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the >> detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one. And all too
many people with these faulty genes pass them on down to decedents.
Furthermore, the benefical mutations often come with negative side-effects.
For example two parents with the sickle cell disease.
There's been some repetition about this claim about detrimental mutations being so common. I'm here to let you know that an excellent opportunity exists and it's related to sickle cell disease.
For many decades, it's been practice in some countries to test the blood of every newborn. The testing is fascination, and has evolved over time but the result is that we have an extensive database of mutations to the hemoglobin genes. And we have studied the phenotypes of most of them.
This means that we have an example of almost every possible point mutation that can exist within the hemoglobin gene cluster. Most interesting are the
ones that exist in Exons --- the part of the genes that encode amino acids of the protein sequence.>
So if you've followed me, we have at our hands a chance to address your assertion about how very abundant harmful mutations are. What does
your intuition tell you?
It's an awful lot of information and a quick search of the usual places didn't turn up where somebody has already done the counting for me.
If I do the counting, I'll probably have to download and parse the database.
I haven't done that in the last 5 years so I'm slightly rusty and may have to
download some tools to help me.
But I won't do it unless you make a guess. If others are curious and can do
some searches for HbVar and find some on-line resources.
Wikipedia list 6,000 know genetic diseases and disorders.
So, it seems that as long as the human species exist the list will only grow,
and no doubt this will continue throughout the various animal species.
It's interesting a new study, not widely circulated is that the human species
and many other species have been around 100,000 to 200,000 years. https://phys.org/news/2018-05-special-humanity-tiny-dna-differences.html
This study on evolution has receive limited circulation. Wonder why? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325270582_Why_should_mitochondria_define_species
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 12:32 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the
detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one.
Can you back that up? In E.coli, one in ten functional mutations are
beneficial[*]. I'm not sure what the ratio is in humans and other
animals, but my impression is that the ratio harmful / neutral /
beneficial mutations is around 15:300:1. I am probably way off, but
probably not as far off as you.
Wikipedia list 6,000 genetic diseases and disorders. I searched for
a list of beneficial mutations, and found no such list. I know you and
a few others can list a handful of beneficial mutations, but they are
vastly outnumbered by determental mutations and the genetic diseases
and disorders they cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
[*] L. Perfeito et al., 2007. Adaptive mutations in bacteria: High
rate and small effects. Science 317: 813-815.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 12:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/23/23 10:21 AM, Ron Dean wrote:The cause of death is sometimes unknown.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:For the few possible beneficial mutations there are hundreds of
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back >>>>>>> to me,
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once >>>>>>>>> again. When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body >>>>>>>>> part, skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the
same time;
otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified >>>>>>>>> evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else >>>>>>>>> must be at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the >>>>>>>> left foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing >>>>>>>> (with no muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is >>>>>>>> still a claw. Small changes can occur in one place, while small >>>>>>>> changes in another place make those first small changes all the >>>>>>>> more important, and small changes in a third place eliminate a >>>>>>>> lesser weakness that the first two changes created and allow
them to change even more. Repeat ad infinitum. You see a
problem where there is none.
same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working
again. So,
I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside >>>>>>> direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems,
such as
the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone
diseases,
multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are
over 6,000
genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans. >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
In humans, off the top of my head, adult lactose tolerance, high
altitude adaptation, and sickle-cell anemia come to mind. Possibly >>>>>> also resistance to alcohol addiction. The list is far greater for >>>>>> non-humans (although the myriad cases of drug and pesticide
resistance are beneficial only to the organisms with the
mutations, not to the humans applying the poisons.)
;
defective
genes.
So?
Exactly! "Intelligent designers". And there are numerous things inWhere is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on
its job!
Again, I call your attention to the fact that engineers -- REAL
LIFE INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS! -- use the equivalent of natural
selection (coupled with random mutation) to design things that are >>>>>> too complex for them to deal with by other means.
nature that's more complex
than anything we (engineers) have ever designed. The cell for
example, is for more complex than anything ever designed by human
engineers. And homeobox genes are incrediable examples
of intelligent conception and origin. These master control genes
are ancient, unchanged and throughout the animal kingdom,
controling the body forms, organ and limb placement in all
animals. The fact that most of the hox genes are across all animals
vertibrates and invertabrites
this supposidly ultimate and final proof that evolution of all
animals is from a common ancestor. But this could just as well be
pointing to an intellingent designer. To the unbiased this
commonality is a clear example of an engineering precept,
regardless of whether it's the result of natural processeses or
intelligent design.
So you believe that evolution was and is God's tool for creation of
living things.
As far as I'm concerned a designer/God must be absolutely and
positively ruled out before natural
processes is in evidene as the cause. So far, this has _not_ been
accomplished. One can believe or
not, but one can not know!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/homeobox-gene
Do you believe medical examiners must always absolutely and
positively rule out God or supernatural causes of death before
declaring a natural cause? Why or why not?
First, you didn't answer either question. I assume that means you
flinch in terror from the issue raised.
You raise the issue of God. I do not! ID has nothing to do or say
regarding God.
We humans are _designed_ to live for an average of about 75 years. Then
And what about the other 95% of cases? Should medical examiners list
"supernatural act of God" as a possible cause? Why or why not?
we die, at this time it is usually called death by _natural_ causes, but again this
is a designed life span. Dogs and cats less time. Some sea turtles are
said to have
a life span hundreds of years and certain trees for thousands of years.
Ralph Page wrote:
On Sat, 09 Sep 2023 03:51:00 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote: >>As I've pointed out numerous occasions, there is no information, which I
On Sep 8, 2023 at 9:11:07 PM EDT, "Ralph Page" <rp@SOCKSralphpage.com> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 19:57:26 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhallman224@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On Sep 6, 2023 at 4:56:31 PM EDT, "Lawyer Daggett" <j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com>
wrote:
<big snip>
My guess is that you have weird misconceptions about what is required >>>>>> for a heart to be a squirrel heart, a monkey heart, or a cow heart. But youYou still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. When body
don't offer us any specifics so we can't quite figure out what you think >>>>>> the specific problems are.
Or are you just worried about what's required to go from a pulsing vein >>>>>> to a 4 chambered heart? Or is it that you think the odds of developing a >>>>>> more sophisticated heart, and a more sophisticated set of lungs, and >>>>>> more sophisticated kidneys are things whereby you have to multiply >>>>>> probabilities so in combo they become less likely?
There exist good responses to any of that but you have not made
your objection clear.
Refining ones questions to be clear and exacting is essential. You >>>>>> seem to be resistant to doing so.
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part, skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time; >>>>> otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution >>>>> of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be at work.
I'm pretty sure we all understand your position. Several organ systems >>>> must have evolved more or less together. You think that evolution alone >>>> just isn't sufficient to accomplish the task so the logical explanation is >>>> that external help (designer) is necessary.
I'm trying to understand why you think evolution alone isn't sufficient. Do
you think if there was more time, or larger populations of organisms,
evolution could accopmplish the task?
Oh, It's so easy to say all the vital organs just through natural selection >>> and natural selection over time was just able to do this. No details, no >>> examples, no direct evidence of the numerous stages necessary. Such is
impossible, because the odds were too great.
OK, I'll try one more time. Why do you think the odds are too great?
I just don't see the problem.
Reasonable estimates of mutation rates have been measured.
Reasonable estimates of time the duration available can be inferred from
observed fossils of various precursor species.
Reasonable estimates of the populations, lengths of a generation and growth >> rates of the various species over that time have been made through
observations of similar extant animals we now see.
I just don't have your faith
I'd say no more faith than to say an unknown designer that's never been
observed somehow showed up and did it. Certainly I can't (and don't) say
the odds are too great that a designer was involved, but I can say it looks >> like a designer isn't needed.
know of that identifies the designer. But design which serves purpose is >obvious. For example, certains birds are designed for purpose IE for
wings, hollow bones and through (rather then in/out) air for breathing
during flight. It's easily to see the design in the on-going life cycle
IE desire, breeding, birth followed by protection and rearing of
offspring especially in the rare cases. There are exceptions, such as
sea turtles that lay eggs by the thousands, then they are on their own.
On 26/09/2023 03:14, Ron Dean wrote:
Wikipedia list 6,000 know genetic diseases and disorders.
So, it seems that as long as the human species exist the list will
only grow,
and no doubt this will continue throughout the various animal species.
It's interesting a new study, not widely circulated is that the human
species
and many other species have been around 100,000 to 200,000 years.
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-special-humanity-tiny-dna-differences.html
This study on evolution has receive limited circulation. Wonder why?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325270582_Why_should_mitochondria_define_species
I don't see the point of your citations. (If one squints one could
imagine that you were hallucinating support for young earth creationism
(a 100,000 year old earth)).
Would you care to support your claim of limited circulation? (It's accumulated 21 citations over 5 years, which hardly supports a claim
that it's being kept from the public eye.)
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:45:48 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 15:19:23 -0400, Ron DeanI question that anyone who read this book, can reject it on the basis of
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During
[...]What do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_ >>>>>> intermediate sequence of fossils?
Yes. Not for bats, but for others, including equines, clams, whales, >>>>> titanotheres, and hominids.
The real question is, what are you going to do about it?
this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution >>>> as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist
accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I >>>> to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a
Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that
where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
Why do you value Michael Denton's opinions above the multitude of
scientists who reject his arguments?
what
was scientific opinion, at the time of it publication. But things
change. That
which _was_ accepted by scientist changes as new discoveries are made.
Well, why don't you lay out what you think was the most convincing argument from that book that remains valid today?
Obviously no!1) Examine those fossils, and if they appear genuine, change yourI have, it's my contention that after Darwin, people who accepted
worldview.
Darwin's view then set as a goal to find evidence which could be used
to demonstrate the reality of evolution. By this method one can
"prove" anything.
Point, is intermediate fossils are few and far in between. In searching >>>> for evidence to support
2) Ignore them for so long that you can again pretend they don't exist. >>>>>
evolution, what they find can be described as "best in the field". that >>>> is what seems to best fit into a predetermined concept.
When 98% of all species that ever lived, went extinct, without leaving >>>> any decedents, there is no way to know whether or not any proclaimed
fossil intermediate was an actual ancestor. I suspect what we have is
wistful expectations.
3) Something else: __________________Yes! Have you read anything from a ID est legitimate material by and ID >>>> est, rather than a critique of ID?
rOn Mon, 25 Sep 2023 20:40:59 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 15:19:23 -0400, Ron DeanI question that anyone who read this book, can reject it on the basis of
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During
[...]What do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_ >>>>>> intermediate sequence of fossils?
Yes. Not for bats, but for others, including equines, clams, whales, >>>>> titanotheres, and hominids.
The real question is, what are you going to do about it?
this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution >>>> as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist
accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I >>>> to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a
Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that
where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
Why do you value Michael Denton's opinions above the multitude of
scientists who reject his arguments?
what was scientific opinion, at the time of it publication.
You really need to learn to do a little bit of research before making statements like that.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution:_A_Theory_in_Crisis
<quote>
Biologist and philosopher Michael Ghiselin described A Theory in
Crisis as "a book by an author who is obviously incompetent,
dishonest, or both - and it may be very hard to decide which is the
case" and that his "arguments turn out to be flagrant instances of the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion."[4]
Biologist Walter P. Coombs writing in Library Journal said that Denton "details legitimate questions, some as old as Darwin's theory, some as
new as molecular biology, but he also distorts or misrepresents other 'problems'" and that "much of the book reads like creationist prattle,
but there are also some interesting points."[5] Mark I. Vuletic, in an
essay posted to the talk.origins Archive, presented a detailed
argument that Denton's attempts to make an adequate challenge to
evolutionary biology fail, contending that Denton neither managed to undermine the evidence for evolution, nor demonstrated that
macroevolutionary mechanisms are inherently implausible.[6]
Philip Spieth, Professor of Genetics at University of California,
Berkeley, reviewed the book saying his conclusions are "erroneous" and
wrote the book "could not pass the most sympathetic peer review"
because "evolutionary theory is misrepresented and distorted; spurious arguments are advanced as disproof of topics to which the arguments
are, at best, tangentially relevant; evolutionary biologists are
quoted out of context; large portions of relevant scientific
literature are ignored; dubious or inaccurate statements appear as
bald assertions accompanied, more often than not, with scorn."[7]
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge in a review wrote that the book is
"fraught with distortions" and utilized arguments similar to
creationists.[8]
</quote>
The above were all written at or around the time the book came out.
So back to my original question, why do you so highly value Michael
Denton's opinion above the people identified above?
But things
change. That
which _was_ accepted by scientist changes as new discoveries are made.
Obviously no!
1) Examine those fossils, and if they appear genuine, change yourI have, it's my contention that after Darwin, people who accepted
worldview.
Darwin's view then set as a goal to find evidence which could be used >>>> to demonstrate the reality of evolution. By this method one can
"prove" anything.
Point, is intermediate fossils are few and far in between. In searching >>>> for evidence to support
2) Ignore them for so long that you can again pretend they don't exist. >>>>>
evolution, what they find can be described as "best in the field". that >>>> is what seems to best fit into a predetermined concept.
When 98% of all species that ever lived, went extinct, without leaving >>>> any decedents, there is no way to know whether or not any proclaimed
fossil intermediate was an actual ancestor. I suspect what we have is
wistful expectations.
3) Something else: __________________Yes! Have you read anything from a ID est legitimate material by and ID >>>> est, rather than a critique of ID?
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:45:48 AM UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 12:32 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Wikipedia list 6,000 genetic diseases and disorders. I searched for
[...]
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the >>>> detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one.
Can you back that up? In E.coli, one in ten functional mutations are
beneficial[*]. I'm not sure what the ratio is in humans and other
animals, but my impression is that the ratio harmful / neutral /
beneficial mutations is around 15:300:1. I am probably way off, but
probably not as far off as you.
a list of beneficial mutations, and found no such list.
and that surprises you, seriously? Look at a criminal law book, or your average TV crime drama - hundreds of ways to break the law, hardly any
list of "just OK things people do"
We study, classify and label illnesses because there is something we can
do about it and rectify or at least mitigate the problem. "Being slightly better
to "see in the dark" than other humans e.g does not require medical intervention
I know you and
a few others can list a handful of beneficial mutations, but they are
vastly outnumbered by determental mutations and the genetic diseases
and disorders they cause.
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:25:48 AM UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 25/09/2023 20:20, Ron Dean wrote:Okay, in this respect, I did. This was an assumption on my part, in regards >> to _my_ experience searching or such evidence, and finding none.
I made no claims regarding Piltdown Man and PhD thesis. But I do find
it curious
that there were none regarding Piltdown Man or its "discovery". Was it >>>> a suspected
fraud for 40 years, between 1912 and 1953? Why or why not?
You did make a claim about Piltdown and Ph.Ds - "It's curious, that no
PhD thesis are found, that were based on the Piltdown Man" - which as
Burkhard notes you've just repeated.
But this was a deliberate fraud by someone with the desire to _provide_
It was suspected for most of those 40 years that it was a chimera - a
coincidental cooccurence of human and non-human bones. During the later
part of those years it was also an anomaly - inconsistent with the human >>> fossil record in general.
"evidence" in support of evolution.
And where do you get that idea from, and what os your evidence? If Piltdown had
been a genuine early hominid, that would have falsified quite a bit of the theory of
human evolution - which is exaclty why people outside the UK were suspicious from the
start.
Furthermore, if it had been genuine in all its parts, it would have falsified the ToE
outright - the type of chimera it is is one of the things strictly prohibited by the ToE.
So if there was any intention regarding the ToE, then it was to discredit it. If anything,
the finger of suspicions would point to creationists, But much more likely is that the
motive was merely financial.
On 9/25/23 7:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 12:32 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the >>>> detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one.
Can you back that up? In E.coli, one in ten functional mutations are
beneficial[*]. I'm not sure what the ratio is in humans and other
animals, but my impression is that the ratio harmful / neutral /
beneficial mutations is around 15:300:1. I am probably way off, but
probably not as far off as you.
Wikipedia list 6,000 genetic diseases and disorders. I searched for
a list of beneficial mutations, and found no such list. I know you and
a few others can list a handful of beneficial mutations, but they are
vastly outnumbered by determental mutations and the genetic diseases
and disorders they cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
[*] L. Perfeito et al., 2007. Adaptive mutations in bacteria: High
rate and small effects. Science 317: 813-815.
Have you never heard of selection bias? Your numbers mean nothing.
On 9/25/23 8:04 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 12:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You raise the issue of God. I do not! ID has nothing to do or say
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/23/23 10:21 AM, Ron Dean wrote:The cause of death is sometimes unknown.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:For the few possible beneficial mutations there are hundreds of
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back >>>>>>>> to me,
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once >>>>>>>>>> again. When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not >>>>>>>>>> just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, >>>>>>>>>> body part, skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the >>>>>>>>>> same time;
otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this
unified evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else >>>>>>>>>> must be at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the >>>>>>>>> left foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing >>>>>>>>> (with no muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb >>>>>>>>> is still a claw. Small changes can occur in one place, while >>>>>>>>> small changes in another place make those first small changes >>>>>>>>> all the more important, and small changes in a third place
eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two changes created >>>>>>>>> and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad infinitum. You >>>>>>>>> see a problem where there is none.
same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working
again. So,
I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is
outside direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, >>>>>>>> such as
the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone
diseases,
multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are >>>>>>>> over 6,000
genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans. >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
In humans, off the top of my head, adult lactose tolerance, high >>>>>>> altitude adaptation, and sickle-cell anemia come to mind.
Possibly also resistance to alcohol addiction. The list is far >>>>>>> greater for non-humans (although the myriad cases of drug and
pesticide resistance are beneficial only to the organisms with
the mutations, not to the humans applying the poisons.)
;
defective
genes.
So?
Exactly! "Intelligent designers". And there are numerous things in >>>>>> nature that's more complexWhere is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on >>>>>>>> its job!
Again, I call your attention to the fact that engineers -- REAL
LIFE INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS! -- use the equivalent of natural
selection (coupled with random mutation) to design things that
are too complex for them to deal with by other means.
than anything we (engineers) have ever designed. The cell for
example, is for more complex than anything ever designed by human
engineers. And homeobox genes are incrediable examples
of intelligent conception and origin. These master control genes
are ancient, unchanged and throughout the animal kingdom,
controling the body forms, organ and limb placement in all
animals. The fact that most of the hox genes are across all
animals vertibrates and invertabrites
this supposidly ultimate and final proof that evolution of all
animals is from a common ancestor. But this could just as well be
pointing to an intellingent designer. To the unbiased this
commonality is a clear example of an engineering precept,
regardless of whether it's the result of natural processeses or
intelligent design.
So you believe that evolution was and is God's tool for creation of
living things.
As far as I'm concerned a designer/God must be absolutely and
positively ruled out before natural
processes is in evidene as the cause. So far, this has _not_ been >>>>>> accomplished. One can believe or
not, but one can not know!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/homeobox-gene
Do you believe medical examiners must always absolutely and
positively rule out God or supernatural causes of death before
declaring a natural cause? Why or why not?
First, you didn't answer either question. I assume that means you
flinch in terror from the issue raised.
;
regarding God.
Do you really expect anyone to believe that? I grant that Nyikos's extraterrestials could be included too, but Nyikos is unique in
including them within the ID label. Everyone who publishes about ID is publishing about an intelligent being that precedes life and is capable
of designing it, that is, a god.
And by their works, you can know the designers. If ID's claims are
true, we can learn something about the designers (there appear to be
more than one) responsible for life on earth. And we know that at least
one of those designers had to be malicious towards humans.
We humans are _designed_ to live for an average of about 75 years. Then
And what about the other 95% of cases? Should medical examiners list
"supernatural act of God" as a possible cause? Why or why not?
we die, at this time it is usually called death by _natural_ causes,
but again this
is a designed life span. Dogs and cats less time. Some sea turtles are
said to have
a life span hundreds of years and certain trees for thousands of years.
You are still avoiding the question. What about the 4-year-old whose autopsy shows oven cleaner in his stomach? Supernatural act of god, you say?
WHY OR WHY NOT?
Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:45:48 AM UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 12:32 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Wikipedia list 6,000 genetic diseases and disorders. I searched for
[...]
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the >>>> detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one.
Can you back that up? In E.coli, one in ten functional mutations are
beneficial[*]. I'm not sure what the ratio is in humans and other
animals, but my impression is that the ratio harmful / neutral /
beneficial mutations is around 15:300:1. I am probably way off, but
probably not as far off as you.
a list of beneficial mutations, and found no such list.
and that surprises you, seriously? Look at a criminal law book, or your average TV crime drama - hundreds of ways to break the law, hardly any list of "just OK things people do"
This is another case where genetic diseases and disorders are _observed_
and treated, in some cases. But the beneficial mutations and their expressions
are virtually unobserved. But a few are observed and are known.
We study, classify and label illnesses because there is something we can do about it and rectify or at least mitigate the problem. "Being slightly better
to "see in the dark" than other humans e.g does not require medical intervention
I agree. A certain type of heart problem killed my grandfather, and later
my father, and an uncle and I learned I had inherited the same heart defect. But I had an open heart operation that alleviated the problem. I'm very concerned about my son.
It's been decades since I read the book. However, science is constantly >making new discoveries and new advances. So what might have been true
in the 1980s may not be true today.
We humans are _designed_ to live for an average of about 75 years. Then
we die, at this time it is usually called death by _natural_ causes, but >again this
is a designed life span. Dogs and cats less time. Some sea turtles are
said to have
a life span hundreds of years and certain trees for thousands of years.
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 13:10:57 -0400, Ron DeanActually, that's not true. I know that science discovers new evidence
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Glenn wrote:
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 5:00:47?AM UTC-7, Ernest Major wrote: >>>>> On 23/09/2023 20:19, Ron Dean wrote:Yes, evolution changes. look at Neanderthal Man for example. I remember
That's easy to counter. Evolution predicts Y, but when we developed suitable tyechnology we didn't observe Y, and is therefore a theory in crisis. Surely you can see that is not a convincing argument for you.To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During >>>>>> this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution >>>>>> as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist >>>>>> accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I >>>>>> to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during anThe theory of evolution predicts X. When we developed suitable
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a >>>>>> Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that >>>>>> where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
technology we observed X. Denton erroneously claims that the theory of >>>>> evolution predicts Y, and is therefore a "theory in crisis". Surely you >>>>> can see that is not a convincing argument.
when he was a bent over ape-like man. Now put him in a suit, he could
pass as a modern human. Another is Piltdown Man,
Piltdown, discovered in 1912 accepted as human ancestor for 40 years.
It's curious, that no PhD thesis are found, that were based on the
Piltdown Man.
It's odd that you criticize science for changing its consensus as it
discovers new evidence,
which changes its consensus.
even as you support conclusions which haveI don't know about this. Can you enlighten me about this.
zero objective evidence for them. Why is that?
jillery wrote:hearing abilities."
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 17:08:06 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:47:38 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 06:06:59 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennSheldon@msn.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 6:00:30?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 16:40:31 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 4:10:29?PM UTC-7, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 6:15:29?PM UTC-4, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 11:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:00:30?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 13:11:36 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 10:30:28?AM UTC-7, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:53:39 GMT, Ron Dean <rdhall...@gmail.com>ROTFLMAO!
wrote:
[ snip for focus]
I asked you this a while back but you never responded to it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
With eyes having worked out so well in other species including birds,
have you any suggestions as to why an *intelligent* designer gave bats
eyes that don't work at all well but developed a sophisticated sonar
system of navigation to compensate?
For once I agree with you, Glenn, it really is a somewhat comical >>>>>>>>>>>>> piece of design work. I can easily picture the designer looking at the
outcome, shaking their head and bemusedly asking themself, "WTF was I
thinking about?"
You never disappoint. Keep up the deception, it may just lead to you confront your real worldview.
"Contrary to what most people believe, bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans. The misconception that bats are blind comes from their nocturnal nature and enhanced
varying from one species to another. Both megabat and microbats rely on vision during social interactions with one another, to watch for predators, and for navigating across landscapes. Megabats have large eyes and depend on vision to orient themselves
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-bats-really-blind >>>>>>>>>>>>
"In their book on bats, authors Barbara Schmidt-French and Carol Butler state, "Someone with poor vision is commonly called ?lind as a bat,' but the expression is inappropriate since bats can actually see quite well, with visual acuity
It's curious! A few days ago I saw on TV about a blind man who makesWhat do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>It's a question of "bats' eyes that don't work well at all" (what you said) versus "bats are generally not blind at all and in fact are believed to have eyesight keener than that of most humans" (Britannica).
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mobile/2013/04/09/why-are-bats-blind/
I didn't say that bats are blind. Maybe you need new glasses so you >>>>>>>>>>> can see properly what people have actually written.
Yes, human eyes don't work well at all at night, and evolution has yet to provide them with echolocation.
Evolution 1, Glenn 0
You never disappoint.
Jillery 1, Glenn 0
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_
intermediate sequence of fossils?
Your questions above are non sequitur. You seem to have misunderstood >>>> the exchange above. Here's a clue for you; it has almost nothing to
do with bat evolution. Contrary to Glenn's claim, that most humans
generally don't echolocate is not a failure of evolution, but instead
is because evolution has provided them with other senses that work
better in their environment.
clicking sounds as he moves about. And the returning echo striking his
ears, in his mind he is able to get an image of his surroundings. Isn't
this a form of echolocation? I found it again on You Tube.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Izc7Rjb7ywA/maxresdefault.jpg
Yes. That's my point. Which disproves Glenn's expressed point. Did
you have a point?
This is an amazing ability. I have a cousin who became blind at about
6 years of age, he is about 45 now. Wonder if this is something that
could be developed or taught.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 7:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Not my numbers, I provided a reference.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 12:32 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but
the
detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one.
Can you back that up? In E.coli, one in ten functional mutations
are beneficial[*]. I'm not sure what the ratio is in humans and
other animals, but my impression is that the ratio harmful / neutral
/ beneficial mutations is around 15:300:1. I am probably way off,
but probably not as far off as you.
Wikipedia list 6,000 genetic diseases and disorders. I searched for
a list of beneficial mutations, and found no such list. I know you and
a few others can list a handful of beneficial mutations, but they are
vastly outnumbered by determental mutations and the genetic diseases
and disorders they cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
[*] L. Perfeito et al., 2007. Adaptive mutations in bacteria: High
rate and small effects. Science 317: 813-815.
Have you never heard of selection bias? Your numbers mean nothing.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/23/23 12:19 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During
[...]What do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_ >>>>> intermediate sequence of fossils?
Yes. Not for bats, but for others, including equines, clams, whales, >>>> titanotheres, and hominids.
The real question is, what are you going to do about it?
;
this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution
as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist
accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I
to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a
Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that
where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
1) Examine those fossils, and if they appear genuine, change yourI have, it's my contention that after Darwin, people who accepted
worldview.
;
Darwin's view then set as a goal to find evidence which could be used >>> to demonstrate the reality of evolution. By this method one can
"prove" anything.
Except the support for evolution comes from at least half a dozen very
different and independent directions.
2) Ignore them for so long that you can again pretend they don't exist. >>> >Point, is intermediate fossils are few and far in between.
But there are more than enough to disprove creationism.
Why your obsession with creationism? It's not the same as ID.
Intelligent design is strictly about the evidence of design, it's
3) Something else: __________________Yes! Have you read anything from a ID est legitimate material by and
ID est, rather than a critique of ID?
Yes, of course. Not only read it, but thought about it. Do you agree
with ID theorists you refer to that one of the creator gods is evil?
nothing about gods good or evil.
This proves to me, that you've been brain washed and one sided >misinformation, since everything you wrote is _not_ from any legiminate >intelligent design source.
Mark Isaak wrote:[...]
On 9/25/23 8:04 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
You raise the issue of God. I do not! ID has nothing to do or say
regarding God.
Do you really expect anyone to believe that? I grant that Nyikos's
extraterrestials could be included too, but Nyikos is unique in
including them within the ID label. Everyone who publishes about ID
is publishing about an intelligent being that precedes life and is
capable of designing it, that is, a god.
What you refuse to grasp is the difference between evidence and belief.
If you examine a bird capable of flight it's designed for that function (flying)
It has wings, hollow bones and an air-through heart. That is _evidence_ interpreted as empirical evidence of design.
While there is evidence
pointing
to design, there is no known _evidence_ pointing to the identity of the designer.
One may _believe_ the designer is the God of the Bible. But belief is of faith
not of evidence. For this reason ID does not and cannot identify a
designer.
No, just an fault of careless mother, father or keeper.And what about the other 95% of cases? Should medical examinersWe humans are _designed_ to live for an average of about 75 years. Then >>> we die, at this time it is usually called death by _natural_ causes,
list "supernatural act of God" as a possible cause? Why or why not?
but again this
is a designed life span. Dogs and cats less time. Some sea turtles
are said to have
a life span hundreds of years and certain trees for thousands of years.
You are still avoiding the question. What about the 4-year-old whose
autopsy shows oven cleaner in his stomach? Supernatural act of god,
you say?
WHY OR WHY NOT?
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 20:07:53 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
It's been decades since I read the book. However, science is constantly
making new discoveries and new advances. So what might have been true
in the 1980s may not be true today.
Incorrect. You conflate what is understood with what is true. What
was true in the 80's is still true today. The difference is we have
more evidence today than in the 80's, so our understanding is closer
to the truth. Not sure how you *still* don't understand this.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 8:25:49 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 4:45:48 AM UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:This is another case where genetic diseases and disorders are _observed_
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 12:32 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Wikipedia list 6,000 genetic diseases and disorders. I searched for
[...]
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the >>>>>> detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one.
Can you back that up? In E.coli, one in ten functional mutations are >>>>> beneficial[*]. I'm not sure what the ratio is in humans and other
animals, but my impression is that the ratio harmful / neutral /
beneficial mutations is around 15:300:1. I am probably way off, but
probably not as far off as you.
a list of beneficial mutations, and found no such list.
and that surprises you, seriously? Look at a criminal law book, or your
average TV crime drama - hundreds of ways to break the law, hardly any
list of "just OK things people do"
and treated, in some cases. But the beneficial mutations and their
expressions
are virtually unobserved. But a few are observed and are known.
I agree. A certain type of heart problem killed my grandfather, and later
We study, classify and label illnesses because there is something we can >>> do about it and rectify or at least mitigate the problem. "Being slightly better
to "see in the dark" than other humans e.g does not require medical
intervention
my father, and an uncle and I learned I had inherited the same heart defect. >> But I had an open heart operation that alleviated the problem. I'm very
concerned about my son.
Sidebar: what particular problem? To guess, it would be atrial fibrillation respective to non-specific anatomical irregularities. Educate me.
There are plenty of diagnostics to evaluate your son. Advocate for them!
This can't be overemphasized. If there's a specific familial indication, lock it down and understand it. Don't leave it as some handwavy ambiguity.
There are good and dubious therapies depending upon the roots of
any problems. Personally, I would not trust each and every MD. I say
this because I have taught many MDs and would not trust some of them.
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 23:04:50 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
We humans are _designed_ to live for an average of about 75 years. Then
we die, at this time it is usually called death by _natural_ causes, but
again this
is a designed life span. Dogs and cats less time. Some sea turtles are
said to have
a life span hundreds of years and certain trees for thousands of years.
Let's assume what you say above is factually correct. What's so
special about 75 years? Why would a designer "design" humans to live
an average of 75 year? Why would a designer "design" different
lifetimes for different animals? You don't say. Why is that?
What you do above is declare "design" for whatever conditions you
think demonstrates design, when in fact your claim of design is based
solely on the way things are aka circular reasoning.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 15:45:44 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/23/23 12:19 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Why your obsession with creationism? It's not the same as ID.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During
[...]What do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_ >>>>>> intermediate sequence of fossils?
Yes. Not for bats, but for others, including equines, clams, whales, >>>>> titanotheres, and hominids.
The real question is, what are you going to do about it?
t;
this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution >>>> as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist
accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I >>>> to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a
Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that
where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
1) Examine those fossils, and if they appear genuine, change yourI have, it's my contention that after Darwin, people who accepted
worldview.
t;
Darwin's view then set as a goal to find evidence which could be used >>>> to demonstrate the reality of evolution. By this method one can
"prove" anything.
Except the support for evolution comes from at least half a dozen very
different and independent directions.
2) Ignore them for so long that you can again pretend they don't exist. >>>> >Point, is intermediate fossils are few and far in between.
But there are more than enough to disprove creationism.
Intelligent design is strictly about the evidence of design, it's
3) Something else: __________________Yes! Have you read anything from a ID est legitimate material by and
ID est, rather than a critique of ID?
Yes, of course. Not only read it, but thought about it. Do you agree >>> with ID theorists you refer to that one of the creator gods is evil?
nothing about gods good or evil.
This proves to me, that you've been brain washed and one sided
misinformation, since everything you wrote is _not_ from any legiminate
intelligent design source.
Incorrect. ID is strictly about a claim that function comes only from intelligence. Not sure how you *still* don't understand this.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On 9/26/23 5:28 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 7:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Not my numbers, I provided a reference.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 12:32 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations",
but the
detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one.
Can you back that up? In E.coli, one in ten functional mutations
are beneficial[*]. I'm not sure what the ratio is in humans and
other animals, but my impression is that the ratio harmful /
neutral / beneficial mutations is around 15:300:1. I am probably
way off, but probably not as far off as you.
Wikipedia list 6,000 genetic diseases and disorders. I searched for
a list of beneficial mutations, and found no such list. I know you and >>>> a few others can list a handful of beneficial mutations, but they are
vastly outnumbered by determental mutations and the genetic diseases
and disorders they cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
[*] L. Perfeito et al., 2007. Adaptive mutations in bacteria: High
rate and small effects. Science 317: 813-815.
Have you never heard of selection bias? Your numbers mean nothing.
You provided an irrelevant reference and a number which means nothing in
the context you brought up.
Martin Harran wrote:
rOn Mon, 25 Sep 2023 20:40:59 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 15:19:23 -0400, Ron DeanI question that anyone who read this book, can reject it on the basis of >>> what was scientific opinion, at the time of it publication.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During >>>>> this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution >>>>> as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist
[...]What do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_ >>>>>>> intermediate sequence of fossils?
Yes. Not for bats, but for others, including equines, clams, whales, >>>>>> titanotheres, and hominids.
The real question is, what are you going to do about it?
accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I >>>>> to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a >>>>> Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that >>>>> where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
Why do you value Michael Denton's opinions above the multitude of
scientists who reject his arguments?
You really need to learn to do a little bit of research before making
statements like that.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution:_A_Theory_in_Crisis
<quote>
Biologist and philosopher Michael Ghiselin described A Theory in
Crisis as "a book by an author who is obviously incompetent,
dishonest, or both - and it may be very hard to decide which is the
case" and that his "arguments turn out to be flagrant instances of the
fallacy of irrelevant conclusion."[4]
Biologist Walter P. Coombs writing in Library Journal said that Denton
"details legitimate questions, some as old as Darwin's theory, some as
new as molecular biology, but he also distorts or misrepresents other
'problems'" and that "much of the book reads like creationist prattle,
but there are also some interesting points."[5] Mark I. Vuletic, in an
essay posted to the talk.origins Archive, presented a detailed
argument that Denton's attempts to make an adequate challenge to
evolutionary biology fail, contending that Denton neither managed to
undermine the evidence for evolution, nor demonstrated that
macroevolutionary mechanisms are inherently implausible.[6]
Philip Spieth, Professor of Genetics at University of California,
Berkeley, reviewed the book saying his conclusions are "erroneous" and
wrote the book "could not pass the most sympathetic peer review"
because "evolutionary theory is misrepresented and distorted; spurious
arguments are advanced as disproof of topics to which the arguments
are, at best, tangentially relevant; evolutionary biologists are
quoted out of context; large portions of relevant scientific
literature are ignored; dubious or inaccurate statements appear as
bald assertions accompanied, more often than not, with scorn."[7]
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge in a review wrote that the book is
"fraught with distortions" and utilized arguments similar to
creationists.[8]
</quote>
The above were all written at or around the time the book came out.
So back to my original question, why do you so highly value Michael
Denton's opinion above the people identified above?
They are dedicated evolutionist, so naturally they go to whatever extremes >necessary to protect their paradigm. There are other scientist who accepted >Dr. Denton's book, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis".
This book first got me to question my position. Afterwards, wanting to
be certain I read books by Stephen G Gould and Niles Eldredge. Even
though they were dedicated evolutionist, the pointed out the nature of the >fossil record. This was a surprise to me. According to G & E most species >appear abruptly in the record, remain in stasis during their tenure on the >planet the disappear from the record. This, I did not expect. And when I
read that 98%+ of all species that ever existed went extinct. I just seemed >to me that supporting evidence claimed from the fossil record was simply
the "best in the field", and wishful thinking coupled with the desire to >"prove" evolution.>
But things
change. That
which _was_ accepted by scientist changes as new discoveries are made.
Obviously no!
1) Examine those fossils, and if they appear genuine, change yourI have, it's my contention that after Darwin, people who accepted
worldview.
Darwin's view then set as a goal to find evidence which could be used >>>>> to demonstrate the reality of evolution. By this method one can
"prove" anything.
Point, is intermediate fossils are few and far in between. In searching >>>>> for evidence to support
2) Ignore them for so long that you can again pretend they don't exist. >>>>>>
evolution, what they find can be described as "best in the field". that >>>>> is what seems to best fit into a predetermined concept.
When 98% of all species that ever lived, went extinct, without leaving >>>>> any decedents, there is no way to know whether or not any proclaimed >>>>> fossil intermediate was an actual ancestor. I suspect what we have is >>>>> wistful expectations.
3) Something else: __________________Yes! Have you read anything from a ID est legitimate material by and ID >>>>> est, rather than a critique of ID?
Martin Harran wrote:
rOn Mon, 25 Sep 2023 20:40:59 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 15:19:23 -0400, Ron DeanI question that anyone who read this book, can reject it on the basis of >>> what was scientific opinion, at the time of it publication.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:To earn my degree, I went to the local university for 6 years. During >>>>> this time, I began to question religion, doubt god and I saw evolution >>>>> as likely, because of its reasoning, evidence and because scientist
[...]What do you really know about bat evolution? IOW what has been
_observed_ from the fossil record? Is there any known or _observed_ >>>>>>> intermediate sequence of fossils?
Yes. Not for bats, but for others, including equines, clams, whales, >>>>>> titanotheres, and hominids.
The real question is, what are you going to do about it?
accepted random mutations and natural selection as fact. So, who was I >>>>> to question the truth of evolution? But later a friend during an
exchange, of ideas challenged me to read a book by a
Dr. Michael Denton a microbiologist and an MD, entitled "Evolution, a >>>>> Theory in Crisis".
I read the book, and this was a turning point for me. I realized that >>>>> where there is a difference, to know only one side of an issue is
allowing oneself to be brain-washed.
Why do you value Michael Denton's opinions above the multitude of
scientists who reject his arguments?
You really need to learn to do a little bit of research before making
statements like that.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution:_A_Theory_in_Crisis
<quote>
Biologist and philosopher Michael Ghiselin described A Theory in
Crisis as "a book by an author who is obviously incompetent,
dishonest, or both - and it may be very hard to decide which is the
case" and that his "arguments turn out to be flagrant instances of the
fallacy of irrelevant conclusion."[4]
Biologist Walter P. Coombs writing in Library Journal said that Denton
"details legitimate questions, some as old as Darwin's theory, some as
new as molecular biology, but he also distorts or misrepresents other
'problems'" and that "much of the book reads like creationist prattle,
but there are also some interesting points."[5] Mark I. Vuletic, in an
essay posted to the talk.origins Archive, presented a detailed
argument that Denton's attempts to make an adequate challenge to
evolutionary biology fail, contending that Denton neither managed to
undermine the evidence for evolution, nor demonstrated that
macroevolutionary mechanisms are inherently implausible.[6]
Philip Spieth, Professor of Genetics at University of California,
Berkeley, reviewed the book saying his conclusions are "erroneous" and
wrote the book "could not pass the most sympathetic peer review"
because "evolutionary theory is misrepresented and distorted; spurious
arguments are advanced as disproof of topics to which the arguments
are, at best, tangentially relevant; evolutionary biologists are
quoted out of context; large portions of relevant scientific
literature are ignored; dubious or inaccurate statements appear as
bald assertions accompanied, more often than not, with scorn."[7]
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge in a review wrote that the book is
"fraught with distortions" and utilized arguments similar to
creationists.[8]
</quote>
The above were all written at or around the time the book came out.
So back to my original question, why do you so highly value Michael
Denton's opinion above the people identified above?
They are dedicated evolutionist, so naturally they go to whatever extremes >necessary to protect their paradigm.
There are other scientist who accepted
Dr. Denton's book, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis".
This book first got me to question my position. Afterwards, wanting to
be certain I read books by Stephen G Gould and Niles Eldredge. Even
though they were dedicated evolutionist, the pointed out the nature of the >fossil record. This was a surprise to me. According to G & E most species >appear abruptly in the record, remain in stasis during their tenure on the >planet the disappear from the record. This, I did not expect. And when I
read that 98%+ of all species that ever existed went extinct. I just seemed >to me that supporting evidence claimed from the fossil record was simply
the "best in the field", and wishful thinking coupled with the desire to >"prove" evolution.>
But things
change. That
which _was_ accepted by scientist changes as new discoveries are made.
Obviously no!
1) Examine those fossils, and if they appear genuine, change yourI have, it's my contention that after Darwin, people who accepted
worldview.
Darwin's view then set as a goal to find evidence which could be used >>>>> to demonstrate the reality of evolution. By this method one can
"prove" anything.
Point, is intermediate fossils are few and far in between. In searching >>>>> for evidence to support
2) Ignore them for so long that you can again pretend they don't exist. >>>>>>
evolution, what they find can be described as "best in the field". that >>>>> is what seems to best fit into a predetermined concept.
When 98% of all species that ever lived, went extinct, without leaving >>>>> any decedents, there is no way to know whether or not any proclaimed >>>>> fossil intermediate was an actual ancestor. I suspect what we have is >>>>> wistful expectations.
3) Something else: __________________Yes! Have you read anything from a ID est legitimate material by and ID >>>>> est, rather than a critique of ID?
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/26/23 5:28 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 7:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Not my numbers, I provided a reference.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 12:32 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", >>>>>> but the
detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one.
Can you back that up? In E.coli, one in ten functional mutations >>>>> are beneficial[*]. I'm not sure what the ratio is in humans and
other animals, but my impression is that the ratio harmful /
neutral / beneficial mutations is around 15:300:1. I am probably >>>>> way off, but probably not as far off as you.
Wikipedia list 6,000 genetic diseases and disorders. I searched for >>>> a list of beneficial mutations, and found no such list. I know you and >>>> a few others can list a handful of beneficial mutations, but they are >>>> vastly outnumbered by determental mutations and the genetic diseases >>>> and disorders they cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
[*] L. Perfeito et al., 2007. Adaptive mutations in bacteria: High >>>>> rate and small effects. Science 317: 813-815.
Have you never heard of selection bias? Your numbers mean nothing.
You provided an irrelevant reference and a number which means nothing in the context you brought up.
Well I thought it did. Wikipedia listed 6000 observed Genetic diseases etc. These are caused by mutated DNA. There are only a few observed beneficial mutations.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/26/23 5:28 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Well I thought it did. Wikipedia listed 6000 observed Genetic diseases etc. These are caused by mutated DNA. There are only a few observed beneficial mutations.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 7:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Not my numbers, I provided a reference.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 12:32 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
I think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations",
but the
detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one.
Can you back that up? In E.coli, one in ten functional mutations >>>>>> are beneficial[*]. I'm not sure what the ratio is in humans and
other animals, but my impression is that the ratio harmful /
neutral / beneficial mutations is around 15:300:1. I am probably >>>>>> way off, but probably not as far off as you.
Wikipedia list 6,000 genetic diseases and disorders. I searched for >>>>> a list of beneficial mutations, and found no such list. I know you and >>>>> a few others can list a handful of beneficial mutations, but they are >>>>> vastly outnumbered by determental mutations and the genetic diseases >>>>> and disorders they cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
[*] L. Perfeito et al., 2007. Adaptive mutations in bacteria: High >>>>>> rate and small effects. Science 317: 813-815.
Have you never heard of selection bias? Your numbers mean nothing.
You provided an irrelevant reference and a number which means nothing
in the context you brought up.
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 23:04:50 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
We humans are _designed_ to live for an average of about 75 years. Then >>> we die, at this time it is usually called death by _natural_ causes, but >>> again this
is a designed life span. Dogs and cats less time. Some sea turtles are
said to have
a life span hundreds of years and certain trees for thousands of years.
Let's assume what you say above is factually correct. What's so
special about 75 years? Why would a designer "design" humans to live
an average of 75 year? Why would a designer "design" different
lifetimes for different animals? You don't say. Why is that?
I just responded to what is observed. No reason to try to outguess the >designer.
What you do above is declare "design" for whatever conditions youHow so?
think demonstrates design, when in fact your claim of design is based
solely on the way things are aka circular reasoning.
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 12:39:02 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 23:04:50 -0400, Ron DeanI just responded to what is observed. No reason to try to outguess the
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
We humans are _designed_ to live for an average of about 75 years. Then >>>> we die, at this time it is usually called death by _natural_ causes, but >>>> again this
is a designed life span. Dogs and cats less time. Some sea turtles are >>>> said to have
a life span hundreds of years and certain trees for thousands of years. >>>
Let's assume what you say above is factually correct. What's so
special about 75 years? Why would a designer "design" humans to live
an average of 75 year? Why would a designer "design" different
lifetimes for different animals? You don't say. Why is that?
designer.
Wrong. You did more than respond to what is observed. You asserted
an hypothesis, that lifespans are "designed" aka by a purposeful
intelligent agent. If you really think there's no reason to outguess
the designer, then your hypothesis would be pointless.
What you do above is declare "design" for whatever conditions youHow so?
think demonstrates design, when in fact your claim of design is based
solely on the way things are aka circular reasoning.
There are much less obvious ways to avoid answering questions.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed,
regardless of how the design came about.
On 9/28/23 1:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed,
regardless of how the design came about.
That sentence is not true, as least not without doing extreme violence
to the word "designed."
Consider a river which has shallow parts and deeper parts. The shallow parts serve the specific purpose of allowing people to ford the river
there; the deeper parts serve the specific purpose of allowing boating
for transport and recreation. You would say, according to the quote
above, that all the various parts of the river were designed. In fact,
what was designed were the uses people found for the parts as they
happened to occur.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/28/23 1:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never consider a river >designed
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed,
regardless of how the design came about.
That sentence is not true, as least not without doing extreme violence
to the word "designed."
Consider a river which has shallow parts and deeper parts. The shallow
parts serve the specific purpose of allowing people to ford the river
there; the deeper parts serve the specific purpose of allowing boating
for transport and recreation. You would say, according to the quote
above, that all the various parts of the river were designed. In fact,
what was designed were the uses people found for the parts as they
happened to occur.
for that specific purpose.
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 15:32:45 -0400, the following appearedWell?
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:Hundreds to one? Doubtful; the data I've seen says that
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 17:14:34 -0400, the following appearedI think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the >>detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one.
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:OK, I'm now convinced that you have no interest in answering
On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 12:29:17 -0400, the following appearedI have not always been a defender of ID. In fact I was like you and many >>>> other unquestioning evolutionist. Since all scientist accepted
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:While that is all correct, it's irrelevant to the question.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:31:57 -0400, the following appearedIt's called a disease, sickle cell is a painful deadly disease: in 2020 >>>>>> - 600.000 people died from the disease. It's not uncommon that in Africa >>>>>> marriage between people, with the disease. The disease is passed down to >>>>>> offspring. The same year, it's estimated that 240 million people came >>>>>> down with the
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:Just for one example, you noted sickle-cell disease. Did you
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So,
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. >>>>>>>>>> When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not >>>>>>>>>> just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part,
skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time;
otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be
at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left >>>>>>>>> foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no >>>>>>>>> muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw. >>>>>>>>> Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another >>>>>>>>> place make those first small changes all the more important, and small
changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two
changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad >>>>>>>>> infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me,
I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as >>>>>>>> the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases,
multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000
genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans. >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job!
read enough about it to know that it's actually beneficial
to the majority in an environment where malaria is endemic?
https://sickle-cell.com/clinical/malaria
It's only when inherited from *both* parents that it's a
problem.
And serious cancers strike most victims *after* breeding
age, and are therefore shielded from selection to a large
degree.
disease. Sickle Cell disease is primarily an African disease, but some >>>>>> 10% of Black-Americans have the sickle cell disease. As I understand it, >>>>>> people with 2 parents with the disease, the offspring do not have the >>>>>> protection. But are at a higher risk of severe SCD.
See my post from 09/23 at (on my computer) 09:48. Then
address *that* post, in which I addressed you comments and
added further references.
This still applies.
https://www.healthline.com/health/can-someone-with-
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/age
Maybe if you tried to learn more from reliable sources, and
stopped uncritically reading with an inherent
"anti-evolution" bias, you'd be better off.
evolution as fact, who was I to question evolution, and I didn't
question it, I just accepted on trust of scientist.
anything which refutes your beliefs, since apparently you
ignored the references I provided (still visible above).
they're almost equal, with neutral mutations far
outnumbering either one. Cite to the data, please.
No comment? Do you intend to ever address these points?And all tooYou didn't read *any* of the references I posted, did you?
many people with these faulty genes pass them on down to decedents. >>Furthermore, the benefical mutations often come with negative side-effects. >>For example two parents with the sickle cell disease.
If you had you'd understand why that is AT BEST irrelevant.
Try to get it through your head; the ONLY thing which
matters is whether more survive with the mutation than
without it. And the sickle-cell mutation, in an environment
in which malaria is endemic, has exactly that effect.
--Have a nice day.
'Thank you, and You too have a pleasant day!
On 9/28/23 1:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed,
regardless of how the design came about.
That sentence is not true, as least not without doing extreme violence
to the word "designed."
Consider a river which has shallow parts and deeper parts. The shallow parts serve the specific purpose of allowing people to ford the river
there; the deeper parts serve the specific purpose of allowing boating
for transport and recreation. You would say, according to the quote
above, that all the various parts of the river were designed. In fact,
what was designed were the uses people found for the parts as they
happened to occur.
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 23:10:41 -0400, the following appearedOn second thoughts, there is a significant purpose for river systems, the
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:So...
On 9/28/23 1:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never consider a river
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed,
regardless of how the design came about.
That sentence is not true, as least not without doing extreme violence
to the word "designed."
Consider a river which has shallow parts and deeper parts. The shallow >>> parts serve the specific purpose of allowing people to ford the river
there; the deeper parts serve the specific purpose of allowing boating
for transport and recreation. You would say, according to the quote
above, that all the various parts of the river were designed. In fact, >>> what was designed were the uses people found for the parts as they
happened to occur.
designed
for that specific purpose.
"If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's
designed, regardless of how the design came about."
...and:
"A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never
consider a river designed for that specific purpose."
Seems a bit of a word game. Is *anything* which serves *any*
purpose designed, as your first statement says? Please
elucidate.
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 23:10:41 -0400, the following appearedOn second thoughts, there is a significant purpose for river systems, the >water cycle.
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:So...
On 9/28/23 1:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never consider a river
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed,
regardless of how the design came about.
That sentence is not true, as least not without doing extreme violence >>>> to the word "designed."
Consider a river which has shallow parts and deeper parts. The shallow >>>> parts serve the specific purpose of allowing people to ford the river
there; the deeper parts serve the specific purpose of allowing boating >>>> for transport and recreation. You would say, according to the quote
above, that all the various parts of the river were designed. In fact, >>>> what was designed were the uses people found for the parts as they
happened to occur.
designed
for that specific purpose.
"If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's
designed, regardless of how the design came about."
...and:
"A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never
consider a river designed for that specific purpose."
Seems a bit of a word game. Is *anything* which serves *any*
purpose designed, as your first statement says? Please
elucidate.
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 17:45:00 -0400, the following appearedIt was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:There are multiple "purposes" for a river. Now, care to
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 23:10:41 -0400, the following appearedOn second thoughts, there is a significant purpose for river systems, the
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:So...
On 9/28/23 1:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never consider a river >>>> designed
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed,
regardless of how the design came about.
That sentence is not true, as least not without doing extreme violence >>>>> to the word "designed."
Consider a river which has shallow parts and deeper parts. The shallow >>>>> parts serve the specific purpose of allowing people to ford the river >>>>> there; the deeper parts serve the specific purpose of allowing boating >>>>> for transport and recreation. You would say, according to the quote >>>>> above, that all the various parts of the river were designed. In fact, >>>>> what was designed were the uses people found for the parts as they
happened to occur.
for that specific purpose.
"If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's
designed, regardless of how the design came about."
...and:
"A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never
consider a river designed for that specific purpose."
Seems a bit of a word game. Is *anything* which serves *any*
purpose designed, as your first statement says? Please
elucidate.
water cycle.
explain how those "purposes" are evidence of design, which
was your initial assertion? Just because something operates
in a certain way as a result of physical laws, or is found
to be useful to some creatures, such as humans, fish, otters
and beavers, doesn't mean it was designed by some
intelligence to do or be either one.
Note: I put quotes around "purpose" to indicate just that,
that because something has a derived function such as, in
the case of rivers, the hydro cycle, which has nothing to do
with humans, or water supply and transport, which do, that
function need not be the result of anything more than the
working out of physical laws (the hydro cycle) or human
needs/desires (drinking and transportation).
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 17:45:00 -0400, the following appearedIt was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:There are multiple "purposes" for a river. Now, care to
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 23:10:41 -0400, the following appearedOn second thoughts, there is a significant purpose for river systems, the >>> water cycle.
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:So...
On 9/28/23 1:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never consider a river >>>>> designed
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed, >>>>>>> regardless of how the design came about.
That sentence is not true, as least not without doing extreme violence >>>>>> to the word "designed."
Consider a river which has shallow parts and deeper parts. The shallow >>>>>> parts serve the specific purpose of allowing people to ford the river >>>>>> there; the deeper parts serve the specific purpose of allowing boating >>>>>> for transport and recreation. You would say, according to the quote >>>>>> above, that all the various parts of the river were designed. In fact, >>>>>> what was designed were the uses people found for the parts as they >>>>>> happened to occur.
for that specific purpose.
"If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's
designed, regardless of how the design came about."
...and:
"A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never
consider a river designed for that specific purpose."
Seems a bit of a word game. Is *anything* which serves *any*
purpose designed, as your first statement says? Please
elucidate.
explain how those "purposes" are evidence of design, which
was your initial assertion? Just because something operates
in a certain way as a result of physical laws, or is found
to be useful to some creatures, such as humans, fish, otters
and beavers, doesn't mean it was designed by some
intelligence to do or be either one.
Note: I put quotes around "purpose" to indicate just that,
that because something has a derived function such as, in
the case of rivers, the hydro cycle, which has nothing to do
with humans, or water supply and transport, which do, that
function need not be the result of anything more than the
working out of physical laws (the hydro cycle) or human
needs/desires (drinking and transportation).
for human continence. Just for the water cycle.
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 23:10:41 -0400, the following appearedOn second thoughts, there is a significant purpose for river systems, the water cycle.
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:So...
On 9/28/23 1:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never consider a river
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed,
regardless of how the design came about.
That sentence is not true, as least not without doing extreme violence >>>> to the word "designed."
Consider a river which has shallow parts and deeper parts. The shallow >>>> parts serve the specific purpose of allowing people to ford the river
there; the deeper parts serve the specific purpose of allowing boating >>>> for transport and recreation. You would say, according to the quote
above, that all the various parts of the river were designed. In fact, >>>> what was designed were the uses people found for the parts as they
happened to occur.
designed
for that specific purpose.
"If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's
designed, regardless of how the design came about."
...and:
"A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never
consider a river designed for that specific purpose."
Seems a bit of a word game. Is *anything* which serves *any*
purpose designed, as your first statement says? Please
elucidate.
On 9/29/23 2:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 23:10:41 -0400, the following appearedOn second thoughts, there is a significant purpose for river systems, the
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:So...
On 9/28/23 1:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never consider a river >>>> designed
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed,
regardless of how the design came about.
That sentence is not true, as least not without doing extreme violence >>>>> to the word "designed."
Consider a river which has shallow parts and deeper parts. The shallow >>>>> parts serve the specific purpose of allowing people to ford the river >>>>> there; the deeper parts serve the specific purpose of allowing boating >>>>> for transport and recreation. You would say, according to the quote >>>>> above, that all the various parts of the river were designed. In fact, >>>>> what was designed were the uses people found for the parts as they
happened to occur.
for that specific purpose.
"If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's
designed, regardless of how the design came about."
...and:
"A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never
consider a river designed for that specific purpose."
Seems a bit of a word game. Is *anything* which serves *any*
purpose designed, as your first statement says? Please
elucidate.
water cycle.
At least you admit that something can serve a specific purpose without
being designed *for that purpose*. That alone uncouples purpose from
design, and makes purpose useless as an indicator of design.
Two stars of the Big Dipper server a specific purpose of pointing at the >North Star. Were they designed? One reasonable answer is that they
were designed because everything in the universe (including evolution, >including even chaos) was designed, but that their function as pointing
stars has no relevance to that. An unreasonable answer is that their
purpose means they were designed to point -- unreasonable because the
North Star has not always been near true north, nor will it continue to
be so; and the positions of the other stars wander, too.
On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 09:22:46 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 9/29/23 2:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Precisely. Another way to put it: Purpose is in the mind of
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 23:10:41 -0400, the following appearedOn second thoughts, there is a significant purpose for river systems, the >>> water cycle.
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:So...
On 9/28/23 1:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never consider a river >>>>> designed
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed, >>>>>>> regardless of how the design came about.
That sentence is not true, as least not without doing extreme violence >>>>>> to the word "designed."
Consider a river which has shallow parts and deeper parts. The shallow >>>>>> parts serve the specific purpose of allowing people to ford the river >>>>>> there; the deeper parts serve the specific purpose of allowing boating >>>>>> for transport and recreation. You would say, according to the quote >>>>>> above, that all the various parts of the river were designed. In fact, >>>>>> what was designed were the uses people found for the parts as they >>>>>> happened to occur.
for that specific purpose.
"If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's
designed, regardless of how the design came about."
...and:
"A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never
consider a river designed for that specific purpose."
Seems a bit of a word game. Is *anything* which serves *any*
purpose designed, as your first statement says? Please
elucidate.
At least you admit that something can serve a specific purpose without >>being designed *for that purpose*. That alone uncouples purpose from >>design, and makes purpose useless as an indicator of design.
the observer; it is not intrinsic to whatever is observed.
And it varies, depending on who/what is doing the observing.
The purpose of a tree to birds and squirrels is vastly
different from its purpose(s) to humans.
Two stars of the Big Dipper server a specific purpose of pointing at the >>North Star. Were they designed? One reasonable answer is that they
were designed because everything in the universe (including evolution, >>including even chaos) was designed, but that their function as pointing >>stars has no relevance to that. An unreasonable answer is that their >>purpose means they were designed to point -- unreasonable because the >>North Star has not always been near true north, nor will it continue to
be so; and the positions of the other stars wander, too.
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 12:39:02 -0400, Ron DeanThere is no way I personally know the why of this. All I can do
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 23:04:50 -0400, Ron DeanI just responded to what is observed. No reason to try to outguess the
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
We humans are _designed_ to live for an average of about 75 years. Then >>>>> we die, at this time it is usually called death by _natural_ causes, but >>>>> again this
is a designed life span. Dogs and cats less time. Some sea turtles are >>>>> said to have
a life span hundreds of years and certain trees for thousands of years. >>>>
Let's assume what you say above is factually correct. What's so
special about 75 years? Why would a designer "design" humans to live
an average of 75 year? Why would a designer "design" different
lifetimes for different animals? You don't say. Why is that?
designer.
Wrong. You did more than respond to what is observed. You asserted
an hypothesis, that lifespans are "designed" aka by a purposeful
intelligent agent. If you really think there's no reason to outguess
the designer, then your hypothesis would be pointless.
respond to what is observed.. There are countless question referencing why. >IOW why is there life rather than no life on Planet Earth. Why does/did chemicals
become ordered into life, and once the first primitive life appeared, why did >it become so engaged into the "will" to survive, and then pass on life to other
life? Why not how did dinosaurs arise, then become extinct. Why are human who are
nothing more than animals more important than any other animal, say a mouse. >Why is is wrong to kill another human, but not wrong to kill a cow for food?
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed,What you do above is declare "design" for whatever conditions youHow so?
think demonstrates design, when in fact your claim of design is based
solely on the way things are aka circular reasoning.
regardless of how the design came about.
And this, in my opinion, is why Darwin wrote his
books
after reading Paley who argued that design implied a designer- his God. >Darwin
virtually re-addressed Paley's work to get rid of purposeful design and >Paley's God. I
question whether Darwin would have bothered had he not read Paley.
This, I think
defines Darwin's theory (evolution) as an _alternative_ and a way out
and an escape.
There are much less obvious ways to avoid answering questions.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 8:04 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 12:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You raise the issue of God. I do not! ID has nothing to do or say
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/23/23 10:21 AM, Ron Dean wrote:The cause of death is sometimes unknown.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:For the few possible beneficial mutations there are hundreds of >>>>>> defective
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back >>>>>>>> to me,
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once >>>>>>>>>> again. When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not >>>>>>>>>> just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, >>>>>>>>>> body part, skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the >>>>>>>>>> same time;
otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this >>>>>>>>>> unified evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else >>>>>>>>>> must be at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the >>>>>>>>> left foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing >>>>>>>>> (with no muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb >>>>>>>>> is still a claw. Small changes can occur in one place, while >>>>>>>>> small changes in another place make those first small changes >>>>>>>>> all the more important, and small changes in a third place >>>>>>>>> eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two changes created >>>>>>>>> and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad infinitum. You >>>>>>>>> see a problem where there is none.
same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working >>>>>>>> again. So,
I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is
outside direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, >>>>>>>> such as
the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone >>>>>>>> diseases,
multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are >>>>>>>> over 6,000
genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans. >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
In humans, off the top of my head, adult lactose tolerance, high >>>>>>> altitude adaptation, and sickle-cell anemia come to mind.
Possibly also resistance to alcohol addiction. The list is far >>>>>>> greater for non-humans (although the myriad cases of drug and >>>>>>> pesticide resistance are beneficial only to the organisms with >>>>>>> the mutations, not to the humans applying the poisons.)
genes.
So?
Exactly! "Intelligent designers". And there are numerous things in >>>>>> nature that's more complexWhere is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on >>>>>>>> its job!
Again, I call your attention to the fact that engineers -- REAL >>>>>>> LIFE INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS! -- use the equivalent of natural
selection (coupled with random mutation) to design things that >>>>>>> are too complex for them to deal with by other means.
than anything we (engineers) have ever designed. The cell for
example, is for more complex than anything ever designed by human >>>>>> engineers. And homeobox genes are incrediable examples
of intelligent conception and origin. These master control genes >>>>>> are ancient, unchanged and throughout the animal kingdom,
controling the body forms, organ and limb placement in all
animals. The fact that most of the hox genes are across all
animals vertibrates and invertabrites
this supposidly ultimate and final proof that evolution of all
animals is from a common ancestor. But this could just as well be >>>>>> pointing to an intellingent designer. To the unbiased this
commonality is a clear example of an engineering precept,
regardless of whether it's the result of natural processeses or >>>>>> intelligent design.
So you believe that evolution was and is God's tool for creation of >>>>> living things.
As far as I'm concerned a designer/God must be absolutely and
positively ruled out before natural
processes is in evidene as the cause. So far, this has _not_ been >>>>>> accomplished. One can believe or
not, but one can not know!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/homeobox-gene
Do you believe medical examiners must always absolutely and
positively rule out God or supernatural causes of death before
declaring a natural cause? Why or why not?
First, you didn't answer either question. I assume that means you
flinch in terror from the issue raised.
regarding God.
Do you really expect anyone to believe that? I grant that Nyikos's extraterrestials could be included too, but Nyikos is unique in
including them within the ID label. Everyone who publishes about ID is publishing about an intelligent being that precedes life and is capable
of designing it, that is, a god.
What you refuse to grasp is the difference between evidence and belief.
If you examine a bird capable of flight it's designed for that function (flying)
It has wings, hollow bones and an air-through heart. That is _evidence_ interpreted as empirical evidence of design. While there is evidence pointing
to design, there is no known _evidence_ pointing to the identity of the designer.
One may _believe_ the designer is the God of the Bible. But belief is of faith
not of evidence. For this reason ID does not and cannot identify a
designer. >
And by their works, you can know the designers. If ID's claims are
true, we can learn something about the designers (there appear to be
more than one) responsible for life on earth. And we know that at least one of those designers had to be malicious towards humans.
We humans are _designed_ to live for an average of about 75 years. Then >> we die, at this time it is usually called death by _natural_ causes,
And what about the other 95% of cases? Should medical examiners list >>> "supernatural act of God" as a possible cause? Why or why not?
but again this
is a designed life span. Dogs and cats less time. Some sea turtles are
said to have
a life span hundreds of years and certain trees for thousands of years.
You are still avoiding the question. What about the 4-year-old whose autopsy shows oven cleaner in his stomach? Supernatural act of god, you say?
WHY OR WHY NOT?
No, just an fault of careless mother, father or keeper.
The a) it s not a theory of ID. And b) as Bill and I have shown you, it
is simply incoherent.Any design inference imposes constraints on the designer, and with that
elements of an identification of the designer. Your arguments e.g. have show that the designer a) initially developed somehting prone to errors
b) then had to improve their work at a much later stage to fix that problem and c) did not get it quite right even then.
Which while not positively identifying a designer, rules out a number
of candidates, such as the tri-omni Christian deitiy as normally understood
On 9/29/23 2:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 23:10:41 -0400, the following appearedOn second thoughts, there is a significant purpose for river systems, the
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:So...
On 9/28/23 1:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never consider a river >>>> designed
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed,
regardless of how the design came about.
That sentence is not true, as least not without doing extreme violence >>>>> to the word "designed."
Consider a river which has shallow parts and deeper parts. The
shallow
parts serve the specific purpose of allowing people to ford the river >>>>> there; the deeper parts serve the specific purpose of allowing boating >>>>> for transport and recreation. You would say, according to the quote >>>>> above, that all the various parts of the river were designed. In
fact,
what was designed were the uses people found for the parts as they
happened to occur.
for that specific purpose.
"If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's
designed, regardless of how the design came about."
...and:
"A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never
consider a river designed for that specific purpose."
Seems a bit of a word game. Is *anything* which serves *any*
purpose designed, as your first statement says? Please
elucidate.
water cycle.
At least you admit that something can serve a specific purpose without
being designed *for that purpose*. That alone uncouples purpose from design, and makes purpose useless as an indicator of design.
On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 1:50:49?AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 8:04 PM, Ron Dean wrote:What you refuse to grasp is the difference between evidence and belief.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/25/23 12:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You raise the issue of God. I do not! ID has nothing to do or say
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/23/23 10:21 AM, Ron Dean wrote:The cause of death is sometimes unknown.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/22/23 4:31 PM, Ron Dean wrote:For the few possible beneficial mutations there are hundreds of
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back >> >>>>>>>> to me,
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once
again. When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not
just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_,
body part, skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the
same time;
otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this
unified evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else
must be at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the >> >>>>>>>>> left foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing >> >>>>>>>>> (with no muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb
is still a claw. Small changes can occur in one place, while
small changes in another place make those first small changes
all the more important, and small changes in a third place
eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two changes created
and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad infinitum. You
see a problem where there is none.
same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working
again. So,
I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is
outside direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems,
such as
the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone
diseases,
multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are
over 6,000
genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans. >> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
In humans, off the top of my head, adult lactose tolerance, high
altitude adaptation, and sickle-cell anemia come to mind.
Possibly also resistance to alcohol addiction. The list is far
greater for non-humans (although the myriad cases of drug and
pesticide resistance are beneficial only to the organisms with
the mutations, not to the humans applying the poisons.)
defective
genes.
So?
Exactly! "Intelligent designers". And there are numerous things in >> >>>>>> nature that's more complexWhere is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on
its job!
Again, I call your attention to the fact that engineers -- REAL
LIFE INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS! -- use the equivalent of natural
selection (coupled with random mutation) to design things that
are too complex for them to deal with by other means.
than anything we (engineers) have ever designed. The cell for
example, is for more complex than anything ever designed by human
engineers. And homeobox genes are incrediable examples
of intelligent conception and origin. These master control genes
are ancient, unchanged and throughout the animal kingdom,
controling the body forms, organ and limb placement in all
animals. The fact that most of the hox genes are across all
animals vertibrates and invertabrites
this supposidly ultimate and final proof that evolution of all
animals is from a common ancestor. But this could just as well be
pointing to an intellingent designer. To the unbiased this
commonality is a clear example of an engineering precept,
regardless of whether it's the result of natural processeses or
intelligent design.
So you believe that evolution was and is God's tool for creation of >> >>>>> living things.
As far as I'm concerned a designer/God must be absolutely and
positively ruled out before natural
processes is in evidene as the cause. So far, this has _not_ been >> >>>>>> accomplished. One can believe or
not, but one can not know!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/homeobox-gene
Do you believe medical examiners must always absolutely and
positively rule out God or supernatural causes of death before
declaring a natural cause? Why or why not?
First, you didn't answer either question. I assume that means you
flinch in terror from the issue raised.
regarding God.
Do you really expect anyone to believe that? I grant that Nyikos's
extraterrestials could be included too, but Nyikos is unique in
including them within the ID label. Everyone who publishes about ID is >> > publishing about an intelligent being that precedes life and is capable >> > of designing it, that is, a god.
If you examine a bird capable of flight it's designed for that function
(flying)
It has wings, hollow bones and an air-through heart. That is _evidence_
interpreted as empirical evidence of design. While there is evidence
pointing
to design, there is no known _evidence_ pointing to the identity of the
designer.
One may _believe_ the designer is the God of the Bible. But belief is of
faith
not of evidence. For this reason ID does not and cannot identify a
designer. >
The a) it s not a theory of ID. And b) as Bill and I have shown you, it is simply incoherent.
Any design inference imposes constraints on the designer, and with that >elements of an identification of the designer. Your arguments e.g. have show >that the designer a) initially developed somehting prone to errors
b) then had to improve their work at a much later stage to fix that problem >and c) did not get it quite right even then.
Which while not positively identifying a designer, rules out a number
of candidates, such as the tri-omni Christian deitiy as normally understood
And by their works, you can know the designers. If ID's claims areNo, just an fault of careless mother, father or keeper.
true, we can learn something about the designers (there appear to be
more than one) responsible for life on earth. And we know that at least >> > one of those designers had to be malicious towards humans.
You are still avoiding the question. What about the 4-year-old whoseWe humans are _designed_ to live for an average of about 75 years. Then >> >> we die, at this time it is usually called death by _natural_ causes,
And what about the other 95% of cases? Should medical examiners list >> >>> "supernatural act of God" as a possible cause? Why or why not?
but again this
is a designed life span. Dogs and cats less time. Some sea turtles are >> >> said to have
a life span hundreds of years and certain trees for thousands of years. >> >
autopsy shows oven cleaner in his stomach? Supernatural act of god, you >> > say?
WHY OR WHY NOT?
On 9/29/23 2:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:..
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 23:10:41 -0400, the following appearedOn second thoughts, there is a significant purpose for river systems, the
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:So...
On 9/28/23 1:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never consider a river >>>> designed
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed,
regardless of how the design came about.
That sentence is not true, as least not without doing extreme violence >>>>> to the word "designed."
Consider a river which has shallow parts and deeper parts. The
shallow
parts serve the specific purpose of allowing people to ford the river >>>>> there; the deeper parts serve the specific purpose of allowing boating >>>>> for transport and recreation. You would say, according to the quote >>>>> above, that all the various parts of the river were designed. In
fact,
what was designed were the uses people found for the parts as they
happened to occur.
for that specific purpose.
"If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's
designed, regardless of how the design came about."
...and:
"A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never
consider a river designed for that specific purpose."
Seems a bit of a word game. Is *anything* which serves *any*
purpose designed, as your first statement says? Please
elucidate.
water cycle.
At least you admit that something can serve a specific purpose without
being designed *for that purpose*. That alone uncouples purpose from design, and makes purpose useless as an indicator of design.
Two stars of the Big Dipper server a specific purpose of pointing at the North Star. Were they designed? One reasonable answer is that they
were designed because everything in the universe (including evolution, including even chaos) was designed, but that their function as pointing
stars has no relevance to that. An unreasonable answer is that their purpose means they were designed to point -- unreasonable because the
North Star has not always been near true north, nor will it continue to
be so; and the positions of the other stars wander, too.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/29/23 2:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 23:10:41 -0400, the following appearedOn second thoughts, there is a significant purpose for river systems, the >> water cycle.
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:So...
On 9/28/23 1:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never consider a river >>>> designed
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed, >>>>>> regardless of how the design came about.
That sentence is not true, as least not without doing extreme violence >>>>> to the word "designed."
Consider a river which has shallow parts and deeper parts. The
shallow
parts serve the specific purpose of allowing people to ford the river >>>>> there; the deeper parts serve the specific purpose of allowing boating >>>>> for transport and recreation. You would say, according to the quote >>>>> above, that all the various parts of the river were designed. In >>>>> fact,
what was designed were the uses people found for the parts as they >>>>> happened to occur.
for that specific purpose.
"If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's
designed, regardless of how the design came about."
...and:
"A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never
consider a river designed for that specific purpose."
Seems a bit of a word game. Is *anything* which serves *any*
purpose designed, as your first statement says? Please
elucidate.
At least you admit that something can serve a specific purpose without being designed *for that purpose*. That alone uncouples purpose from design, and makes purpose useless as an indicator of design...
I answered this elsewhere.
Two stars of the Big Dipper server a specific purpose of pointing at the North Star. Were they designed? One reasonable answer is that they
were designed because everything in the universe (including evolution, including even chaos) was designed, but that their function as pointing stars has no relevance to that. An unreasonable answer is that their purpose means they were designed to point -- unreasonable because the North Star has not always been near true north, nor will it continue to
be so; and the positions of the other stars wander, too.
You might see the particular stars serving such a purpose. I do not.
When I think of something designed for a specific purpose, the heart
comes to mind which serves a specific purpose, heavy fur on a polar
bear, wings on a flying beetle, especially sharp eyes and kidneys also
these too serve a special purpose.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/29/23 2:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 23:10:41 -0400, the following appearedOn second thoughts, there is a significant purpose for river systems, the >> water cycle.
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:So...
On 9/28/23 1:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never consider a river >>>> designed
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed, >>>>>> regardless of how the design came about.
That sentence is not true, as least not without doing extreme violence >>>>> to the word "designed."
Consider a river which has shallow parts and deeper parts. The
shallow
parts serve the specific purpose of allowing people to ford the river >>>>> there; the deeper parts serve the specific purpose of allowing boating >>>>> for transport and recreation. You would say, according to the quote >>>>> above, that all the various parts of the river were designed. In
fact,
what was designed were the uses people found for the parts as they >>>>> happened to occur.
for that specific purpose.
"If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's
designed, regardless of how the design came about."
...and:
"A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never
consider a river designed for that specific purpose."
Seems a bit of a word game. Is *anything* which serves *any*
purpose designed, as your first statement says? Please
elucidate.
At least you admit that something can serve a specific purpose without being designed *for that purpose*. That alone uncouples purpose from design, and makes purpose useless as an indicator of design...
I answered this elsewhere.
Two stars of the Big Dipper server a specific purpose of pointing at the North Star. Were they designed? One reasonable answer is that they
were designed because everything in the universe (including evolution, including even chaos) was designed, but that their function as pointing stars has no relevance to that. An unreasonable answer is that their purpose means they were designed to point -- unreasonable because the
North Star has not always been near true north, nor will it continue to
be so; and the positions of the other stars wander, too.
You might see the particular stars serving such a purpose. I do not.
When I think of something designed for a specific purpose, the heart
comes to mind which serves a specific purpose, heavy fur on a polar
bear, wings on a flying beetle, especially sharp eyes and kidneys also
these too serve a special purpose.
Dr James Tour has proposed this challenge regarding origin of life research, inviting by name ten leading scientists in the field:etc which enables him to mount a serious challenge.
https://youtu.be/MmykRoelTzU?feature=shared
What is particularly interesting are the highly specific and informed points of challenge to speculative, implausible and overstated claims. Tour is an outsider able to rock the boat, but an accomplished scientist with relevant expertise in chemistry
Sure, many here will disagree, but the fact that such a challenge can be made says something about the state of OOL research and the degree of progress it claims, and is willing for the public to believe uncorrected.
We have "professor" Dave Farina's failure in a recent OOL debate with Tour to thank for adding fuel to Tour's initiative. I watch with interest.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 9/29/23 2:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:..
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 23:10:41 -0400, the following appearedOn second thoughts, there is a significant purpose for river systems,
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:So...
On 9/28/23 1:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never consider a river >>>>> designed
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed, >>>>>>> regardless of how the design came about.
That sentence is not true, as least not without doing extreme
violence
to the word "designed."
Consider a river which has shallow parts and deeper parts. The
shallow
parts serve the specific purpose of allowing people to ford the river >>>>>> there; the deeper parts serve the specific purpose of allowing
boating
for transport and recreation. You would say, according to the quote >>>>>> above, that all the various parts of the river were designed. In >>>>>> fact,
what was designed were the uses people found for the parts as they >>>>>> happened to occur.
for that specific purpose.
"If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's
designed, regardless of how the design came about."
...and:
"A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never
consider a river designed for that specific purpose."
Seems a bit of a word game. Is *anything* which serves *any*
purpose designed, as your first statement says? Please
elucidate.
the
water cycle.
At least you admit that something can serve a specific purpose without
being designed *for that purpose*. That alone uncouples purpose from
design, and makes purpose useless as an indicator of design.
I answered this elsewhere.
Two stars of the Big Dipper server a specific purpose of pointing atYou might see the particular stars serving such a purpose. I do not.
the North Star. Were they designed? One reasonable answer is that
they were designed because everything in the universe (including
evolution, including even chaos) was designed, but that their function
as pointing stars has no relevance to that. An unreasonable answer is
that their purpose means they were designed to point -- unreasonable
because the North Star has not always been near true north, nor will
it continue to be so; and the positions of the other stars wander, too.
When I think of something designed for a specific purpose, the heart
comes to mind which serves a specific purpose, heavy fur on a polar
bear, wings on a flying beetle, especially sharp eyes and kidneys also
these too serve a special purpose.
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 19:09:06 -0400, the following appearedSo that's a "no"? Again? OK.
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:And as for the fact that "purpose", i.e. intelligent motive,
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 17:45:00 -0400, the following appearedIt was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:There are multiple "purposes" for a river. Now, care to
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 23:10:41 -0400, the following appearedOn second thoughts, there is a significant purpose for river systems, the >>>> water cycle.
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:So...
On 9/28/23 1:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never consider a river >>>>>> designed
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed, >>>>>>>> regardless of how the design came about.
That sentence is not true, as least not without doing extreme violence >>>>>>> to the word "designed."
Consider a river which has shallow parts and deeper parts. The shallow >>>>>>> parts serve the specific purpose of allowing people to ford the river >>>>>>> there; the deeper parts serve the specific purpose of allowing boating >>>>>>> for transport and recreation. You would say, according to the quote >>>>>>> above, that all the various parts of the river were designed. In fact, >>>>>>> what was designed were the uses people found for the parts as they >>>>>>> happened to occur.
for that specific purpose.
"If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's
designed, regardless of how the design came about."
...and:
"A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never
consider a river designed for that specific purpose."
Seems a bit of a word game. Is *anything* which serves *any*
purpose designed, as your first statement says? Please
elucidate.
explain how those "purposes" are evidence of design, which
was your initial assertion? Just because something operates
in a certain way as a result of physical laws, or is found
to be useful to some creatures, such as humans, fish, otters
and beavers, doesn't mean it was designed by some
intelligence to do or be either one.
Note: I put quotes around "purpose" to indicate just that,
that because something has a derived function such as, in
the case of rivers, the hydro cycle, which has nothing to do
with humans, or water supply and transport, which do, that
function need not be the result of anything more than the
working out of physical laws (the hydro cycle) or human
needs/desires (drinking and transportation).
for human continence. Just for the water cycle.
is not required to explain all that we see in nature,
including rivers and the hydro cycle? Would you care to do
something other than evade, waffle and obfuscate?
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 22:57:40 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 15:32:45 -0400, the following appearedWell?
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:Hundreds to one? Doubtful; the data I've seen says that
On Sun, 24 Sep 2023 17:14:34 -0400, the following appearedI think I have! You might mention a few 'beneficial mutations", but the >>>detrimental mutations outnumber them hundreds to one.
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:OK, I'm now convinced that you have no interest in answering
On Sat, 23 Sep 2023 12:29:17 -0400, the following appearedI have not always been a defender of ID. In fact I was like you and many >>>>> other unquestioning evolutionist. Since all scientist accepted
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:While that is all correct, it's irrelevant to the question.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:31:57 -0400, the following appearedIt's called a disease, sickle cell is a painful deadly disease: in 2020 >>>>>>> - 600.000 people died from the disease. It's not uncommon that in Africa
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:Just for one example, you noted sickle-cell disease. Did you
On 9/8/23 12:57 PM, Ron Dean wrote:same company, as a contractor - no benefits. But I'm working again. So,
You still do not get the gist of the issue I've raised. Once again. >>>>>>>>>>> When body
forms
ndergo massive and multiple evolutionary changes. it's not >>>>>>>>>>> just the heart that must evolve, but _every_vital_ organ_, body part,
skeliton
etc.
must _evolve_together_ in degree of unison, and at near the same time;
otherwise
New forms fail to survive!
I think the happazardious chances and odds against this unified evolution
of vital body organs and parts are impossible. Something else must be
at work.
Why should that be an issue? "New forms" doesn't mean that the left >>>>>>>>>> foreleg of a dinosaur suddenly turns into a feathered wing (with no >>>>>>>>>> muscles changed to flap it) while the the right limb is still a claw.
Small changes can occur in one place, while small changes in another >>>>>>>>>> place make those first small changes all the more important, and small
changes in a third place eliminate a lesser weakness that the first two
changes created and allow them to change even more. Repeat ad >>>>>>>>>> infinitum. You see a problem where there is none.
Okay Mark, I had to go back to work, my old job was offered back to me,
I'm back to T.O. on a limited basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see a problem where there is a problem, unless there is outside direction.
Random mutations are often, are the cause of serious problems, such as
the various cancers, cycle cell disease, several brittle bone diseases,
multiple autoimmune diseases. According to Wikipedia there are over 6,000
genetic disorders listed which are known and observed in humans. >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
Where is the list of _observed_ beneficial mutations?
Where is natural selection? It seems it falls down and fails on its job!
read enough about it to know that it's actually beneficial
to the majority in an environment where malaria is endemic?
https://sickle-cell.com/clinical/malaria
It's only when inherited from *both* parents that it's a
problem.
And serious cancers strike most victims *after* breeding
age, and are therefore shielded from selection to a large
degree.
marriage between people, with the disease. The disease is passed down to
offspring. The same year, it's estimated that 240 million people came >>>>>>> down with the
disease. Sickle Cell disease is primarily an African disease, but some >>>>>>> 10% of Black-Americans have the sickle cell disease. As I understand it,
people with 2 parents with the disease, the offspring do not have the >>>>>>> protection. But are at a higher risk of severe SCD.
See my post from 09/23 at (on my computer) 09:48. Then
address *that* post, in which I addressed you comments and
added further references.
This still applies.
https://www.healthline.com/health/can-someone-with-
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/age >>>>>>>>
Maybe if you tried to learn more from reliable sources, and
stopped uncritically reading with an inherent
"anti-evolution" bias, you'd be better off.
evolution as fact, who was I to question evolution, and I didn't
question it, I just accepted on trust of scientist.
anything which refutes your beliefs, since apparently you
ignored the references I provided (still visible above).
they're almost equal, with neutral mutations far
outnumbering either one. Cite to the data, please.
No comment? Do you intend to ever address these points?
And all tooYou didn't read *any* of the references I posted, did you?
many people with these faulty genes pass them on down to decedents. >>>Furthermore, the benefical mutations often come with negative side-effects. >>>For example two parents with the sickle cell disease.
If you had you'd understand why that is AT BEST irrelevant.
Try to get it through your head; the ONLY thing which
matters is whether more survive with the mutation than
without it. And the sickle-cell mutation, in an environment
in which malaria is endemic, has exactly that effect.
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 7:40:55 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:I think the problem is that you do not have a very clear way to identify a purpose, except in those cases in which a human designed something and said what the purpose was.
On 9/29/23 2:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:..
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 23:10:41 -0400, the following appearedOn second thoughts, there is a significant purpose for river systems, the >>>> water cycle.
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:So...
On 9/28/23 1:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never consider a river >>>>>> designed
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed, >>>>>>>> regardless of how the design came about.
That sentence is not true, as least not without doing extreme violence >>>>>>> to the word "designed."
Consider a river which has shallow parts and deeper parts. The
shallow
parts serve the specific purpose of allowing people to ford the river >>>>>>> there; the deeper parts serve the specific purpose of allowing boating >>>>>>> for transport and recreation. You would say, according to the quote >>>>>>> above, that all the various parts of the river were designed. In >>>>>>> fact,
what was designed were the uses people found for the parts as they >>>>>>> happened to occur.
for that specific purpose.
"If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's
designed, regardless of how the design came about."
...and:
"A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never
consider a river designed for that specific purpose."
Seems a bit of a word game. Is *anything* which serves *any*
purpose designed, as your first statement says? Please
elucidate.
At least you admit that something can serve a specific purpose without
being designed *for that purpose*. That alone uncouples purpose from
design, and makes purpose useless as an indicator of design.
I answered this elsewhere.
You might see the particular stars serving such a purpose. I do not.
Two stars of the Big Dipper server a specific purpose of pointing at the >>> North Star. Were they designed? One reasonable answer is that they
were designed because everything in the universe (including evolution,
including even chaos) was designed, but that their function as pointing
stars has no relevance to that. An unreasonable answer is that their
purpose means they were designed to point -- unreasonable because the
North Star has not always been near true north, nor will it continue to
be so; and the positions of the other stars wander, too.
When I think of something designed for a specific purpose, the heart
comes to mind which serves a specific purpose, heavy fur on a polar
bear, wings on a flying beetle, especially sharp eyes and kidneys also
these too serve a special purpose.
This is similar to the problem you had defining criteria for designed things versus non-designed things. Given any particular thing, you have an opinion about whether it was designed or not. You can list criteria for that particular thing as anexplanation for why you think it is designed. But inevitably somebody finds something that is obviously non-designed that nonetheless meets your criteria.
So whether it is identifying "purpose" or identifying design, you know ahead of time what things you want to call purposeful or designed, and you can generate criteria that apply in any individual case under discussion, but the criteria don't hold upgenerally, and when someone points out something non-purposeful or non-designed that meets the criteria, you then invent new criteria to disqualify those things. And then someone will find things that have what you just decided were the characteristics
You've convinced yourself, but you were already convinced. But to convince anyone else, you need reliable criteria for identifying purpose or design, not after the fact explanations about why you think X or Y were designed or not.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 7:40:55 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:I think the problem is that you do not have a very clear way to identify a purpose, except in those cases in which a human designed something and said what the purpose was.
On 9/29/23 2:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:..
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 23:10:41 -0400, the following appearedOn second thoughts, there is a significant purpose for river systems, the
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:So...
On 9/28/23 1:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never consider a river
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed, >>>>>>>> regardless of how the design came about.
That sentence is not true, as least not without doing extreme violence
to the word "designed."
Consider a river which has shallow parts and deeper parts. The >>>>>>> shallow
parts serve the specific purpose of allowing people to ford the river
there; the deeper parts serve the specific purpose of allowing boating
for transport and recreation. You would say, according to the quote >>>>>>> above, that all the various parts of the river were designed. In >>>>>>> fact,
what was designed were the uses people found for the parts as they >>>>>>> happened to occur.
designed
for that specific purpose.
"If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's
designed, regardless of how the design came about."
...and:
"A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never
consider a river designed for that specific purpose."
Seems a bit of a word game. Is *anything* which serves *any*
purpose designed, as your first statement says? Please
elucidate.
water cycle.
At least you admit that something can serve a specific purpose without >>> being designed *for that purpose*. That alone uncouples purpose from
design, and makes purpose useless as an indicator of design.
I answered this elsewhere.
You might see the particular stars serving such a purpose. I do not.
Two stars of the Big Dipper server a specific purpose of pointing at the >>> North Star. Were they designed? One reasonable answer is that they
were designed because everything in the universe (including evolution, >>> including even chaos) was designed, but that their function as pointing >>> stars has no relevance to that. An unreasonable answer is that their
purpose means they were designed to point -- unreasonable because the >>> North Star has not always been near true north, nor will it continue to >>> be so; and the positions of the other stars wander, too.
When I think of something designed for a specific purpose, the heart
comes to mind which serves a specific purpose, heavy fur on a polar
bear, wings on a flying beetle, especially sharp eyes and kidneys also
these too serve a special purpose.
Really, so people designed hearts, wing for beetles ad eyes? I'm surprised! You have opinions about what counts as a real purpose and what does not,
but you don't really have a generally applicable way of identifying
purposes in things that humans have not built.
I've mentioned _nothing_ built by humans. I know you don't have a reading comprehension problem, but you missed my argument. Everything I mentioned was designed independently of human intervention.
explanation for why you think it is designed. But inevitably somebody finds something that is obviously non-designed that nonetheless meets your criteria.This is similar to the problem you had defining criteria for designed things versus non-designed things. Given any particular thing, you have an opinion about whether it was designed or not. You can list criteria for that particular thing as an
Like stars pointing to another star?
generally, and when someone points out something non-purposeful or non-designed that meets the criteria, you then invent new criteria to disqualify those things. And then someone will find things that have what you just decided were the characteristicsSo whether it is identifying "purpose" or identifying design, you know ahead of time what things you want to call purposeful or designed, and you can generate criteria that apply in any individual case under discussion, but the criteria don't hold up
You've convinced yourself, but you were already convinced. But to convince anyone else, you need reliable criteria for identifying purpose or design, not after the fact explanations about why you think X or Y were designed or not.
I've provided examples of purposeful design observed in nature. You have presented no justification for calling anything designed, where a purpose was _served_. A design can serve a purpose for which it was not designed.
I own a vacation cabin in the mountains, built from logs, these trees were not designed for that specific purpose, but the trees serve that purpose. And you don't comprehend the difference.
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 21:38:35 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 19:09:06 -0400, the following appearedSo that's a "no"? Again? OK.
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:And as for the fact that "purpose", i.e. intelligent motive,
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 17:45:00 -0400, the following appearedIt was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:There are multiple "purposes" for a river. Now, care to
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 23:10:41 -0400, the following appearedOn second thoughts, there is a significant purpose for river systems, the >>>>> water cycle.
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:So...
On 9/28/23 1:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never consider a river >>>>>>> designed
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed, >>>>>>>>> regardless of how the design came about.
That sentence is not true, as least not without doing extreme violence >>>>>>>> to the word "designed."
Consider a river which has shallow parts and deeper parts. The shallow
parts serve the specific purpose of allowing people to ford the river >>>>>>>> there; the deeper parts serve the specific purpose of allowing boating >>>>>>>> for transport and recreation. You would say, according to the quote >>>>>>>> above, that all the various parts of the river were designed. In fact,
what was designed were the uses people found for the parts as they >>>>>>>> happened to occur.
for that specific purpose.
"If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's
designed, regardless of how the design came about."
...and:
"A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never
consider a river designed for that specific purpose."
Seems a bit of a word game. Is *anything* which serves *any*
purpose designed, as your first statement says? Please
elucidate.
explain how those "purposes" are evidence of design, which
was your initial assertion? Just because something operates
in a certain way as a result of physical laws, or is found
to be useful to some creatures, such as humans, fish, otters
and beavers, doesn't mean it was designed by some
intelligence to do or be either one.
Note: I put quotes around "purpose" to indicate just that,
that because something has a derived function such as, in
the case of rivers, the hydro cycle, which has nothing to do
with humans, or water supply and transport, which do, that
function need not be the result of anything more than the
working out of physical laws (the hydro cycle) or human
needs/desires (drinking and transportation).
for human continence. Just for the water cycle.
is not required to explain all that we see in nature,
including rivers and the hydro cycle? Would you care to do
something other than evade, waffle and obfuscate?
I;ve responded to this, perhaps not to you. But then, as I've
explained. The heart, eyes, lungs are designed for a specific purpose.
I own a vacation cabin in the mountains made from logs. I do not
consider the trees to have been designed for my log cabin. But
the trees served a purpose for which they were used. Do you not
see the difference. If no, then we will just agree to disagree.
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 17:48:21 -0400
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[Why not snip occasionally?]
I;ve responded to this, perhaps not to you. But then, as I've
explained. The heart, eyes, lungs are designed for a specific purpose.
The heart serves 2 purposes, a small pump to erm pump (unoxygenated) blood
to the lungs and back (oxygenated) and a big one to pump blood
(oxygenated) around the rest of the body (coming back unoxygenated). A
major design defect is found when there's a shoddy build and there's a
"hole in the heart" that no longer prevents the blood in the 2 systems
from mixing.
Another major design flaw is crossing the breathing tube and the food
intake tube, which can result in choking.
Lots of other design flaws can be discovered.
The conclusion seems obvious - it's not 'designed' it's just something that evolved and is 'just good enough'.
I own a vacation cabin in the mountains made from logs. I do not
consider the trees to have been designed for my log cabin. But
the trees served a purpose for which they were used. Do you not
see the difference. If no, then we will just agree to disagree.
feathers
[...]I've provided examples of purposeful design observed in nature. You have presented no justification for calling anything designed, where a purpose was _served_. A design can serve a purpose for which it was not designed.
I own a vacation cabin in the mountains, built from logs, these trees were not designed for that specific purpose, but the trees serve that purpose.
And you don't comprehend the difference.
On 10/2/23 11:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]I've provided examples of purposeful design observed in nature. You have
presented no justification for calling anything designed, where a purpose >> was _served_. A design can serve a purpose for which it was not designed.
I own a vacation cabin in the mountains, built from logs, these trees were >> not designed for that specific purpose, but the trees serve that purpose.
And you don't comprehend the difference.
Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose.
*Anything*--
can serve a purpose; in fact, multiple purposes. You (I assume; I don't >remember you stating it explicitly) ascribe to the heart the purpose of >pumping blood. I could say its larger purpose is keeping the animal
alive long enough to reproduce. (That interpretation, by the way, has
the advantage of explaining why hearts fail more in old age.) The null >hypothesis, on the third hand, is that hearts have no purpose; they just >happened as a result of undirected laws. And the null hypothesis is >consistent with all the evidence. You deciding to name a purpose for >something does not count as evidence.
On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 17:48:21 -0400
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[Why not snip occasionally?]
I;ve responded to this, perhaps not to you. But then, as I've
explained. The heart, eyes, lungs are designed for a specific purpose.
The heart serves 2 purposes, a small pump to erm pump (unoxygenated) blood
to the lungs and back (oxygenated) and a big one to pump blood
(oxygenated) around the rest of the body (coming back unoxygenated). A
major design defect is found when there's a shoddy build and there's a
"hole in the heart" that no longer prevents the blood in the 2 systems
from mixing.
Another major design flaw is crossing the breathing tube and the food
intake tube, which can result in choking.
Lots of other design flaws can be discovered.
The conclusion seems obvious - it's not 'designed' it's just something that >evolved and is 'just good enough'.
--I own a vacation cabin in the mountains made from logs. I do not
consider the trees to have been designed for my log cabin. But
the trees served a purpose for which they were used. Do you not
see the difference. If no, then we will just agree to disagree.
feathers
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 21:38:35 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 19:09:06 -0400, the following appearedSo that's a "no"? Again? OK.
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:And as for the fact that "purpose", i.e. intelligent motive,
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 17:45:00 -0400, the following appearedIt was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:There are multiple "purposes" for a river. Now, care to
On Thu, 28 Sep 2023 23:10:41 -0400, the following appearedOn second thoughts, there is a significant purpose for river systems, the
in talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Mark Isaak wrote:So...
On 9/28/23 1:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never consider a river >>>>>>>> designed
If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's designed, >>>>>>>>>> regardless of how the design came about.
That sentence is not true, as least not without doing extreme violence
to the word "designed."
Consider a river which has shallow parts and deeper parts. The shallow
parts serve the specific purpose of allowing people to ford the river >>>>>>>>> there; the deeper parts serve the specific purpose of allowing boating
for transport and recreation. You would say, according to the quote >>>>>>>>> above, that all the various parts of the river were designed. In fact,
what was designed were the uses people found for the parts as they >>>>>>>>> happened to occur.
for that specific purpose.
"If it serves a specific purpose or function, then it's
designed, regardless of how the design came about."
...and:
"A river just serves such a purpose, but I would never
consider a river designed for that specific purpose."
Seems a bit of a word game. Is *anything* which serves *any*
purpose designed, as your first statement says? Please
elucidate.
water cycle.
explain how those "purposes" are evidence of design, which
was your initial assertion? Just because something operates
in a certain way as a result of physical laws, or is found
to be useful to some creatures, such as humans, fish, otters
and beavers, doesn't mean it was designed by some
intelligence to do or be either one.
Note: I put quotes around "purpose" to indicate just that,
that because something has a derived function such as, in
the case of rivers, the hydro cycle, which has nothing to do
with humans, or water supply and transport, which do, that
function need not be the result of anything more than the
working out of physical laws (the hydro cycle) or human
needs/desires (drinking and transportation).
for human continence. Just for the water cycle.
is not required to explain all that we see in nature,
including rivers and the hydro cycle? Would you care to do
something other than evade, waffle and obfuscate?
I;ve responded to this, perhaps not to you. But then, as I've
explained. The heart, eyes, lungs are designed for a specific purpose.
I own a vacation cabin in the mountains made from logs. I do not
consider the trees to have been designed for my log cabin. But
the trees served a purpose for which they were used. Do you not
see the difference. If no, then we will just agree to disagree.
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 07:52:21 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 10/2/23 11:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:And the purpose varies between, and sometimes within,
[...]I've provided examples of purposeful design observed in nature. You have >>> presented no justification for calling anything designed, where a purpose >>> was _served_. A design can serve a purpose for which it was not designed. >>> I own a vacation cabin in the mountains, built from logs, these trees were >>> not designed for that specific purpose, but the trees serve that purpose. >>> And you don't comprehend the difference.
Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose.
species. That is the point I've tried to make, which seems
to completely elude him for some reason. I'm tired of
trying.
*Anything*
can serve a purpose; in fact, multiple purposes. You (I assume; I don't
remember you stating it explicitly) ascribe to the heart the purpose of
pumping blood. I could say its larger purpose is keeping the animal
alive long enough to reproduce.
the advantage of explaining why hearts fail more in old age.) The null
hypothesis, on the third hand, is that hearts have no purpose; they just
happened as a result of undirected laws. And the null hypothesis is
consistent with all the evidence. You deciding to name a purpose for
something does not count as evidence.
Bob Casanova wrote:--
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 07:52:21 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 10/2/23 11:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:And the purpose varies between, and sometimes within,
[...]I've provided examples of purposeful design observed in nature. You have >>>> presented no justification for calling anything designed, where a purpose >>>> was _served_. A design can serve a purpose for which it was not designed. >>>> I own a vacation cabin in the mountains, built from logs, these trees were >>>> not designed for that specific purpose, but the trees serve that purpose. >>>> And you don't comprehend the difference.
Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose.
species. That is the point I've tried to make, which seems
to completely elude him for some reason. I'm tired of
trying.
*Anything*
can serve a purpose; in fact, multiple purposes. You (I assume; I don't >>> remember you stating it explicitly) ascribe to the heart the purpose of
pumping blood. I could say its larger purpose is keeping the animal
alive long enough to reproduce.
That's secondary, if the heart failed before reproduction, which happens, >then the secondary purpose is short-circuited. But be that as it may, I
did not confine the heart to one purpose only.
(That interpretation, by the way, has
the advantage of explaining why hearts fail more in old age.) The null
hypothesis, on the third hand, is that hearts have no purpose; they just >>> happened as a result of undirected laws. And the null hypothesis is
consistent with all the evidence. You deciding to name a purpose for
something does not count as evidence.
The null hypothesis? There is no alternative. No heart no life. Furthermore, >whether or not I named a purpose or not, when dinosaurs existed there is >evidence they had hearts, regardless of whether or not I or anyone named the >purpose.
I suspect TO's sole purpose is to be antagonistic......If so, I don't
need this.
I think it's time I depart from TO permanently!
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 14:18:52 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Since you replied to my post it might have been nice if
you'd replied to what I wrote, or even to what Mark wrote,
instead of your usual waffling. And it would be *wonderful*
if you'd address the actual point, rather than nitpicking
about one part of the post. Since you don't seem able to
grasp it, I'll try one more time. Per Mark's rather succinct
and fully descriptive comment:
"Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose."
Or,as has been said previously, purpose is in the mind of
the observer; it's not an intrinsic quality.
Now feel free to waffle again about inconsequential bits.
You can even waffle or complain about my use of
"inconsequential" rather than addressing the actual point.
<snip>Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 07:52:21 -0700, the following appeared inThat's secondary, if the heart failed before reproduction, which happens,
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 10/2/23 11:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:And the purpose varies between, and sometimes within,
[...]I've provided examples of purposeful design observed in nature. You have >>>>> presented no justification for calling anything designed, where a purpose
was _served_. A design can serve a purpose for which it was not designed. >>>>> I own a vacation cabin in the mountains, built from logs, these trees were
not designed for that specific purpose, but the trees serve that purpose. >>>>> And you don't comprehend the difference.
Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose.
species. That is the point I've tried to make, which seems
to completely elude him for some reason. I'm tired of
trying.
*Anything*
can serve a purpose; in fact, multiple purposes. You (I assume; I don't >>>> remember you stating it explicitly) ascribe to the heart the purpose of >>>> pumping blood. I could say its larger purpose is keeping the animal
alive long enough to reproduce.
then the secondary purpose is short-circuited. But be that as it may, I
did not confine the heart to one purpose only.
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 07:52:21 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 10/2/23 11:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:And the purpose varies between, and sometimes within,
[...]I've provided examples of purposeful design observed in nature. You
have
presented no justification for calling anything designed, where a
purpose
was _served_. A design can serve a purpose for which it was not
designed.
I own a vacation cabin in the mountains, built from logs, these
trees were
not designed for that specific purpose, but the trees serve that
purpose.
And you don't comprehend the difference.
Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose.
species. That is the point I've tried to make, which seems
to completely elude him for some reason. I'm tired of
trying.
*Anything*
can serve a purpose; in fact, multiple purposes. You (I assume; I don't >>> remember you stating it explicitly) ascribe to the heart the purpose of
pumping blood. I could say its larger purpose is keeping the animal
alive long enough to reproduce.
That's secondary, [...]
(That interpretation, by the way, has
the advantage of explaining why hearts fail more in old age.) The null
hypothesis, on the third hand, is that hearts have no purpose; they just >>> happened as a result of undirected laws. And the null hypothesis is
consistent with all the evidence. You deciding to name a purpose for
something does not count as evidence.
The null hypothesis? There is no alternative. No heart no life.
Furthermore,
whether or not I named a purpose or not, when dinosaurs existed there is evidence they had hearts, regardless of whether or not I or anyone named
the purpose.
I suspect TO's sole purpose is to be antagonistic......If so, I don't
need this.
I think it's time I depart from TO permanently!
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 14:18:52 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Since you replied to my post it might have been nice if
you'd replied to what I wrote, or even to what Mark wrote,
instead of your usual waffling. And it would be *wonderful*
if you'd address the actual point, rather than nitpicking
about one part of the post. Since you don't seem able to
grasp it, I'll try one more time. Per Mark's rather succinct
and fully descriptive comment:
"Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose."
I have used these words purpose and function almost
interchangeable. In English there is a technical distinction
between between the two. I have used these two words
interchangeably.
--
Or,as has been said previously, purpose is in the mind of
the observer; it's not an intrinsic quality.
Now feel free to waffle again about inconsequential bits.
You can even waffle or complain about my use of
"inconsequential" rather than addressing the actual point.
Okay if I use the words technically in a correct manor then
rivers serve a function, a path between upper areas to lower points
For a boat in the river, the river serves the purpose of transportation. >
<snip>Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 07:52:21 -0700, the following appeared inThat's secondary, if the heart failed before reproduction, which happens, >>> then the secondary purpose is short-circuited. But be that as it may, I
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 10/2/23 11:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:And the purpose varies between, and sometimes within,
[...]I've provided examples of purposeful design observed in nature. You have >>>>>> presented no justification for calling anything designed, where a purpose
was _served_. A design can serve a purpose for which it was not designed.
I own a vacation cabin in the mountains, built from logs, these trees were
not designed for that specific purpose, but the trees serve that purpose.
And you don't comprehend the difference.
Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose.
species. That is the point I've tried to make, which seems
to completely elude him for some reason. I'm tired of
trying.
*Anything*
can serve a purpose; in fact, multiple purposes. You (I assume; I don't >>>>> remember you stating it explicitly) ascribe to the heart the purpose of >>>>> pumping blood. I could say its larger purpose is keeping the animal
alive long enough to reproduce.
did not confine the heart to one purpose only.
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 20:57:30 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 14:18:52 -0400, the following appeared inI have used these words purpose and function almost
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Since you replied to my post it might have been nice if
you'd replied to what I wrote, or even to what Mark wrote,
instead of your usual waffling. And it would be *wonderful*
if you'd address the actual point, rather than nitpicking
about one part of the post. Since you don't seem able to
grasp it, I'll try one more time. Per Mark's rather succinct
and fully descriptive comment:
"Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose."
interchangeable. In English there is a technical distinction
between between the two. I have used these two wordsAnd that is your error; they are not synonyms.
interchangeably.
Or,as has been said previously, purpose is in the mind ofOkay if I use the words technically in a correct manor then
the observer; it's not an intrinsic quality.
Now feel free to waffle again about inconsequential bits.
You can even waffle or complain about my use of
"inconsequential" rather than addressing the actual point.
rivers serve a function, a path between upper areas to lower points
For a boat in the river, the river serves the purpose of transportation. > >>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
<snip>On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 07:52:21 -0700, the following appeared inThat's secondary, if the heart failed before reproduction, which happens, >>>> then the secondary purpose is short-circuited. But be that as it may, I >>>> did not confine the heart to one purpose only.
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 10/2/23 11:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:And the purpose varies between, and sometimes within,
[...]I've provided examples of purposeful design observed in nature. You have
presented no justification for calling anything designed, where a purpose
was _served_. A design can serve a purpose for which it was not designed.
I own a vacation cabin in the mountains, built from logs, these trees were
not designed for that specific purpose, but the trees serve that purpose.
And you don't comprehend the difference.
Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose.
species. That is the point I've tried to make, which seems
to completely elude him for some reason. I'm tired of
trying.
*Anything*
can serve a purpose; in fact, multiple purposes. You (I assume; I don't >>>>>> remember you stating it explicitly) ascribe to the heart the purpose of >>>>>> pumping blood. I could say its larger purpose is keeping the animal >>>>>> alive long enough to reproduce.
I suspect TO's sole purpose is to be antagonistic......If so, I don't
need this.
I think it's time I depart from TO permanently!
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 14:18:52 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Since you replied to my post it might have been nice if
you'd replied to what I wrote, or even to what Mark wrote,
instead of your usual waffling. And it would be *wonderful*
if you'd address the actual point, rather than nitpicking
about one part of the post. Since you don't seem able to
grasp it, I'll try one more time. Per Mark's rather succinct
and fully descriptive comment:
"Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose."
I have used these words purpose and function almost
interchangeable. In English there is a technical distinction
between between the two. I have used these two words
interchangeably.
Or,as has been said previously, purpose is in the mind of
the observer; it's not an intrinsic quality.
Now feel free to waffle again about inconsequential bits.
You can even waffle or complain about my use of
"inconsequential" rather than addressing the actual point.
Okay if I use the words technically in a correct manor then
rivers serve a function, a path between upper areas to lower points
For a boat in the river, the river serves the purpose of transportation.
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 20:57:30 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 14:18:52 -0400, the following appeared inI have used these words purpose and function almost
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Since you replied to my post it might have been nice if
you'd replied to what I wrote, or even to what Mark wrote,
instead of your usual waffling. And it would be *wonderful*
if you'd address the actual point, rather than nitpicking
about one part of the post. Since you don't seem able to
grasp it, I'll try one more time. Per Mark's rather succinct
and fully descriptive comment:
"Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose."
interchangeable. In English there is a technical distinction
between between the two. I have used these two words
interchangeably.
Okay if I use the words technically in a correct manor then
Or,as has been said previously, purpose is in the mind of
the observer; it's not an intrinsic quality.
Now feel free to waffle again about inconsequential bits.
You can even waffle or complain about my use of
"inconsequential" rather than addressing the actual point.
rivers serve a function, a path between upper areas to lower points
For a boat in the river, the river serves the purpose of transportation.
Does either of those imply that the river was designed?
[...]
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 20:57:30 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 14:18:52 -0400, the following appeared inI have used these words purpose and function almost
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Since you replied to my post it might have been nice if
you'd replied to what I wrote, or even to what Mark wrote,
instead of your usual waffling. And it would be *wonderful*
if you'd address the actual point, rather than nitpicking
about one part of the post. Since you don't seem able to
grasp it, I'll try one more time. Per Mark's rather succinct
and fully descriptive comment:
"Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose."
interchangeable. In English there is a technical distinction
between between the two. I have used these two wordsAnd that is your error; they are not synonyms.
interchangeably.
I know, but my error is not uncommon. >https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/purpose-vs-function
Or,as has been said previously, purpose is in the mind ofOkay if I use the words technically in a correct manor then
the observer; it's not an intrinsic quality.
Now feel free to waffle again about inconsequential bits.
You can even waffle or complain about my use of
"inconsequential" rather than addressing the actual point.
rivers serve a function, a path between upper areas to lower points
For a boat in the river, the river serves the purpose of transportation. > >>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
<snip>On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 07:52:21 -0700, the following appeared inThat's secondary, if the heart failed before reproduction, which happens, >>>>> then the secondary purpose is short-circuited. But be that as it may, I >>>>> did not confine the heart to one purpose only.
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 10/2/23 11:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:And the purpose varies between, and sometimes within,
[...]I've provided examples of purposeful design observed in nature. You have
presented no justification for calling anything designed, where a purpose
was _served_. A design can serve a purpose for which it was not designed.
I own a vacation cabin in the mountains, built from logs, these trees were
not designed for that specific purpose, but the trees serve that purpose.
And you don't comprehend the difference.
Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose.
species. That is the point I've tried to make, which seems
to completely elude him for some reason. I'm tired of
trying.
*Anything*
can serve a purpose; in fact, multiple purposes. You (I assume; I don't
remember you stating it explicitly) ascribe to the heart the purpose of >>>>>>> pumping blood. I could say its larger purpose is keeping the animal >>>>>>> alive long enough to reproduce.
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 07:52:21 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 10/2/23 11:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:And the purpose varies between, and sometimes within,
[...]I've provided examples of purposeful design observed in nature. You have >>>> presented no justification for calling anything designed, where a purpose
was _served_. A design can serve a purpose for which it was not designed. >>>> I own a vacation cabin in the mountains, built from logs, these trees were >>>> not designed for that specific purpose, but the trees serve that purpose. >>>> And you don't comprehend the difference.
Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose.
species. That is the point I've tried to make, which seems
to completely elude him for some reason. I'm tired of
trying.
*Anything*
can serve a purpose; in fact, multiple purposes. You (I assume; I don't >>> remember you stating it explicitly) ascribe to the heart the purpose of
pumping blood. I could say its larger purpose is keeping the animal
alive long enough to reproduce.
That's secondary, if the heart failed before reproduction, which happens, >then the secondary purpose is short-circuited. But be that as it may, I
did not confine the heart to one purpose only.
(That interpretation, by the way, has
the advantage of explaining why hearts fail more in old age.) The null
hypothesis, on the third hand, is that hearts have no purpose; they just >>> happened as a result of undirected laws. And the null hypothesis is
consistent with all the evidence. You deciding to name a purpose for
something does not count as evidence.
The null hypothesis? There is no alternative. No heart no life. Furthermore, >whether or not I named a purpose or not, when dinosaurs existed there is >evidence they had hearts, regardless of whether or not I or anyone named the >purpose.
I suspect TO's sole purpose is to be antagonistic......If so, I don't
need this.
I think it's time I depart from TO permanently!
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 20:57:30 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 14:18:52 -0400, the following appeared inI have used these words purpose and function almost
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Since you replied to my post it might have been nice if
you'd replied to what I wrote, or even to what Mark wrote,
instead of your usual waffling. And it would be *wonderful*
if you'd address the actual point, rather than nitpicking
about one part of the post. Since you don't seem able to
grasp it, I'll try one more time. Per Mark's rather succinct
and fully descriptive comment:
"Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose."
interchangeable. In English there is a technical distinction
between between the two. I have used these two wordsAnd that is your error; they are not synonyms.
interchangeably.
I know, but my error is not uncommon. >https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/purpose-vs-function
--Or,as has been said previously, purpose is in the mind ofOkay if I use the words technically in a correct manor then
the observer; it's not an intrinsic quality.
Now feel free to waffle again about inconsequential bits.
You can even waffle or complain about my use of
"inconsequential" rather than addressing the actual point.
rivers serve a function, a path between upper areas to lower points
For a boat in the river, the river serves the purpose of transportation. > >>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
<snip>On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 07:52:21 -0700, the following appeared inThat's secondary, if the heart failed before reproduction, which happens, >>>>> then the secondary purpose is short-circuited. But be that as it may, I >>>>> did not confine the heart to one purpose only.
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 10/2/23 11:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:And the purpose varies between, and sometimes within,
[...]I've provided examples of purposeful design observed in nature. You have
presented no justification for calling anything designed, where a purpose
was _served_. A design can serve a purpose for which it was not designed.
I own a vacation cabin in the mountains, built from logs, these trees were
not designed for that specific purpose, but the trees serve that purpose.
And you don't comprehend the difference.
Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose.
species. That is the point I've tried to make, which seems
to completely elude him for some reason. I'm tired of
trying.
*Anything*
can serve a purpose; in fact, multiple purposes. You (I assume; I don't
remember you stating it explicitly) ascribe to the heart the purpose of >>>>>>> pumping blood. I could say its larger purpose is keeping the animal >>>>>>> alive long enough to reproduce.
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 01:25:11 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 20:57:30 -0400, the following appeared inI know, but my error is not uncommon.
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 14:18:52 -0400, the following appeared inI have used these words purpose and function almost
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Since you replied to my post it might have been nice if
you'd replied to what I wrote, or even to what Mark wrote,
instead of your usual waffling. And it would be *wonderful*
if you'd address the actual point, rather than nitpicking
about one part of the post. Since you don't seem able to
grasp it, I'll try one more time. Per Mark's rather succinct
and fully descriptive comment:
"Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose."
interchangeable. In English there is a technical distinction
between between the two. I have used these two wordsAnd that is your error; they are not synonyms.
interchangeably.
https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/purpose-vs-function
Your cited article illustrates part of your problem with this point,
that you assume anything which has purpose/function is necessarily
purposely designed. This is a not uncommon assumption among people
with your training, that because you personally design things with
specific functions, you unconsciously accept the reverse, that
everything with specific functions is designed.
However, I know you know that is not the case. As I stated
previously, lots of things can be used as a hammer, but that's neither
their primary function, nor is it the function for which they were
designed.
More to the point of ID, since I know you know that lots of things
have lots of different functions, it is hubris to assume you know what
is the function for which some unknown designer designed them. That's
one reason ID is bad theology.
More to the point of evolution, living things struggle to stay alive,
and will do whatever they can to do so. It should be no surprise to
you in their struggle that living things will use parts of their
bodies in different and novel ways, and by so doing, change the
selection criteria applied to those parts, which ultimately leads to evolutionary change.
Or,as has been said previously, purpose is in the mind ofOkay if I use the words technically in a correct manor then
the observer; it's not an intrinsic quality.
Now feel free to waffle again about inconsequential bits.
You can even waffle or complain about my use of
"inconsequential" rather than addressing the actual point.
rivers serve a function, a path between upper areas to lower points
For a boat in the river, the river serves the purpose of transportation. > >>>>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
<snip>On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 07:52:21 -0700, the following appeared inThat's secondary, if the heart failed before reproduction, which happens,
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 10/2/23 11:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:And the purpose varies between, and sometimes within,
[...]I've provided examples of purposeful design observed in nature. You have
presented no justification for calling anything designed, where a purpose
was _served_. A design can serve a purpose for which it was not designed.
I own a vacation cabin in the mountains, built from logs, these trees were
not designed for that specific purpose, but the trees serve that purpose.
And you don't comprehend the difference.
Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose.
species. That is the point I've tried to make, which seems
to completely elude him for some reason. I'm tired of
trying.
*Anything*
can serve a purpose; in fact, multiple purposes. You (I assume; I don't
remember you stating it explicitly) ascribe to the heart the purpose of
pumping blood. I could say its larger purpose is keeping the animal >>>>>>>> alive long enough to reproduce.
then the secondary purpose is short-circuited. But be that as it may, I >>>>>> did not confine the heart to one purpose only.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 10:41:59 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 20:57:30 -0400, Ron DeanI never claimed rivers were designed, but that rivers are an
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:Does either of those imply that the river was designed?
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 14:18:52 -0400, the following appeared inI have used these words purpose and function almost
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Since you replied to my post it might have been nice if
you'd replied to what I wrote, or even to what Mark wrote,
instead of your usual waffling. And it would be *wonderful*
if you'd address the actual point, rather than nitpicking
about one part of the post. Since you don't seem able to
grasp it, I'll try one more time. Per Mark's rather succinct
and fully descriptive comment:
"Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose."
interchangeable. In English there is a technical distinction
between between the two. I have used these two words
interchangeably.
Okay if I use the words technically in a correct manor then
Or,as has been said previously, purpose is in the mind of
the observer; it's not an intrinsic quality.
Now feel free to waffle again about inconsequential bits.
You can even waffle or complain about my use of
"inconsequential" rather than addressing the actual point.
rivers serve a function, a path between upper areas to lower points
For a boat in the river, the river serves the purpose of transportation. >>>
integral function of the hydrologic (water) cycle. I consider
the water cycle to be part of the overall universal design.
You said earlier "If it serves a specific purpose or function, then
it's designed, regardless of how the design came about."
You are now saying "For a boat in the river, the river serves the
purpose of transportation". For your earlier claim to stand, the river
must be designed but you're saying it's not.
Can you resolve the contradiction in your statements?
[...]
Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 20:57:30 -0400, Ron DeanI never claimed rivers were designed, but that rivers are an
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 14:18:52 -0400, the following appeared inI have used these words purpose and function almost
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Since you replied to my post it might have been nice if
you'd replied to what I wrote, or even to what Mark wrote,
instead of your usual waffling. And it would be *wonderful*
if you'd address the actual point, rather than nitpicking
about one part of the post. Since you don't seem able to
grasp it, I'll try one more time. Per Mark's rather succinct
and fully descriptive comment:
"Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose."
interchangeable. In English there is a technical distinction
between between the two. I have used these two words
interchangeably.
Okay if I use the words technically in a correct manor then
Or,as has been said previously, purpose is in the mind of
the observer; it's not an intrinsic quality.
Now feel free to waffle again about inconsequential bits.
You can even waffle or complain about my use of
"inconsequential" rather than addressing the actual point.
rivers serve a function, a path between upper areas to lower points
For a boat in the river, the river serves the purpose of transportation.
Does either of those imply that the river was designed?
integral function of the hydrologic (water) cycle. I consider
the water cycle to be part of the overall universal design.
[...]
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 10:41:59 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 20:57:30 -0400, Ron DeanI never claimed rivers were designed, but that rivers are an
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:Does either of those imply that the river was designed?
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 14:18:52 -0400, the following appeared inI have used these words purpose and function almost
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Since you replied to my post it might have been nice if
you'd replied to what I wrote, or even to what Mark wrote,
instead of your usual waffling. And it would be *wonderful*
if you'd address the actual point, rather than nitpicking
about one part of the post. Since you don't seem able to
grasp it, I'll try one more time. Per Mark's rather succinct
and fully descriptive comment:
"Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose."
interchangeable. In English there is a technical distinction
between between the two. I have used these two words
interchangeably.
Okay if I use the words technically in a correct manor then
Or,as has been said previously, purpose is in the mind of
the observer; it's not an intrinsic quality.
Now feel free to waffle again about inconsequential bits.
You can even waffle or complain about my use of
"inconsequential" rather than addressing the actual point.
rivers serve a function, a path between upper areas to lower points
For a boat in the river, the river serves the purpose of transportation. >>>>
integral function of the hydrologic (water) cycle. I consider
the water cycle to be part of the overall universal design.
You said earlier "If it serves a specific purpose or function, then
it's designed, regardless of how the design came about."
You are now saying "For a boat in the river, the river serves the
purpose of transportation". For your earlier claim to stand, the river
must be designed but you're saying it's not.
Can you resolve the contradiction in your statements?
I've used the words function and purpose interchangeable.
And I've been proven wrong!
[...]
Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 14:18:52 -0400, Ron DeanAntagonism teaches no skills.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
I suspect TO's sole purpose is to be antagonistic......If so, I don't
need this.
I think it's time I depart from TO permanently!
Walking off the pitch in a huff generally does little to improve one's
skills.
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 01:25:11 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 20:57:30 -0400, the following appeared inI know, but my error is not uncommon.
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 14:18:52 -0400, the following appeared inI have used these words purpose and function almost
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Since you replied to my post it might have been nice if
you'd replied to what I wrote, or even to what Mark wrote,
instead of your usual waffling. And it would be *wonderful*
if you'd address the actual point, rather than nitpicking
about one part of the post. Since you don't seem able to
grasp it, I'll try one more time. Per Mark's rather succinct
and fully descriptive comment:
"Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose."
interchangeable. In English there is a technical distinction
between between the two. I have used these two wordsAnd that is your error; they are not synonyms.
interchangeably.
https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/purpose-vs-function
Your cited article illustrates part of your problem with this point,
that you assume anything which has purpose/function is necessarily
purposely designed. This is a not uncommon assumption among people
with your training, that because you personally design things with
specific functions, you unconsciously accept the reverse, that
everything with specific functions is designed.
There is a technical distinction between the words function and purpose.
So, I admit I wrongly used purpose when function would have been the
better choice.
However, I know you know that is not the case. As I stated
previously, lots of things can be used as a hammer, but that's neither
their primary function, nor is it the function for which they were
designed.
More to the point of ID, since I know you know that lots of things
have lots of different functions, it is hubris to assume you know what
is the function for which some unknown designer designed them. That's
one reason ID is bad theology.
More to the point of evolution, living things struggle to stay alive,
and will do whatever they can to do so. It should be no surprise to
you in their struggle that living things will use parts of their
bodies in different and novel ways, and by so doing, change the
selection criteria applied to those parts, which ultimately leads to
evolutionary change.
Or,as has been said previously, purpose is in the mind ofOkay if I use the words technically in a correct manor then
the observer; it's not an intrinsic quality.
Now feel free to waffle again about inconsequential bits.
You can even waffle or complain about my use of
"inconsequential" rather than addressing the actual point.
rivers serve a function, a path between upper areas to lower points
For a boat in the river, the river serves the purpose of transportation. >
<snip>Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 07:52:21 -0700, the following appeared inThat's secondary, if the heart failed before reproduction, which happens,
talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 10/2/23 11:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:And the purpose varies between, and sometimes within,
[...]I've provided examples of purposeful design observed in nature. You have
presented no justification for calling anything designed, where a purpose
was _served_. A design can serve a purpose for which it was not designed.
I own a vacation cabin in the mountains, built from logs, these trees were
not designed for that specific purpose, but the trees serve that purpose.
And you don't comprehend the difference.
Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose.
species. That is the point I've tried to make, which seems
to completely elude him for some reason. I'm tired of
trying.
*Anything*
can serve a purpose; in fact, multiple purposes. You (I assume; I don't
remember you stating it explicitly) ascribe to the heart the purpose of
pumping blood. I could say its larger purpose is keeping the animal >>>>>>>>> alive long enough to reproduce.
then the secondary purpose is short-circuited. But be that as it may, I >>>>>>> did not confine the heart to one purpose only.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
I never claimed rivers were designed, but that rivers are an
integral function of the hydrologic (water) cycle. I consider
the water cycle to be part of the overall universal design.
On 10/4/23 7:41 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
I never claimed rivers were designed, but that rivers are an
integral function of the hydrologic (water) cycle. I consider
the water cycle to be part of the overall universal design.
Do you consider darwinian evolution to be part of the overall universal design? If not, what prevents it?
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 11:16:00 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 01:25:11 -0400, Ron DeanThere is a technical distinction between the words function and purpose.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 20:57:30 -0400, the following appeared inI know, but my error is not uncommon.
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 14:18:52 -0400, the following appeared inI have used these words purpose and function almost
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Since you replied to my post it might have been nice if
you'd replied to what I wrote, or even to what Mark wrote,
instead of your usual waffling. And it would be *wonderful*
if you'd address the actual point, rather than nitpicking
about one part of the post. Since you don't seem able to
grasp it, I'll try one more time. Per Mark's rather succinct
and fully descriptive comment:
"Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose."
interchangeable. In English there is a technical distinction
between between the two. I have used these two wordsAnd that is your error; they are not synonyms.
interchangeably.
https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/purpose-vs-function
Your cited article illustrates part of your problem with this point,
that you assume anything which has purpose/function is necessarily
purposely designed. This is a not uncommon assumption among people
with your training, that because you personally design things with
specific functions, you unconsciously accept the reverse, that
everything with specific functions is designed.
So, I admit I wrongly used purpose when function would have been the
better choice.
The technical distinctions between function and purpose don't inform
ID.
However, I know you know that is not the case. As I stated
previously, lots of things can be used as a hammer, but that's neither
their primary function, nor is it the function for which they were
designed.
More to the point of ID, since I know you know that lots of things
have lots of different functions, it is hubris to assume you know what
is the function for which some unknown designer designed them. That's
one reason ID is bad theology.
More to the point of evolution, living things struggle to stay alive,
and will do whatever they can to do so. It should be no surprise to
you in their struggle that living things will use parts of their
bodies in different and novel ways, and by so doing, change the
selection criteria applied to those parts, which ultimately leads to
evolutionary change.
Or,as has been said previously, purpose is in the mind ofOkay if I use the words technically in a correct manor then
the observer; it's not an intrinsic quality.
Now feel free to waffle again about inconsequential bits.
You can even waffle or complain about my use of
"inconsequential" rather than addressing the actual point.
rivers serve a function, a path between upper areas to lower points >>>>>> For a boat in the river, the river serves the purpose of transportation. >
<snip>Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 07:52:21 -0700, the following appeared in >>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Mark IsaakThat's secondary, if the heart failed before reproduction, which happens,
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 10/2/23 11:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:And the purpose varies between, and sometimes within,
[...]I've provided examples of purposeful design observed in nature. You have
presented no justification for calling anything designed, where a purpose
was _served_. A design can serve a purpose for which it was not designed.
I own a vacation cabin in the mountains, built from logs, these trees were
not designed for that specific purpose, but the trees serve that purpose.
And you don't comprehend the difference.
Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose.
species. That is the point I've tried to make, which seems
to completely elude him for some reason. I'm tired of
trying.
*Anything*
can serve a purpose; in fact, multiple purposes. You (I assume; I don't
remember you stating it explicitly) ascribe to the heart the purpose of
pumping blood. I could say its larger purpose is keeping the animal >>>>>>>>>> alive long enough to reproduce.
then the secondary purpose is short-circuited. But be that as it may, I
did not confine the heart to one purpose only.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/4/23 7:41 AM, Ron Dean wrote:I think that during the Cambrian almost all Phylum appeared
I never claimed rivers were designed, but that rivers are an
integral function of the hydrologic (water) cycle. I consider
the water cycle to be part of the overall universal design.
Do you consider darwinian evolution to be part of the overall universal
design? If not, what prevents it?
I do not believe that there was any examples of a step by step
change from one phyla to another and a different phyla.
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 11:16:00 -0400, Ron DeanAs far as I'm concerned, this technical issue altered nothing pertaining
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 01:25:11 -0400, Ron DeanThere is a technical distinction between the words function and purpose. >>> So, I admit I wrongly used purpose when function would have been the
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 20:57:30 -0400, the following appeared inI know, but my error is not uncommon.
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 14:18:52 -0400, the following appeared inI have used these words purpose and function almost
talk.origins, posted by Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com>:
Since you replied to my post it might have been nice if
you'd replied to what I wrote, or even to what Mark wrote,
instead of your usual waffling. And it would be *wonderful*
if you'd address the actual point, rather than nitpicking
about one part of the post. Since you don't seem able to
grasp it, I'll try one more time. Per Mark's rather succinct
and fully descriptive comment:
"Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose."
interchangeable. In English there is a technical distinction
between between the two. I have used these two wordsAnd that is your error; they are not synonyms.
interchangeably.
https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/purpose-vs-function
Your cited article illustrates part of your problem with this point,
that you assume anything which has purpose/function is necessarily
purposely designed. This is a not uncommon assumption among people
with your training, that because you personally design things with
specific functions, you unconsciously accept the reverse, that
everything with specific functions is designed.
better choice.
The technical distinctions between function and purpose don't inform
ID.
to ID. So, if you disagree. Jill please explain your thoughts on this.
Your argument suffers similar logical errors in either case.
I must have missed the case you made against me.
However, I know you know that is not the case. As I stated
previously, lots of things can be used as a hammer, but that's neither >>>> their primary function, nor is it the function for which they were
designed.
More to the point of ID, since I know you know that lots of things
have lots of different functions, it is hubris to assume you know what >>>> is the function for which some unknown designer designed them. That's >>>> one reason ID is bad theology.
More to the point of evolution, living things struggle to stay alive,
and will do whatever they can to do so. It should be no surprise to
you in their struggle that living things will use parts of their
bodies in different and novel ways, and by so doing, change the
selection criteria applied to those parts, which ultimately leads to
evolutionary change.
Or,as has been said previously, purpose is in the mind ofOkay if I use the words technically in a correct manor then
the observer; it's not an intrinsic quality.
Now feel free to waffle again about inconsequential bits.
You can even waffle or complain about my use of
"inconsequential" rather than addressing the actual point.
rivers serve a function, a path between upper areas to lower points >>>>>>> For a boat in the river, the river serves the purpose of transportation. >
<snip>Bob Casanova wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2023 07:52:21 -0700, the following appeared in >>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Mark IsaakThat's secondary, if the heart failed before reproduction, which happens,
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
On 10/2/23 11:26 AM, Ron Dean wrote:And the purpose varies between, and sometimes within,
[...]I've provided examples of purposeful design observed in nature. You have
presented no justification for calling anything designed, where a purpose
was _served_. A design can serve a purpose for which it was not designed.
I own a vacation cabin in the mountains, built from logs, these trees were
not designed for that specific purpose, but the trees serve that purpose.
And you don't comprehend the difference.
Nature supplies the function. *You* ascribe the purpose. >>>>>>>>>>>
species. That is the point I've tried to make, which seems >>>>>>>>>> to completely elude him for some reason. I'm tired of
trying.
*Anything*
can serve a purpose; in fact, multiple purposes. You (I assume; I don't
remember you stating it explicitly) ascribe to the heart the purpose of
pumping blood. I could say its larger purpose is keeping the animal >>>>>>>>>>> alive long enough to reproduce.
then the secondary purpose is short-circuited. But be that as it may, I
did not confine the heart to one purpose only.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/4/23 7:41 AM, Ron Dean wrote:I think that during the Cambrian almost all Phylum appeared
I never claimed rivers were designed, but that rivers are an
integral function of the hydrologic (water) cycle. I consider
the water cycle to be part of the overall universal design.
Do you consider darwinian evolution to be part of the overall
universal design? If not, what prevents it?
I do not believe that there was any examples of a step by step
change from one phyla to another and a different phyla.
I think that during the Cambrian almost all Phylum appeared
I do not believe that there was any examples of a step by step
change from one phyla to another and a different phyla.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 07:54:23 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,058 |
| Messages: | 6,416,648 |
