look at Neanderthal Man for example. I remember
when he was a bent over ape-like man.
In a mindless, care-less, blind and indifferent universe how is it that
DNA has its own Proofreading and multiple Self Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within its molecule and
engages multiple mechanisms to repair A multitudes of mutations. How
could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, and why and how?
By
random mutations and natural selection which detects pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes to the defect in the DNA molecule? How can the P&R "know" when the information
in the DNA molecule is correct?
Since, information is a one way street (Central Dogma - Crick) DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So, survival of the fittest can have part in the P&R mechanisms.
I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms. But
the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that 200,000
years ago the DNA's Proofreading and Repair
machines were not far better than they are today, and due to the 2/nd
law and time, have devolved
to the much lesser perfection we find in our DNA today?
In a mindless, care-less, blind and indifferent universe how is it that
DNA has its own Proofreading and multiple Self Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within its molecule and
engages multiple mechanisms to repair A multitudes of mutations. How
could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, and why and how? By random mutations and natural selection which detects pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes to the defect in the DNA molecule? How can the P&R "know" when the information
in the DNA molecule is correct?
Since, information is a one way street (Central Dogma - Crick) DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So, survival of the fittest can have part in the P&R mechanisms.
I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms. But
the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that 200,000
years ago the DNA's Proofreading and Repair
machines were not far better than they are today, and due to the 2/nd
law and time, have devolved
to the much lesser perfection we find in our DNA today?
On 29/09/2023 02:04, Ron Dean wrote:
In a mindless, care-less, blind and indifferent universe how is it
that DNA has its own Proofreading and multiple Self Repair Mechanisms,
(P&R) which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within its molecule
and engages multiple mechanisms to repair A multitudes of mutations.
How could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, and why and
how? By random mutations and natural selection which detects
pre-existing mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair
enzymes to the defect in the DNA molecule? How can the P&R "know"
when the information in the DNA molecule is correct?
Since, information is a one way street (Central Dogma - Crick) DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule.
So, survival of the fittest can have part in the P&R mechanisms.
I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms. But
the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that 200,000
years ago the DNA's Proofreading and Repair
machines were not far better than they are today, and due to the 2/nd
law and time, have devolved
to the much lesser perfection we find in our DNA today?
Your mask is slipping.
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 04:05:51 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
In a mindless, care-less, blind and indifferent universe how is it thatIt is hard to understand what you ask. Damaged DNA might lose important function so it is obviously bad and therefore there is pressure to repair it.
DNA has its own Proofreading and multiple Self Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within its molecule and
engages multiple mechanisms to repair A multitudes of mutations. How
could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, and why and how?
ByTake case by case. For example when one of nucleobases is damaged.
random mutations and natural selection which detects pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes to the
defect in the DNA molecule? How can the P&R "know" when the information
in the DNA molecule is correct?
As a base in DNA is always part of base pair with nucleotide in other strand of double helix the information what it was is still there. Other member of pair is not damaged.
Since, information is a one way street (Central Dogma - Crick) DNA canYou should not avoid learning what we already know. Just guessing
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So,
survival of the fittest can have part in the P&R mechanisms.
leads to strange thoughts like that.
I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms. ButMay be, but unlikely. All mammals have about same mutation rate.
the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that 200,000
years ago the DNA's Proofreading and Repair
machines were not far better than they are today, and due to the 2/nd
law and time, have devolved
to the much lesser perfection we find in our DNA today?
Much less perfection in human genome is because we compensate
bad mutations. Squirrel with bad hearing will likely die young, deaf human can live well and give offspring. So we have more bad genes in our
population than squirrels have, despite mutation rate is same. Birds
probably need even more perfection (as flying is risky task) and so
their mutation rate is noticeably lower than that of mammals.
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 04:05:51 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
In a mindless, care-less, blind and indifferent universe how is it that >> DNA has its own Proofreading and multiple Self Repair Mechanisms, (P&R) >> which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within its molecule andIt is hard to understand what you ask. Damaged DNA might lose important function so it is obviously bad and therefore there is pressure to repair it.
engages multiple mechanisms to repair A multitudes of mutations. How
could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, and why and how?
But in a universe where there is no mind, no thought, no will and no purpose from where does the pressure to repair come from? Also proofreading which detects the mutation first, then signals the repair mechanics. How did
this get
started, and what were the steps by step natural process that brought
about
the P&R system.
In a universe where there is no good, no bad and no right and no wrong
there
can be nothing that cares.
ByTake case by case. For example when one of nucleobases is damaged.
random mutations and natural selection which detects pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes to the >> defect in the DNA molecule? How can the P&R "know" when the information >> in the DNA molecule is correct?
As a base in DNA is always part of base pair with nucleotide in other strand
of double helix the information what it was is still there. Other member of
pair is not damaged.
Since, information is a one way street (Central Dogma - Crick) DNA canYou should not avoid learning what we already know. Just guessing
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So, >> survival of the fittest can have part in the P&R mechanisms.
leads to strange thoughts like that.
Scientist can in great detail explain exactly and precisely how the P&R works, this can be observed and studied. But they do not and have not explained to any comparable degree why or how the P&R system(s)
arose. In the naturalistic universe, there is nothing that "cares".
However, in the case of deliberate purposeful design of the detect and repair mechanics, which seem more rational and logical, there is something that cares.
I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms. ButMay be, but unlikely. All mammals have about same mutation rate.
the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that 200,000
years ago the DNA's Proofreading and Repair
machines were not far better than they are today, and due to the 2/nd
law and time, have devolved
to the much lesser perfection we find in our DNA today?
Much less perfection in human genome is because we compensate
bad mutations. Squirrel with bad hearing will likely die young, deaf human can live well and give offspring. So we have more bad genes in our population than squirrels have, despite mutation rate is same. Birds probably need even more perfection (as flying is risky task) and so
their mutation rate is noticeably lower than that of mammals.
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 04:05:51 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
In a mindless, care-less, blind and indifferent universe how is it that >> DNA has its own Proofreading and multiple Self Repair Mechanisms, (P&R) >> which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within its molecule andIt is hard to understand what you ask. Damaged DNA might lose important function so it is obviously bad and therefore there is pressure to repair it.
engages multiple mechanisms to repair A multitudes of mutations. How
could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, and why and how?
But in a universe where there is no mind, no thought, no will and no purpose from where does the pressure to repair come from?
Also proofreading which
detects the mutation first, then signals the repair mechanics. How did
this get started, and what were the steps by step natural process that brought
about the P&R system.
In a universe where there is no good, no bad and no right and no wrong
there can be nothing that cares.
ByTake case by case. For example when one of nucleobases is damaged.
random mutations and natural selection which detects pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes to the >> defect in the DNA molecule? How can the P&R "know" when the information >> in the DNA molecule is correct?
As a base in DNA is always part of base pair with nucleotide in other strand
of double helix the information what it was is still there. Other member of
pair is not damaged.
Since, information is a one way street (Central Dogma - Crick) DNA canYou should not avoid learning what we already know. Just guessing
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So, >> survival of the fittest can have part in the P&R mechanisms.
leads to strange thoughts like that.
Scientist can in great detail explain exactly and precisely how the P&R works, this can be observed and studied. But they do not and have not explained to any comparable degree why or how the P&R system(s)
arose. In the naturalistic universe, there is nothing that "cares".
However, in the case of deliberate purposeful design of the detect and repair mechanics, which seem more rational and logical, there is something that cares.
I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms. ButMay be, but unlikely. All mammals have about same mutation rate.
the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that 200,000
years ago the DNA's Proofreading and Repair
machines were not far better than they are today, and due to the 2/nd
law and time, have devolved
to the much lesser perfection we find in our DNA today?
Much less perfection in human genome is because we compensate
bad mutations. Squirrel with bad hearing will likely die young, deaf human can live well and give offspring. So we have more bad genes in our population than squirrels have, despite mutation rate is same. Birds probably need even more perfection (as flying is risky task) and so
their mutation rate is noticeably lower than that of mammals.
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered. However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is itinformation in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then
engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when the
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is aone way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So,
how can survival of the fittest have any part, in the P&R mechanisms.
I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that the > DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better then, than
they are today?
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered. However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject. Furthermore, I doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
.. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it thatinformation in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then
engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations. Could this have
evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when the
..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is aone way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So,
how can survival of the fittest have any part, in the P&R mechanisms.
I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms.
The consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes
are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions
many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects.
Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few beneficial mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that
the > DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better
then, than
they are today?
I think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes can
bring about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any
fundamental religious.
folk.
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered. However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject. Furthermore, I doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
.. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is itinformation in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when the
..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is aone way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So, how can survival of the fittest have any part, in the P&R mechanisms.
I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms.
The consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes
are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions
many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects.
Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few beneficial mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that the > DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better then, than
they are today?
I think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes can
bring about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any fundamental religious.
folk.
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:41:15 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising, >> but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject. Furthermore, I >> doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is itinformation in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then
engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when the
Ron, lots of people here are very familiar with DNA proof reading and repair.
Your interest really seems to be more in whether the universe cares about you, and that is, to me, a totally separate question from the question of evolution and the bits of biochemistry that you hear about from time to time.
..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is aone way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So,
how can survival of the fittest have any part, in the P&R mechanisms.
I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms.
The consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes
are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions
many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness
missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects.
Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few beneficial >> mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that the > DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better then, thanI think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes can
they are today?
bring about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative
processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any
fundamental religious.
folk.
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered. >However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject. Furthermore, I >doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an >amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites >describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
.. >https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is itinformation in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then
engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when the
..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is aone way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So,
how can survival of the fittest have any part, in the P&R mechanisms.
I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms.
The consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes
are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions
many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness >missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects.
Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few beneficial >mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that the > DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better then, than
they are today?
I think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes can
bring about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative >processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any
fundamental religious.
folk.
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
Ron Dean
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info.
But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
.. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it thatinformation in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then
engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations. Could this have
evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when the
..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is aone way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So,
how can survival of the fittest have any part, in the P&R mechanisms.
I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms.
The consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes
are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions
many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects.
Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few beneficial mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that the
DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better then, thanthey are today?
I think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes can
bring about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any
fundamental religious.
folk.
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered. However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject. Furthermore, I doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:Why is it never discussed on TO? I'm not sure. We generally only end up discussing bits of biochemistry and genetics that the ID folks talk about. So maybe the question is why haven't ID advocates focused on DNA repair. I don't know. They seem to like
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:41:15 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered. >> However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject. Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an >> amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated >> to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is itinformation in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then >>> engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when the
Ron, lots of people here are very familiar with DNA proof reading and repair.
Why then is it _never_ discussed?
On all the years I've been on this NG
I have
never seen it. I know there are textbooks and sites about how
proofreading and
repair machinery detects mutations and then signals certain mechanisms
to remove the mutation and then, yet another enzyme is signaled to replace it with corrected code. But how with all that's known how and why is this not considered as an example of deliberate purposeful design. If not
design,
then please explain exactly how and why did this came about through
random, aimless, accidental natural processes? And explain why no faith is required.
It is taught in all introductory molecular biology and genetics courses
and has been for decades. You can learn about it by finding a textbook
and reading. Whenever people here explain some aspect of biochemistry or genetics or evolution to you, you entirely ignore the explanations and
just make the same arguments and ask the same questions you asked
before. Maybe somebody else is willing to write you a brief summary of
DNA repair mechanisms, but I'm not anymore.
Your interest really seems to be more in whether the universe cares about you, and that is, to me, a totally separate question from the question of evolution and the bits of biochemistry that you hear about from time to time.
..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is aone way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So, >>> how can survival of the fittest have any part, in the P&R mechanisms. >>> I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms.
The consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes
are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions >> many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness >> missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects.
Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few beneficial
mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that the > DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better then, thanI think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes can
they are today?
bring about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative >> processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any
fundamental religious.
folk.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron DeanMaybe, the origins of these DNA proofreading and repair protein machines
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising, >> but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject. Furthermore, I >> doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.But nothing which explains how and why these mechanisms came about.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it..
that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then
engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
to the defect in the DNA molecule? How can the P&R "know" when the
information in the DNA molecule is Correct?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is a
one way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So,
how can survival of the fittest, have any part, in the P&R mechanisms.
I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms.
The consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes
are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions
many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness
missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects.
Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few beneficial >> mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that
the DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better then, than
they are today?
I think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes (bringing) >> about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative
processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any
fundamental religious.
folk.
I think it requires religious faith to expect opinions without
expressed basis to support a persuasive line of reasoning. I leave as
an exercise whose thinking is closer to reality.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:41:15 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered. >> However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject. Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an >> amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated >> to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is itinformation in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then >>> engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when the
Ron, lots of people here are very familiar with DNA proof reading and repair.
Why then is it _never_ discussed? On all the years I've been on this NG
I have
never seen it.
proofreading and
repair machinery detects mutations and then signals certain mechanisms
to remove the mutation and then, yet another enzyme is signaled to replace it with corrected code. But how with all that's known how and why is this not considered as an example of deliberate purposeful design. If not
design,
then please explain exactly how and why did this came about through
random, aimless, accidental natural processes? And explain why no faith is required.
Your interest really seems to be more in whether the universe cares about you, and that is, to me, a totally separate question from the question of evolution and the bits of biochemistry that you hear about from time to time.
..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is aone way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So, >>> how can survival of the fittest have any part, in the P&R mechanisms. >>> I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms.
The consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes
are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions >> many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness >> missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects.
Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few beneficial
mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that the > DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better then, thanI think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes can
they are today?
bring about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative >> processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any
fundamental religious.
folk.
On 2023-10-21 21:38:19 +0000, Ron Dean said:
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
Ron Dean
Proofreading has been known for many years (back to the 1970s, I would guess); your recent discovery was about half a century too late to earn
you a Nobel Prize.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not
recall ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
Why is it surprising? Do you expect discussion of things that everyone
in the subject knows? How are you getting on with deciphering the
genetic code?
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
It is extremely rare for useful advances in science to be made by people
in the public at large sitting in their arm chairs who get teir
information from creationist propaganda. I can't think of an example.
Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info.
If that is true, whose fault is it?
But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is itthe information in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then
engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations. Could this
have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when
Trying getting away from your creationist propaganda and read a serious textbook.
..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information isa one way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So,
how can survival of the fittest have any part, in the P&R mechanisms.
I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms.
The consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes
are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions
many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness
missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects.
Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few
beneficial
mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say thatI think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes can
the > DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better
then, than
they are today?
;
bring about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative
processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any
fundamental religious.
folk.
Why don't you try to educate yourself before speculating about things?
On 21/10/2023 22:38, Ron Dean wrote:
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not
recall ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
Furthermore, I doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
That's a rather low opinion of the ID community you have. If you think
Behe, Denton and Tour are so ignorant why do you place so much weight on their opinions.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-21 21:38:19 +0000, Ron Dean said:
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
Ron Dean
Proofreading has been known for many years (back to the 1970s, I would guess); your recent discovery was about half a century too late to earn you a Nobel Prize.
Actually, the discovery of this was made during the 1930's, but nothing
came of it. Then again during the 1940's it was discovered again when scientist working with radiation at oak ridge during nuclear weapons development. Thy were studying the effects of radiation on biological systems when they discovered that the repair characteristic, but because
of bias and politics it was not studied.
In the 1950's experment with uv light were being conducted. It was
know that uv mutated and could kill cells. Another scientist working
with e coli became frustrated and confused by his light experiments.
He did not understand how a mutated cell did not stay mutated. This
was before the Watson and Crick discovery in 1953.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not
recall ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
Why is it surprising? Do you expect discussion of things that everyone
in the subject knows? How are you getting on with deciphering the
genetic code?
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
It is extremely rare for useful advances in science to be made by people in the public at large sitting in their arm chairs who get teir information from creationist propaganda. I can't think of an example.
Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info.
If that is true, whose fault is it?
But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated >> to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is itthe information in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then >>> engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations. Could this
have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when
Trying getting away from your creationist propaganda and read a serious textbook.
Again, I do not believe any creationist or IDests knows anything about this subject. You don't either: you made no attempt to answer any of my questions,
Your "advice" to me is nothing more than your effort to _escape_.
..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information isa one way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So, >>> how can survival of the fittest have any part, in the P&R mechanisms. >>> I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms.
The consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes
are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions >> many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness >> missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects.
Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few
beneficial
mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say thatI think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes can
the > DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better
then, than
they are today?
bring about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative >> processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any
fundamental religious.
folk.
Why don't you try to educate yourself before speculating about things?
You are a brain washed goddamned fool!
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:36:16 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-21 21:38:19 +0000, Ron Dean said:Actually, the discovery of this was made during the 1930's, but nothing
Proofreading has been known for many years (back to the 1970s, I wouldDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered. >>>
Ron Dean
guess); your recent discovery was about half a century too late to earn
you a Nobel Prize.
came of it. Then again during the 1940's it was discovered again when
scientist working with radiation at oak ridge during nuclear weapons
development. Thy were studying the effects of radiation on biological
systems when they discovered that the repair characteristic, but because
of bias and politics it was not studied.
In the 1950's experment with uv light were being conducted. It was
know that uv mutated and could kill cells. Another scientist working
with e coli became frustrated and confused by his light experiments.
He did not understand how a mutated cell did not stay mutated. This
was before the Watson and Crick discovery in 1953.
Again, I do not believe any creationist or IDests knows anything about this >> subject. You don't either: you made no attempt to answer any of my
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not
recall ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising, >>>> but very curious.
Why is it surprising? Do you expect discussion of things that everyone
in the subject knows? How are you getting on with deciphering the
genetic code?
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
It is extremely rare for useful advances in science to be made by people >>> in the public at large sitting in their arm chairs who get teir
information from creationist propaganda. I can't think of an example.
Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info.
If that is true, whose fault is it?
But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated >>>> to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it> direction plan or purpose how and why?
that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then >>>>> engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations. Could this
have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing> to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
the information in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
Trying getting away from your creationist propaganda and read a serious
textbook.
questions,
Your "advice" to me is nothing more than your effort to _escape_.
You are a brain washed goddamned fool!..
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is >>>> a one way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So, >>>>> how can survival of the fittest have any part, in the P&R mechanisms. >>>>> I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms.
The consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes
are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions >>>> many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness >>>> missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects.
Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few
beneficial
mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that> they are today?
the > DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better
then, than
>
I think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes can
bring about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative >>>> processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any
fundamental religious.
folk.
Why don't you try to educate yourself before speculating about things?
You are in a poor position to call others fools. Above, you specify P&R mechanisms.Please forget I wrote that.
Anybody who knows biochemistry readily sees that Athel is referring to mechanisms.
You revert to discussion of it being known that DNA has proofreading and repair
capabilities but the mechanisms weren't understood.
They are now understood in pretty good detail. But you haven't even begun to understand those mechanisms, or mechanisms of catalysis in general. But you feel entitled to call an expert of enzymatic catalysis a fool. An analogy is for
someone who knows nothing of the aerodynamics of flight to call an aerodynamics
engineer who develops and tests wing designs a fool because they don't understand
that flighting machines are magic that have copied angel wings.
Further, you have show no inclination or interest to learn about simple chemical
catalysis, or enzymatic catalysis. You have no idea what experiments are planned
and conducted, how data is acquired or processed, or how deductions are formed.
You also don't understand how comparative genetics is used to explore the evolutionary
histories of the enzymes involved. One of the paper Burkhard cites above does a
very good job of the latter. And it reveals some relevant things.
DNA repair has overlaps with transcription, borrowing and recycling many of the
protein domains involved. And the systems are very flexible with the same sets
of protein functional domains appearing in different order in different repair systems.
This implies evolutionary origins for reasons even mediocre students understand.
But you aren't a student of any kind. You just beat a worn out drum claiming it seems
designed to you, from your perspective of near total ignorance of how functional
proteins have been found to have evolved. And you don't want to put in the effort to
learn. You don't want to work, you just want to bang on the drum all day.
No need for you to repeat your story about health problems, and going back to work as a contractor. You've told it about a dozen times. It's a tough break, but
while it may be in the way of you putting in the time to learn some science, it's
not an excuse to make ignorant accusations towards those who have spent much of their lives learning and working in the relevant sciences. You don't even need
to believe us, but damn if you don't look like a fool when you call others fools
from your foundation of ignorance.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:If you were actually interested in the evolution of DNA repair systems, you could read about it. Burkhard gave you several useful links on the subject. Or you could search yourself on Google Scholar or PubMed. But don't ask the rest of us to write review
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:36:16 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-21 21:38:19 +0000, Ron Dean said:Actually, the discovery of this was made during the 1930's, but nothing >> came of it. Then again during the 1940's it was discovered again when
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
Ron Dean
Proofreading has been known for many years (back to the 1970s, I would >>> guess); your recent discovery was about half a century too late to earn >>> you a Nobel Prize.
scientist working with radiation at oak ridge during nuclear weapons
development. Thy were studying the effects of radiation on biological
systems when they discovered that the repair characteristic, but because >> of bias and politics it was not studied.
In the 1950's experment with uv light were being conducted. It was
know that uv mutated and could kill cells. Another scientist working
with e coli became frustrated and confused by his light experiments.
He did not understand how a mutated cell did not stay mutated. This
was before the Watson and Crick discovery in 1953.
Again, I do not believe any creationist or IDests knows anything about this
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not
recall ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising, >>>> but very curious.
Why is it surprising? Do you expect discussion of things that everyone >>> in the subject knows? How are you getting on with deciphering the
genetic code?
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
It is extremely rare for useful advances in science to be made by people >>> in the public at large sitting in their arm chairs who get teir
information from creationist propaganda. I can't think of an example. >>>
Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info.
If that is true, whose fault is it?
But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it >>>>> that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)the information in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then >>>>> engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations. Could this >>>>> have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when
Trying getting away from your creationist propaganda and read a serious >>> textbook.
subject. You don't either: you made no attempt to answer any of my
questions,
Your "advice" to me is nothing more than your effort to _escape_.
You are a brain washed goddamned fool!..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is >>>> a one way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So,
how can survival of the fittest have any part, in the P&R mechanisms. >>>>> I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms.
The consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes >>>> are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions >>>> many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness >>>> missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects. >>>> Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few
beneficial
mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that >>>>> the > DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far betterI think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes can >>>> bring about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative >>>> processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any
then, than
they are today?
fundamental religious.
folk.
Why don't you try to educate yourself before speculating about things? >>>
I'm sorry I wrote this, I did not mean to post it, but I did accidentally. I was frustrated. I attempted to delete it afterwards, but could not!
You are in a poor position to call others fools. Above, you specify P&R mechanisms.
Anybody who knows biochemistry readily sees that Athel is referring to mechanisms.
You revert to discussion of it being known that DNA has proofreading and repair
capabilities but the mechanisms weren't understood.
They are now understood in pretty good detail. But you haven't even begun toPlease forget I wrote that.
understand those mechanisms, or mechanisms of catalysis in general. But you
feel entitled to call an expert of enzymatic catalysis a fool. An analogy is for
someone who knows nothing of the aerodynamics of flight to call an aerodynamics
engineer who develops and tests wing designs a fool because they don't understand
that flighting machines are magic that have copied angel wings.
Further, you have show no inclination or interest to learn about simple chemical
catalysis, or enzymatic catalysis. You have no idea what experiments are planned
and conducted, how data is acquired or processed, or how deductions are formed.
You also don't understand how comparative genetics is used to explore the evolutionary
histories of the enzymes involved. One of the paper Burkhard cites above does a
very good job of the latter. And it reveals some relevant things.
DNA repair has overlaps with transcription, borrowing and recycling many of the
protein domains involved. And the systems are very flexible with the same sets
of protein functional domains appearing in different order in different repair systems.
This implies evolutionary origins for reasons even mediocre students understand.
But you aren't a student of any kind. You just beat a worn out drum claiming it seems
designed to you, from your perspective of near total ignorance of how functional
proteins have been found to have evolved. And you don't want to put in the effort to
learn. You don't want to work, you just want to bang on the drum all day.
No need for you to repeat your story about health problems, and going back to
work as a contractor. You've told it about a dozen times. It's a tough break, but
while it may be in the way of you putting in the time to learn some science, it's
not an excuse to make ignorant accusations towards those who have spent much
of their lives learning and working in the relevant sciences. You don't even need
to believe us, but damn if you don't look like a fool when you call others fools
from your foundation of ignorance.
You have _not_ explained how this process originated. So, until you do,
you have
nothing more to say to me.
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered. >However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron DeanMaybe, the origins of these DNA proofreading and repair protein machines
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered. >>> However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising, >>> but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject. Furthermore, I >>> doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated >>> to particular a part of the DNA.But nothing which explains how and why these mechanisms came about.
fall into the same category as the origin of life and information.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it..
that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then
engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
to the defect in the DNA molecule? How can the P&R "know" when the
information in the DNA molecule is Correct?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is a
one way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So, >>>> how can survival of the fittest, have any part, in the P&R mechanisms. >>>> I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms.
The consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes
are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions
many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness
missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects.
Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few beneficial >>> mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that
the DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better then, than
they are today?
I think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes (bringing)
about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative
processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any
fundamental religious.
folk.
I think it requires religious faith to expect opinions without
expressed basis to support a persuasive line of reasoning. I leave as
an exercise whose thinking is closer to reality.
These DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms are a reality.
How and why they exist - you Jill, have no answer.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:36:16 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:review articles for you when there are perfectly good ones on-line that you don't want to read.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:If you were actually interested in the evolution of DNA repair systems, you could read about it. Burkhard gave you several useful links on the subject. Or you could search yourself on Google Scholar or PubMed. But don't ask the rest of us to write
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:36:16 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:I'm sorry I wrote this, I did not mean to post it, but I did accidentally. I >> was frustrated. I attempted to delete it afterwards, but could not!
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-21 21:38:19 +0000, Ron Dean said:Actually, the discovery of this was made during the 1930's, but nothing >>>> came of it. Then again during the 1940's it was discovered again when
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
Ron Dean
Proofreading has been known for many years (back to the 1970s, I would >>>>> guess); your recent discovery was about half a century too late to earn >>>>> you a Nobel Prize.
scientist working with radiation at oak ridge during nuclear weapons
development. Thy were studying the effects of radiation on biological
systems when they discovered that the repair characteristic, but because >>>> of bias and politics it was not studied.
In the 1950's experment with uv light were being conducted. It was
know that uv mutated and could kill cells. Another scientist working
with e coli became frustrated and confused by his light experiments.
He did not understand how a mutated cell did not stay mutated. This
was before the Watson and Crick discovery in 1953.
Again, I do not believe any creationist or IDests knows anything about this
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not
recall ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising, >>>>>> but very curious.
Why is it surprising? Do you expect discussion of things that everyone >>>>> in the subject knows? How are you getting on with deciphering the
genetic code?
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
It is extremely rare for useful advances in science to be made by people >>>>> in the public at large sitting in their arm chairs who get teir
information from creationist propaganda. I can't think of an example. >>>>>
Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info.
If that is true, whose fault is it?
But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites >>>>>> describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated >>>>>> to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it >>>>>>> that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)the information in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then >>>>>>> engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations. Could this >>>>>>> have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes >>>>>>> to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when
Trying getting away from your creationist propaganda and read a serious >>>>> textbook.
subject. You don't either: you made no attempt to answer any of my
questions,
Your "advice" to me is nothing more than your effort to _escape_.
You are a brain washed goddamned fool!..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is >>>>>> a one way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA canThe consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes >>>>>> are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions >>>>>> many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness >>>>>> missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects. >>>>>> Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So, >>>>>>> how can survival of the fittest have any part, in the P&R mechanisms. >>>>>>> I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms. >>>>>>
beneficial
mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that >>>>>>> the > DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better >>>>>>> then, thanI think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes can >>>>>> bring about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative >>>>>> processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any
they are today?
fundamental religious.
folk.
Why don't you try to educate yourself before speculating about things? >>>>>
Please forget I wrote that.
You are in a poor position to call others fools. Above, you specify P&R mechanisms.
Anybody who knows biochemistry readily sees that Athel is referring to mechanisms.
You revert to discussion of it being known that DNA has proofreading and repair
capabilities but the mechanisms weren't understood.
They are now understood in pretty good detail. But you haven't even begun to
understand those mechanisms, or mechanisms of catalysis in general. But you >>> feel entitled to call an expert of enzymatic catalysis a fool. An analogy is for
someone who knows nothing of the aerodynamics of flight to call an aerodynamics
engineer who develops and tests wing designs a fool because they don't understand
that flighting machines are magic that have copied angel wings.
You have _not_ explained how this process originated. So, until you do,
Further, you have show no inclination or interest to learn about simple chemical
catalysis, or enzymatic catalysis. You have no idea what experiments are planned
and conducted, how data is acquired or processed, or how deductions are formed.
You also don't understand how comparative genetics is used to explore the evolutionary
histories of the enzymes involved. One of the paper Burkhard cites above does a
very good job of the latter. And it reveals some relevant things.
DNA repair has overlaps with transcription, borrowing and recycling many of the
protein domains involved. And the systems are very flexible with the same sets
of protein functional domains appearing in different order in different repair systems.
This implies evolutionary origins for reasons even mediocre students understand.
But you aren't a student of any kind. You just beat a worn out drum claiming it seems
designed to you, from your perspective of near total ignorance of how functional
proteins have been found to have evolved. And you don't want to put in the effort to
learn. You don't want to work, you just want to bang on the drum all day. >>>
No need for you to repeat your story about health problems, and going back to
work as a contractor. You've told it about a dozen times. It's a tough break, but
while it may be in the way of you putting in the time to learn some science, it's
not an excuse to make ignorant accusations towards those who have spent much
of their lives learning and working in the relevant sciences. You don't even need
to believe us, but damn if you don't look like a fool when you call others fools
from your foundation of ignorance.
you have
nothing more to say to me.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 21/10/2023 22:38, Ron Dean wrote:None of what I wrote above came from Bethe, Denton or Tour.
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered. >>> However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not
recall ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
Furthermore, I doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated >>> to particular a part of the DNA.
That's a rather low opinion of the ID community you have. If you think
Behe, Denton and Tour are so ignorant why do you place so much weight on
their opinions.
But rather from sites on the net. The sites go into great detail on how the
5 DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms function and how they accomplish >this goal, but virtually nothing regarding how these detect and repair >mechanisms originated.
However, the reality of these 5 proofreading and repair machines have all
the earmarks of design. It takes no faith to recognize design in this.
I strongly
suspect that a person completely unbiased and unfamiliar with modern >scientific confinement and restrictions would recognize this as design from >need, purpose, forethought and mind.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:41:15 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently
discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only
surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated >>> to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is itinformation in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then
engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when the
Ron, lots of people here are very familiar with DNA proof reading and
repair.
Why then is it _never_ discussed?
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:36:16 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:>
Why don't you try to educate yourself before speculating about things?> >You are in a poor position to call others fools. Above, you specify P&R mechanisms.
You are a brain washed goddamned fool!
Anybody who knows biochemistry readily sees that Athel is referring to mechanisms.
You revert to discussion of it being known that DNA has proofreading and repair
capabilities but the mechanisms weren't understood.
They are now understood in pretty good detail. But you haven't even
begun tounderstand those mechanisms, or mechanisms of catalysis in
general. But you
feel entitled to call an expert of enzymatic catalysis a fool. An
analogy is forsomeone who knows nothing of the aerodynamics of flight
to call an aerodynamics
engineer who develops and tests wing designs a fool because they don't understand
that flighting machines are magic that have copied angel wings.
Further, you have show no inclination or interest to learn about simple chemical
catalysis, or enzymatic catalysis. You have no idea what experiments
are planned
and conducted, how data is acquired or processed, or how deductions are formed.
You also don't understand how comparative genetics is used to explore
the evolutionary
histories of the enzymes involved. One of the paper Burkhard cites above does a
very good job of the latter. And it reveals some relevant things.
DNA repair has overlaps with transcription, borrowing and recycling many of the
protein domains involved. And the systems are very flexible with the same sets
of protein functional domains appearing in different order in different repair systems.
This implies evolutionary origins for reasons even mediocre students understand.
But you aren't a student of any kind. You just beat a worn out drum
claiming it seems
designed to you, from your perspective of near total ignorance of how functional
proteins have been found to have evolved. And you don't want to put in
the effort to
learn. You don't want to work, you just want to bang on the drum all day.
No need for you to repeat your story about health problems, and going back to work as a contractor. You've told it about a dozen times. It's a tough
break, but
while it may be in the way of you putting in the time to learn some
science, it's
not an excuse to make ignorant accusations towards those who have spent much of their lives learning and working in the relevant sciences. You don't
even needto believe us, but damn if you don't look like a fool when you
call others fools
from your foundation of ignorance.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:review articles for you when there are perfectly good ones on-line that you don't want to read.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:36:16 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:If you were actually interested in the evolution of DNA repair systems, you could read about it. Burkhard gave you several useful links on the subject. Or you could search yourself on Google Scholar or PubMed. But don't ask the rest of us to write
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:36:16 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:I'm sorry I wrote this, I did not mean to post it, but I did accidentally. I
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-21 21:38:19 +0000, Ron Dean said:Actually, the discovery of this was made during the 1930's, but nothing >>>> came of it. Then again during the 1940's it was discovered again when >>>> scientist working with radiation at oak ridge during nuclear weapons >>>> development. Thy were studying the effects of radiation on biological >>>> systems when they discovered that the repair characteristic, but because
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
Ron Dean
Proofreading has been known for many years (back to the 1970s, I would >>>>> guess); your recent discovery was about half a century too late to earn
you a Nobel Prize.
of bias and politics it was not studied.
In the 1950's experment with uv light were being conducted. It was
know that uv mutated and could kill cells. Another scientist working >>>> with e coli became frustrated and confused by his light experiments. >>>> He did not understand how a mutated cell did not stay mutated. This >>>> was before the Watson and Crick discovery in 1953.
Again, I do not believe any creationist or IDests knows anything about this
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not >>>>>> recall ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
Why is it surprising? Do you expect discussion of things that everyone >>>>> in the subject knows? How are you getting on with deciphering the >>>>> genetic code?
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
It is extremely rare for useful advances in science to be made by people
in the public at large sitting in their arm chairs who get teir
information from creationist propaganda. I can't think of an example. >>>>>
Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info.
If that is true, whose fault is it?
But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites >>>>>> describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it >>>>>>> that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R) >>>>>>> which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then
engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations. Could this >>>>>>> have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing >>>>>>> mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes >>>>>>> to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when >>>>>> the information in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
Trying getting away from your creationist propaganda and read a serious
textbook.
subject. You don't either: you made no attempt to answer any of my
questions,
Your "advice" to me is nothing more than your effort to _escape_. >>>>>> ..
You are a brain washed goddamned fool!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is >>>>>> a one way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA canThe consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes >>>>>> are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So,
how can survival of the fittest have any part, in the P&R mechanisms.
I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms. >>>>>>
many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness
missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects. >>>>>> Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few >>>>>> beneficial
mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that >>>>>>> the > DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better >>>>>>> then, thanI think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes can >>>>>> bring about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative
they are today?
processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any >>>>>> fundamental religious.
folk.
Why don't you try to educate yourself before speculating about things? >>>>>
was frustrated. I attempted to delete it afterwards, but could not!
Please forget I wrote that.
You are in a poor position to call others fools. Above, you specify P&R mechanisms.
Anybody who knows biochemistry readily sees that Athel is referring to mechanisms.
You revert to discussion of it being known that DNA has proofreading and repair
capabilities but the mechanisms weren't understood.
They are now understood in pretty good detail. But you haven't even begun to
understand those mechanisms, or mechanisms of catalysis in general. But you
feel entitled to call an expert of enzymatic catalysis a fool. An analogy is for
someone who knows nothing of the aerodynamics of flight to call an aerodynamics
engineer who develops and tests wing designs a fool because they don't understand
that flighting machines are magic that have copied angel wings.
You have _not_ explained how this process originated. So, until you do, >> you have
Further, you have show no inclination or interest to learn about simple chemical
catalysis, or enzymatic catalysis. You have no idea what experiments are planned
and conducted, how data is acquired or processed, or how deductions are formed.
You also don't understand how comparative genetics is used to explore the evolutionary
histories of the enzymes involved. One of the paper Burkhard cites above does a
very good job of the latter. And it reveals some relevant things.
DNA repair has overlaps with transcription, borrowing and recycling many of the
protein domains involved. And the systems are very flexible with the same sets
of protein functional domains appearing in different order in different repair systems.
This implies evolutionary origins for reasons even mediocre students understand.
But you aren't a student of any kind. You just beat a worn out drum claiming it seems
designed to you, from your perspective of near total ignorance of how functional
proteins have been found to have evolved. And you don't want to put in the effort to
learn. You don't want to work, you just want to bang on the drum all day.
No need for you to repeat your story about health problems, and going back to
work as a contractor. You've told it about a dozen times. It's a tough break, but
while it may be in the way of you putting in the time to learn some science, it's
not an excuse to make ignorant accusations towards those who have spent much
of their lives learning and working in the relevant sciences. You don't even need
to believe us, but damn if you don't look like a fool when you call others fools
from your foundation of ignorance.
nothing more to say to me.
I went both cites Google Scholar and PubMed. I read Google scholar word
for word there
is great deal of information regarding proofreading and repair, but I
there was nothing
regarding the origin of this DNA feature. In PubMed the writer assumes underwater
thermal vents as the origin of DNA repair through evolution, but
everything was supposition and
hypothesis, and he says as much. This underwater thermal vent
hypothesis, is not accepted by all
scientist. In fact it's one of about six OOL theories.
I have read several on line sites. They go in great detail regarding how
the 5 proofreading
and repair mechanisms function and how they work, but yet, none of them
go into any
detail as how these mechanisms came about. Just to assert they evolved doesn't suffice.
There are theories, hypothesis, but no knows.
I Suspect this feature of the DNA falls into the same category as the
origin of life.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:review articles for you when there are perfectly good ones on-line that you don't want to read.
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:36:16 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:If you were actually interested in the evolution of DNA repair systems, you could read about it. Burkhard gave you several useful links on the subject. Or you could search yourself on Google Scholar or PubMed. But don't ask the rest of us to write
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:36:16 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:I'm sorry I wrote this, I did not mean to post it, but I did accidentally. I
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-21 21:38:19 +0000, Ron Dean said:Actually, the discovery of this was made during the 1930's, but nothing >>>> came of it. Then again during the 1940's it was discovered again when >>>> scientist working with radiation at oak ridge during nuclear weapons >>>> development. Thy were studying the effects of radiation on biological >>>> systems when they discovered that the repair characteristic, but because
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
Ron Dean
Proofreading has been known for many years (back to the 1970s, I would >>>>> guess); your recent discovery was about half a century too late to earn
you a Nobel Prize.
of bias and politics it was not studied.
In the 1950's experment with uv light were being conducted. It was
know that uv mutated and could kill cells. Another scientist working >>>> with e coli became frustrated and confused by his light experiments. >>>> He did not understand how a mutated cell did not stay mutated. This >>>> was before the Watson and Crick discovery in 1953.
Again, I do not believe any creationist or IDests knows anything about this
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not >>>>>> recall ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
Why is it surprising? Do you expect discussion of things that everyone >>>>> in the subject knows? How are you getting on with deciphering the >>>>> genetic code?
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
It is extremely rare for useful advances in science to be made by people
in the public at large sitting in their arm chairs who get teir
information from creationist propaganda. I can't think of an example. >>>>>
Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info.
If that is true, whose fault is it?
But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites >>>>>> describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it >>>>>>> that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R) >>>>>>> which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then
engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations. Could this >>>>>>> have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing >>>>>>> mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes >>>>>>> to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when >>>>>> the information in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
Trying getting away from your creationist propaganda and read a serious
textbook.
subject. You don't either: you made no attempt to answer any of my
questions,
Your "advice" to me is nothing more than your effort to _escape_. >>>>>> ..
You are a brain washed goddamned fool!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is >>>>>> a one way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA canThe consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes >>>>>> are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So,
how can survival of the fittest have any part, in the P&R mechanisms.
I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms. >>>>>>
many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness
missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects. >>>>>> Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few >>>>>> beneficial
mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that >>>>>>> the > DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better >>>>>>> then, thanI think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes can >>>>>> bring about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative
they are today?
processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any >>>>>> fundamental religious.
folk.
Why don't you try to educate yourself before speculating about things? >>>>>
was frustrated. I attempted to delete it afterwards, but could not!
Please forget I wrote that.
You are in a poor position to call others fools. Above, you specify P&R mechanisms.
Anybody who knows biochemistry readily sees that Athel is referring to mechanisms.
You revert to discussion of it being known that DNA has proofreading and repair
capabilities but the mechanisms weren't understood.
They are now understood in pretty good detail. But you haven't even begun to
understand those mechanisms, or mechanisms of catalysis in general. But you
feel entitled to call an expert of enzymatic catalysis a fool. An analogy is for
someone who knows nothing of the aerodynamics of flight to call an aerodynamics
engineer who develops and tests wing designs a fool because they don't understand
that flighting machines are magic that have copied angel wings.
You have _not_ explained how this process originated. So, until you do, >> you have
Further, you have show no inclination or interest to learn about simple chemical
catalysis, or enzymatic catalysis. You have no idea what experiments are planned
and conducted, how data is acquired or processed, or how deductions are formed.
You also don't understand how comparative genetics is used to explore the evolutionary
histories of the enzymes involved. One of the paper Burkhard cites above does a
very good job of the latter. And it reveals some relevant things.
DNA repair has overlaps with transcription, borrowing and recycling many of the
protein domains involved. And the systems are very flexible with the same sets
of protein functional domains appearing in different order in different repair systems.
This implies evolutionary origins for reasons even mediocre students understand.
But you aren't a student of any kind. You just beat a worn out drum claiming it seems
designed to you, from your perspective of near total ignorance of how functional
proteins have been found to have evolved. And you don't want to put in the effort to
learn. You don't want to work, you just want to bang on the drum all day.
No need for you to repeat your story about health problems, and going back to
work as a contractor. You've told it about a dozen times. It's a tough break, but
while it may be in the way of you putting in the time to learn some science, it's
not an excuse to make ignorant accusations towards those who have spent much
of their lives learning and working in the relevant sciences. You don't even need
to believe us, but damn if you don't look like a fool when you call others fools
from your foundation of ignorance.
nothing more to say to me.
I went both cites Google Scholar and PubMed. I read Google scholar word
for word there
is great deal of information regarding proofreading and repair, but I
there was nothing
regarding the origin of this DNA feature.
In PubMed the writer assumes
underwater
thermal vents as the origin of DNA repair through evolution, but
everything was supposition and
hypothesis, and he says as much. This underwater thermal vent
hypothesis, is not accepted by all
scientist. In fact it's one of about six OOL theories.
I have read several on line sites. They go in great detail regarding how
the 5 proofreading
and repair mechanisms function and how they work, but yet, none of them
go into any
detail as how these mechanisms came about. Just to assert they evolved doesn't suffice.
There are theories, hypothesis, but no knows.
I Suspect this feature of the DNA falls into the same category as the
origin of life.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 21/10/2023 22:38, Ron Dean wrote:None of what I wrote above came from Bethe, Denton or Tour.
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently
discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not
recall ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not
only surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
Furthermore, I doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this
info. But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated >>> to particular a part of the DNA.
That's a rather low opinion of the ID community you have. If you think
Behe, Denton and Tour are so ignorant why do you place so much weight
on their opinions.
But rather from sites on the net. The sites go into great detail on how the
5 DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms function and how they accomplish this goal, but virtually nothing regarding how these detect and repair mechanisms originated.
However, the reality of these 5 proofreading and repair machines have all
the earmarks of design. It takes no faith to recognize design in this.
I strongly
suspect that a person completely unbiased and unfamiliar with modern scientific confinement and restrictions would recognize this as design from need, purpose, forethought and mind.
On 23/10/2023 01:09, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 21/10/2023 22:38, Ron Dean wrote:None of what I wrote above came from Bethe, Denton or Tour.
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered. >>>> However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>> ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only
surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
Furthermore, I doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. >>>> But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated >>>> to particular a part of the DNA.
That's a rather low opinion of the ID community you have. If you think
Behe, Denton and Tour are so ignorant why do you place so much weight
on their opinions.
That's a non-sequitur. It's your claim that they are ignorant of DNA proofreading and repair that represents your low opinion of them. Behe
and Denton are nominally biochemists - by claiming that they are
unaware of DNA proofreading and repair you are implying that they lack knowledge of their field.
If you need clarification I was referring to their opinions on
abiogenesis, evolution and design in general.
But rather from sites on the net. The sites go into great detail on how the >> 5 DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms function and how they accomplish
this goal, but virtually nothing regarding how these detect and repair
mechanisms originated.
However, the reality of these 5 proofreading and repair machines have all
the earmarks of design. It takes no faith to recognize design in
this. I strongly
suspect that a person completely unbiased and unfamiliar with modern
scientific confinement and restrictions would recognize this as design from >> need, purpose, forethought and mind.
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 12:47:13 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron DeanMaybe, the origins of these DNA proofreading and repair protein machines
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered. >>>> However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>> ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject. Furthermore, I >>>> doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an >>>> amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated >>>> to particular a part of the DNA.But nothing which explains how and why these mechanisms came about.
fall into the same category as the origin of life and information.
These DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms are a reality.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it..
that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then >>>>> engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
to the defect in the DNA molecule? How can the P&R "know" when the
information in the DNA molecule is Correct?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is a >>>>> one way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So, >>>>> how can survival of the fittest, have any part, in the P&R mechanisms. >>>>> I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms.
The consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes
are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions >>>> many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness >>>> missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects.
Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few beneficial >>>> mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that
the DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better then, than
they are today?
I think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes (bringing)
about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative
processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any
fundamental religious.
folk.
I think it requires religious faith to expect opinions without
expressed basis to support a persuasive line of reasoning. I leave as
an exercise whose thinking is closer to reality.
How and why they exist - you Jill, have no answer.
Neither do you. So your criticism about me is pointless.
FWIW I and others shared with you answers several times to "how and
why they exist". You either don't remember, or suffer convenient
amnesia.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
FWIW, I did a search for "DNA repair" on T.O. archives. There haveI said I do not _recall_ any discussion regarding DNA proofreading
been on average at least one major topic which discussed DNA repair
each year since 2010. The following identifies the OP to a recent one
where you and I had an extended back-and-forth: ************************************
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: On "natural selection" as tautology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:01:31 -0500
Message-ID: <itcvvfpdb0s0gagddrbmdhso0i0gh5eajs@4ax.com> *************************************
There are others. What's curious is that you continue to assert
factual claims that are factually incorrect, and you have no good
reason to assume they are correct. Why is that?
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On 10/21/23 7:18 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:41:15 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Why then is it _never_ discussed?
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently
discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>> ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only
surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an >>>> amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each
dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is itinformation in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then >>>>> engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when the
Ron, lots of people here are very familiar with DNA proof reading and
repair.
;
Some time around the turn of the millennium, I came across a review
article about mutation rates in various organisms, from bacteria to
large animals, which made the point that the different mutation rates
are roughly optimal for the organisms' adaptive needs. E.g., if (say) hedgehogs had less efficient DNA repair, the populations would suffer
from too many harmful mutations. If they had more efficient DNA repair, they would suffer from not enough beneficial mutations.
Sorry I can't remember the article. I *think* it was in _Annual Review
of Ecology and Systematics_.
Mark Isaak wrote:........
On 10/21/23 7:18 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:41:15 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>> Ron DeanWhy then is it _never_ discussed?
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently
discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>> ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only
surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an >>>> amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each
dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it >>>>> that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then >>>>> engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without >>>>> direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes >>>>> to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when the >>>> information in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
Ron, lots of people here are very familiar with DNA proof reading and >>> repair.
Some time around the turn of the millennium, I came across a review article about mutation rates in various organisms, from bacteria to
large animals, which made the point that the different mutation rates
are roughly optimal for the organisms' adaptive needs. E.g., if (say) hedgehogs had less efficient DNA repair, the populations would suffer
from too many harmful mutations. If they had more efficient DNA repair, they would suffer from not enough beneficial mutations.
Sorry I can't remember the article. I *think* it was in _Annual Review
of Ecology and Systematics_.
Since, I do not read every thread, chances are, I would not have associated DNA proofreading and repair with the title of this thread. But I doubt
the article went into the origin of it or how or why. I think that
design from
purpose and forethought and mind is not only the best explanation but the _only_ explanation.
On 23/10/2023 01:09, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 21/10/2023 22:38, Ron Dean wrote:None of what I wrote above came from Bethe, Denton or Tour.
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently
discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not
recall ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not
only surprising, but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
Furthermore, I doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this
info. But this is an amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each
dedicated to particular a part of the DNA.
That's a rather low opinion of the ID community you have. If you
think Behe, Denton and Tour are so ignorant why do you place so much
weight on their opinions.
That's a non-sequitur. It's your claim that they are ignorant of DNA proofreading and repair that represents your low opinion of them.
and Denton are nominally biochemists - by claiming that they are unaware
of DNA proofreading and repair you are implying that they lack knowledge
of their field.
If you need clarification I was referring to their opinions on
abiogenesis, evolution and design in general.
But rather from sites on the net. The sites go into great detail on
how the
5 DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms function and how they accomplish
this goal, but virtually nothing regarding how these detect and repair
mechanisms originated.
However, the reality of these 5 proofreading and repair machines have all
the earmarks of design. It takes no faith to recognize design in
this. I strongly
suspect that a person completely unbiased and unfamiliar with modern
scientific confinement and restrictions would recognize this as design
from
need, purpose, forethought and mind.
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 12:47:13 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron DeanMaybe, the origins of these DNA proofreading and repair protein machines >> fall into the same category as the origin of life and information.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>> ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject. Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an >>>> amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.But nothing which explains how and why these mechanisms came about.
These DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms are a reality.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it >>>>> that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)..
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then >>>>> engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without >>>>> direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes >>>>> to the defect in the DNA molecule? How can the P&R "know" when the >>>>> information in the DNA molecule is Correct?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is a >>>>> one way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So,
how can survival of the fittest, have any part, in the P&R mechanisms. >>>>> I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms.
The consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes >>>> are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions >>>> many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness >>>> missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects. >>>> Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few beneficial
mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that >>>>> the DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better then, than
they are today?
I think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes (bringing)
about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative
processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any
fundamental religious.
folk.
I think it requires religious faith to expect opinions without
expressed basis to support a persuasive line of reasoning. I leave as >>> an exercise whose thinking is closer to reality.
How and why they exist - you Jill, have no answer.
Neither do you. So your criticism about me is pointless.
FWIW I and others shared with you answers several times to "how and
why they exist". You either don't remember, or suffer convenient
amnesia.
I would expect other opinions. An opinion offered is that they evolved.
But nothing about how or why. The simplest answer is design from purpose, forethought and mind. I'll acknowledge that design does not fit into
the modern
scientific arena, that does not mean it's not true. There is no other answer.
On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 05:16:16 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:review articles for you when there are perfectly good ones on-line that you don't want to read.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:36:16 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:If you were actually interested in the evolution of DNA repair systems, you could read about it. Burkhard gave you several useful links on the subject. Or you could search yourself on Google Scholar or PubMed. But don't ask the rest of us to write
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:36:16 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:I'm sorry I wrote this, I did not mean to post it, but I did accidentally. I
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-21 21:38:19 +0000, Ron Dean said:Actually, the discovery of this was made during the 1930's, but nothing >>>>>> came of it. Then again during the 1940's it was discovered again when >>>>>> scientist working with radiation at oak ridge during nuclear weapons >>>>>> development. Thy were studying the effects of radiation on biological >>>>>> systems when they discovered that the repair characteristic, but because >>>>>> of bias and politics it was not studied.
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
Ron Dean
Proofreading has been known for many years (back to the 1970s, I would >>>>>>> guess); your recent discovery was about half a century too late to earn >>>>>>> you a Nobel Prize.
In the 1950's experment with uv light were being conducted. It was >>>>>> know that uv mutated and could kill cells. Another scientist working >>>>>> with e coli became frustrated and confused by his light experiments. >>>>>> He did not understand how a mutated cell did not stay mutated. This >>>>>> was before the Watson and Crick discovery in 1953.
Again, I do not believe any creationist or IDests knows anything about this
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not >>>>>>>> recall ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising, >>>>>>>> but very curious.
Why is it surprising? Do you expect discussion of things that everyone >>>>>>> in the subject knows? How are you getting on with deciphering the >>>>>>> genetic code?
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
It is extremely rare for useful advances in science to be made by people
in the public at large sitting in their arm chairs who get teir
information from creationist propaganda. I can't think of an example. >>>>>>>
Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info.
If that is true, whose fault is it?
But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites >>>>>>>> describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it >>>>>>>>> that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R) >>>>>>>>> which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then >>>>>>>>> engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations. Could this >>>>>>>>> have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing >>>>>>>>> mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes >>>>>>>>> to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when >>>>>>>> the information in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
Trying getting away from your creationist propaganda and read a serious >>>>>>> textbook.
subject. You don't either: you made no attempt to answer any of my >>>>>> questions,
Your "advice" to me is nothing more than your effort to _escape_. >>>>>>>> ..
You are a brain washed goddamned fool!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is >>>>>>>> a one way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA canThe consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes >>>>>>>> are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So,
how can survival of the fittest have any part, in the P&R mechanisms. >>>>>>>>> I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms. >>>>>>>>
many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness
missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects. >>>>>>>> Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few >>>>>>>> beneficial
mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that >>>>>>>>> the > DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better >>>>>>>>> then, thanI think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes can >>>>>>>> bring about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative
they are today?
processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any >>>>>>>> fundamental religious.
folk.
Why don't you try to educate yourself before speculating about things? >>>>>>>
was frustrated. I attempted to delete it afterwards, but could not!
Please forget I wrote that.
You are in a poor position to call others fools. Above, you specify P&R mechanisms.
Anybody who knows biochemistry readily sees that Athel is referring to mechanisms.
You revert to discussion of it being known that DNA has proofreading and repair
capabilities but the mechanisms weren't understood.
They are now understood in pretty good detail. But you haven't even begun to
understand those mechanisms, or mechanisms of catalysis in general. But you
feel entitled to call an expert of enzymatic catalysis a fool. An analogy is for
someone who knows nothing of the aerodynamics of flight to call an aerodynamics
engineer who develops and tests wing designs a fool because they don't understand
that flighting machines are magic that have copied angel wings.
You have _not_ explained how this process originated. So, until you do, >>>> you have
Further, you have show no inclination or interest to learn about simple chemical
catalysis, or enzymatic catalysis. You have no idea what experiments are planned
and conducted, how data is acquired or processed, or how deductions are formed.
You also don't understand how comparative genetics is used to explore the evolutionary
histories of the enzymes involved. One of the paper Burkhard cites above does a
very good job of the latter. And it reveals some relevant things.
DNA repair has overlaps with transcription, borrowing and recycling many of the
protein domains involved. And the systems are very flexible with the same sets
of protein functional domains appearing in different order in different repair systems.
This implies evolutionary origins for reasons even mediocre students understand.
But you aren't a student of any kind. You just beat a worn out drum claiming it seems
designed to you, from your perspective of near total ignorance of how functional
proteins have been found to have evolved. And you don't want to put in the effort to
learn. You don't want to work, you just want to bang on the drum all day. >>>>>
No need for you to repeat your story about health problems, and going back to
work as a contractor. You've told it about a dozen times. It's a tough break, but
while it may be in the way of you putting in the time to learn some science, it's
not an excuse to make ignorant accusations towards those who have spent much
of their lives learning and working in the relevant sciences. You don't even need
to believe us, but damn if you don't look like a fool when you call others fools
from your foundation of ignorance.
nothing more to say to me.
I went both cites Google Scholar and PubMed. I read Google scholar wordWhy it was designed? Why don't you want to discuss design? Why you
for word there
is great deal of information regarding proofreading and repair, but I
there was nothing
regarding the origin of this DNA feature. In PubMed the writer assumes
underwater
thermal vents as the origin of DNA repair through evolution, but
everything was supposition and
hypothesis, and he says as much. This underwater thermal vent
hypothesis, is not accepted by all
scientist. In fact it's one of about six OOL theories.
I have read several on line sites. They go in great detail regarding how
the 5 proofreading
and repair mechanisms function and how they work, but yet, none of them
go into any
detail as how these mechanisms came about. Just to assert they evolved
doesn't suffice.
There are theories, hypothesis, but no knows.
I Suspect this feature of the DNA falls into the same category as the
origin of life.
discuss these molecules that you are clearly uninterested in? Why you
discuss fighting atheists like Dawkins? Why don't you discuss purpose
of alleged design?
All that slow struggle was organised for what? What was the purpose? Did
said designers (or that designer) want various lifeforms to evolve savagely for tens of millions of human lifetimes?
It seems so by ID "top six":
1 and 2) Someone outside of our universe designed it in a way that most
of it was extremely unsuitable for life as we know it.
3) A designer came about 4 bya to this tiny rock, saw that it is potentially suitable for life as we know it, made primitive DNA-based life. Why? Was
it for it can evolve to inhabit variety of environments from common decent? 4) A designer came about 2 - 1.2 bya, added improvements to some of
it (but not all) like sexual reproduction. Why? Was it for improved
evolution through sexual selection and gene recombination?
5) A designer came about 500 mya, improved some lifeforms into actively hunting predators. Why? Was it for better evolution through predator:prey arms race?
6) A designer came "only recently", turned some apes into humans.
Why? Was it for to have technological progress through variety of advanced struggle between sub-populations (religions, wars, slavery, genocide, witch hunts etc.)?
Those designers seemed all to like (and to support) evolution but you seem
to dislike it. Why?
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/21/23 7:18 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Since, I do not read every thread, chances are, I would not have associated DNA proofreading and repair with the title of this thread. But I doubt
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:41:15 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> Ron DeanWhy then is it _never_ discussed?
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently
discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>>> ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only
surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this
is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each
dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it
that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then >>>>>> engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without >>>>>> direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when the >>>>> information in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
Ron, lots of people here are very familiar with DNA proof reading
and repair.
;
Some time around the turn of the millennium, I came across a review
article about mutation rates in various organisms, from bacteria to
large animals, which made the point that the different mutation rates
are roughly optimal for the organisms' adaptive needs. E.g., if (say)
hedgehogs had less efficient DNA repair, the populations would suffer
from too many harmful mutations. If they had more efficient DNA
repair, they would suffer from not enough beneficial mutations.
Sorry I can't remember the article. I *think* it was in _Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics_.
the article went into the origin of it or how or why. I think that
design from
purpose and forethought and mind is not only the best explanation but the _only_ explanation.
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron DeanI said I do not _recall_ any discussion regarding DNA proofreading
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered. >>> However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
FWIW, I did a search for "DNA repair" on T.O. archives. There have
been on average at least one major topic which discussed DNA repair
each year since 2010. The following identifies the OP to a recent one
where you and I had an extended back-and-forth:
************************************
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: On "natural selection" as tautology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:01:31 -0500
Message-ID: <itcvvfpdb0s0gagddrbmdhso0i0gh5eajs@4ax.com>
*************************************
There are others. What's curious is that you continue to assert
factual claims that are factually incorrect, and you have no good
reason to assume they are correct. Why is that?
and repair on TO.
For certain it is not a popular subject.
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 12:47:13 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron DeanMaybe, the origins of these DNA proofreading and repair protein machines >>> fall into the same category as the origin of life and information.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered. >>>>> However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>>> ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject. Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an >>>>> amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated >>>>> to particular a part of the DNA.But nothing which explains how and why these mechanisms came about.
These DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms are a reality.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it..
that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then >>>>>> engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without >>>>>> direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
to the defect in the DNA molecule? How can the P&R "know" when the >>>>>> information in the DNA molecule is Correct?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is a >>>>>> one way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So, >>>>>> how can survival of the fittest, have any part, in the P&R mechanisms. >>>>>> I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms.
The consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes >>>>> are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions >>>>> many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness >>>>> missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects. >>>>> Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few beneficial
mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that >>>>>> the DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better then, than
they are today?
I think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes (bringing)
about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative
processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any
fundamental religious.
folk.
I think it requires religious faith to expect opinions without
expressed basis to support a persuasive line of reasoning. I leave as >>>> an exercise whose thinking is closer to reality.
How and why they exist - you Jill, have no answer.
Neither do you. So your criticism about me is pointless.
FWIW I and others shared with you answers several times to "how andI would expect other opinions.
why they exist". You either don't remember, or suffer convenient
amnesia.
An opinion offered is that they evolved. But nothing about how or why.
The simplest answer is design from purpose, forethought and mind.
I'll acknowledge that design does not fit into
the modern
scientific arena, that does not mean it's not true. There is no other >answer.
On 2023-10-23 10:33:08 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 23/10/2023 01:09, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 21/10/2023 22:38, Ron Dean wrote:None of what I wrote above came from Bethe, Denton or Tour.
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered. >>>>> However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>>> ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only
surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
Furthermore, I doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. >>>>> But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated >>>>> to particular a part of the DNA.
That's a rather low opinion of the ID community you have. If you think >>>> Behe, Denton and Tour are so ignorant why do you place so much weight
on their opinions.
That's a non-sequitur. It's your claim that they are ignorant of DNA
proofreading and repair that represents your low opinion of them. Behe
and Denton are nominally biochemists - by claiming that they are
unaware of DNA proofreading and repair you are implying that they lack
knowledge of their field.
I've never met Behe, but Denton and I were both on the Editorial Board
of the Biochemical Journal in 1986.
I think it's unlikely that he would have invited to join the Editorial
Board if no one had thought he knew some biochemistry. (If there are
any very young people amongst us, I should say that there were no junk journals at that time, and people didn't get invited to serve on
Editorial Boards of journals in subjects they knew nothing about. That
has changed.)
If you need clarification I was referring to their opinions on
abiogenesis, evolution and design in general.
But rather from sites on the net. The sites go into great detail on how the >>> 5 DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms function and how they accomplish >>> this goal, but virtually nothing regarding how these detect and repair
mechanisms originated.
However, the reality of these 5 proofreading and repair machines have all >>> the earmarks of design. It takes no faith to recognize design in
this. I strongly
suspect that a person completely unbiased and unfamiliar with modern
scientific confinement and restrictions would recognize this as design from >>> need, purpose, forethought and mind.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 2:51:17 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:find?
Mark Isaak wrote:........
On 10/21/23 7:18 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:41:15 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>> Ron Dean>
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently
discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>>>> ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only
surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an >>>>>> amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites >>>>>> describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each
dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it >>>>>>> that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then >>>>>>> engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without >>>>>>> direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes >>>>>>> to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when the >>>>>> information in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
Ron, lots of people here are very familiar with DNA proof reading and >>>>> repair.
Why then is it _never_ discussed?
Some time around the turn of the millennium, I came across a review
article about mutation rates in various organisms, from bacteria to
large animals, which made the point that the different mutation rates
are roughly optimal for the organisms' adaptive needs. E.g., if (say)
hedgehogs had less efficient DNA repair, the populations would suffer
from too many harmful mutations. If they had more efficient DNA repair, >>> they would suffer from not enough beneficial mutations.
Sorry I can't remember the article. I *think* it was in _Annual Review
of Ecology and Systematics_.
Since, I do not read every thread, chances are, I would not have associated >> DNA proofreading and repair with the title of this thread. But I doubt
the article went into the origin of it or how or why. I think that
design from purpose and forethought and mind is not only the best explanation but the
_only_ explanation.
DNA repair obviously would have had to evolve very early in the history of life, before the evolution of multicellular organisms, in other words, several billion years ago. If DNA repair systems HAD evolved naturally, what evidence would you expect to
broger...@gmail.com wrote:to find?
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 2:51:17 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:........
On 10/21/23 7:18 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:41:15 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>> Ron DeanWhy then is it _never_ discussed?
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently
discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only >>>>>> surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites >>>>>> describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each
dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it >>>>>>> that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R) >>>>>>> which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then
engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without >>>>>>> direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing >>>>>>> mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes >>>>>>> to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when the >>>>>> information in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
Ron, lots of people here are very familiar with DNA proof reading and >>>>> repair.
Some time around the turn of the millennium, I came across a review
article about mutation rates in various organisms, from bacteria to
large animals, which made the point that the different mutation rates >>> are roughly optimal for the organisms' adaptive needs. E.g., if (say) >>> hedgehogs had less efficient DNA repair, the populations would suffer >>> from too many harmful mutations. If they had more efficient DNA repair, >>> they would suffer from not enough beneficial mutations.
Sorry I can't remember the article. I *think* it was in _Annual Review >>> of Ecology and Systematics_.
Since, I do not read every thread, chances are, I would not have associated
DNA proofreading and repair with the title of this thread. But I doubt
the article went into the origin of it or how or why. I think that
design from purpose and forethought and mind is not only the best explanation but the
_only_ explanation.
DNA repair obviously would have had to evolve very early in the history of life, before the evolution of multicellular organisms, in other words, several billion years ago. If DNA repair systems HAD evolved naturally, what evidence would you expect
I think there is a kind of catch-22 situation here, if it happened
through natural processes, then one should expect to find evidence.
But
if there's no evidence found, there's no reason to believe it happen, through natural processes. Since, there is no such evidence, design from purpose, forethought and mind cannot be ruled out, unless one can rule
out _mind_. But then mind can be ruled out, if there is no design. But
this is where ones paradigm and ones biases plays a major role.
My reasons for belief; anytime copying occurs, errors also occur. This
is a reality. A mind would recognize this reality, and determine the importance of fidelity. Errors over time would be catastrophic. So, this presents a need and need justifies, design and implementing the multiple proofreading and repair mechanisms for DNA . And this implementation
wold have occurred very early in the history of life; even as early as
the first life 3.8 billion years ago.
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 1:46:17 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 12:47:13 -0400, Ron DeanI would expect other opinions. An opinion offered is that they evolved.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron DeanMaybe, the origins of these DNA proofreading and repair protein machines >>>> fall into the same category as the origin of life and information.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>>>> ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject. Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an >>>>>> amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites >>>>>> describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated >>>>>> to particular a part of the DNA.But nothing which explains how and why these mechanisms came about.
These DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms are a reality.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it >>>>>>> that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)..
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then >>>>>>> engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without >>>>>>> direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes >>>>>>> to the defect in the DNA molecule? How can the P&R "know" when the >>>>>>> information in the DNA molecule is Correct?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is a >>>>>>> one way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA canThe consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes >>>>>> are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions >>>>>> many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness >>>>>> missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects. >>>>>> Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few beneficial
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So, >>>>>>> how can survival of the fittest, have any part, in the P&R mechanisms. >>>>>>> I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms. >>>>>>
mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that >>>>>>> the DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better then, than
they are today?
I think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes (bringing)
about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative
processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any
fundamental religious.
folk.
I think it requires religious faith to expect opinions without
expressed basis to support a persuasive line of reasoning. I leave as >>>>> an exercise whose thinking is closer to reality.
How and why they exist - you Jill, have no answer.
Neither do you. So your criticism about me is pointless.
FWIW I and others shared with you answers several times to "how and
why they exist". You either don't remember, or suffer convenient
amnesia.
But nothing about how or why. The simplest answer is design from purpose,
forethought and mind. I'll acknowledge that design does not fit into
the modern
scientific arena, that does not mean it's not true. There is no other
answer.
Your "simplest answer" is a non-answer as you have said that ID proponents don't go on to ask who, or how, or why. For some reason you think that's a good thing.
The simple answer about "why" proof reading is that to the first approximation
an organism that has survived to reproduce wants to make an identical copy
of itself --- to make more of itself. Selves that do that outbreed selves that don't,
at least on average. It's basic math and fairly obvious.
A second reason is that a significant enough fraction of replication errors are
detrimental or disadvantageous. This works synergistically with the above answer
to help organisms that faithfully reproduce faithful copies to outbreed organisms
that don't reproduce faithful copies. But here the effect is more subtle. Mutations
that provide for neutral changes neither gain advantages or lose them. Then there's
the rarer beneficial mutation, the most obvious examples that are readily studied
in the lab are those that confirm resistance to drugs like antibiotics. Yes, they
happen, and they have been studied in deep detail hundreds of times, and can be reproduced.
Such rare mutations turn out to have absolutely huge survival advantages.
And math can be done based on that. There's a typical cost to mutations, but there's a potential reward for mutations. The math can be run to look for a balance
between the two and come up with a best compromise for the fidelity of replication.
Naturally, one can extend this to mutations that occur as a result of damage to
DNA after replication which also leads to mutations.
Put a different way, an ancestor's best chance of having it's progeny survive is to
firstly have most of its offspring have faithful copies of its genes, but to have a small
fraction have some novel alternatives in case future environments contain poisons
(like antibiotics) or different food stuffs, or different predators.
This is all part of an education in biology. It's well studied. There have been both
designed experiments to test it, and retrospective studies to confirm it in wild.
It isn't a secret that has been hidden.
That Ron Dean is unaware of it is a statement that Ron Dean has little knowledge
of the field of biology and molecular biology, nothing more. Presumably you've
spent your live learning other things that were of greater importance and interest
in your life. But a man's got to know and respect his limitations.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:55:26 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered. >>>> However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>> ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising, >>>> but very curious.
FWIW, I did a search for "DNA repair" on T.O. archives. There have
been on average at least one major topic which discussed DNA repair
each year since 2010. The following identifies the OP to a recent one
where you and I had an extended back-and-forth:
************************************
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: On "natural selection" as tautology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:01:31 -0500
Message-ID: <itcvvfpdb0s0gagddrbmdhso0i0gh5eajs@4ax.com>
*************************************
There are others. What's curious is that you continue to assert
factual claims that are factually incorrect, and you have no good
reason to assume they are correct. Why is that?
I said I do not _recall_ any discussion regarding DNA proofreading
and repair on TO.
I know what you said. You also said it multiple times as if it were a
fact. And I said you have no good reason to say it even once. And
now you know your repeated statements are incorrect in fact and in
spirit, but you still don't retract it. Why is that?
For certain it is not a popular subject.
How can you claim certainty when you don't even remember posting to
those topics?
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On 10/23/23 11:50 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/21/23 7:18 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Since, I do not read every thread, chances are, I would not have
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:41:15 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>> Ron DeanWhy then is it _never_ discussed?
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently
discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received
almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not
recall
ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only
surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this
is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites >>>>>> describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each
dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it >>>>>>> that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: >>>>>>> then
engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without >>>>>>> direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes >>>>>>> to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when the >>>>>> information in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
Ron, lots of people here are very familiar with DNA proof reading
and repair.
;
Some time around the turn of the millennium, I came across a review
article about mutation rates in various organisms, from bacteria to
large animals, which made the point that the different mutation rates
are roughly optimal for the organisms' adaptive needs. E.g., if
(say) hedgehogs had less efficient DNA repair, the populations would
suffer from too many harmful mutations. If they had more efficient
DNA repair, they would suffer from not enough beneficial mutations.
Sorry I can't remember the article. I *think* it was in _Annual
Review of Ecology and Systematics_.
associated
DNA proofreading and repair with the title of this thread. But I doubt
the article went into the origin of it or how or why. I think that
design from
purpose and forethought and mind is not only the best explanation but the
_only_ explanation.
Since DNA repair is optimized for evolutionary adaptation, your thought
means that evolution was purposely designed.
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:41:40 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 12:47:13 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron DeanMaybe, the origins of these DNA proofreading and repair protein machines >>>> fall into the same category as the origin of life and information.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>>>> ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject. Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an >>>>>> amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites >>>>>> describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated >>>>>> to particular a part of the DNA.But nothing which explains how and why these mechanisms came about.
These DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms are a reality.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it >>>>>>> that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)..
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then >>>>>>> engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without >>>>>>> direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes >>>>>>> to the defect in the DNA molecule? How can the P&R "know" when the >>>>>>> information in the DNA molecule is Correct?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is a >>>>>>> one way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA canThe consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes >>>>>> are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions >>>>>> many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness >>>>>> missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects. >>>>>> Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few beneficial
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So, >>>>>>> how can survival of the fittest, have any part, in the P&R mechanisms. >>>>>>> I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms. >>>>>>
mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that >>>>>>> the DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better then, than
they are today?
I think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes (bringing)
about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative
processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any
fundamental religious.
folk.
I think it requires religious faith to expect opinions without
expressed basis to support a persuasive line of reasoning. I leave as >>>>> an exercise whose thinking is closer to reality.
How and why they exist - you Jill, have no answer.
Neither do you. So your criticism about me is pointless.
No acknowledgement here. Quelle surprise.
FWIW I and others shared with you answers several times to "how andI would expect other opinions.
why they exist". You either don't remember, or suffer convenient
amnesia.
By your own words, you're not happy when others express opinions
without basis. Why should others be any less happy when you express
opinions without basis?
An opinion offered is that they evolved. But nothing about how or why.
You keep saying the above as if you know it for a fact, when I know
you can't even remember posting to those topics.
The simplest answer is design from purpose, forethought and mind.
That answer is simple to say, but apparently impossible for you to
show any evidence for it.
I'll acknowledge that design does not fit into
the modern
scientific arena, that does not mean it's not true. There is no other
answer.
More accurately, there is no other answer to which you will listen.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Öö Tiib wrote:review articles for you when there are perfectly good ones on-line that you don't want to read.
On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 05:16:16 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:36:16 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:If you were actually interested in the evolution of DNA repair systems, you could read about it. Burkhard gave you several useful links on the subject. Or you could search yourself on Google Scholar or PubMed. But don't ask the rest of us to write
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:36:16 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:I'm sorry I wrote this, I did not mean to post it, but I did accidentally. I
On 2023-10-21 21:38:19 +0000, Ron Dean said:Actually, the discovery of this was made during the 1930's, but nothing
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
Ron Dean
Proofreading has been known for many years (back to the 1970s, I would
guess); your recent discovery was about half a century too late to earn
you a Nobel Prize.
came of it. Then again during the 1940's it was discovered again when >>>>>> scientist working with radiation at oak ridge during nuclear weapons >>>>>> development. Thy were studying the effects of radiation on biological >>>>>> systems when they discovered that the repair characteristic, but because
of bias and politics it was not studied.
In the 1950's experment with uv light were being conducted. It was >>>>>> know that uv mutated and could kill cells. Another scientist working >>>>>> with e coli became frustrated and confused by his light experiments. >>>>>> He did not understand how a mutated cell did not stay mutated. This >>>>>> was before the Watson and Crick discovery in 1953.
Again, I do not believe any creationist or IDests knows anything about this
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not >>>>>>>> recall ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
Why is it surprising? Do you expect discussion of things that everyone
in the subject knows? How are you getting on with deciphering the >>>>>>> genetic code?
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
It is extremely rare for useful advances in science to be made by people
in the public at large sitting in their arm chairs who get teir >>>>>>> information from creationist propaganda. I can't think of an example.
Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info.
If that is true, whose fault is it?
But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites >>>>>>>> describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it >>>>>>>>> that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R) >>>>>>>>> which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then
engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations. Could this >>>>>>>>> have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing >>>>>>>>> mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes >>>>>>>>> to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when >>>>>>>> the information in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
Trying getting away from your creationist propaganda and read a serious
textbook.
subject. You don't either: you made no attempt to answer any of my >>>>>> questions,
Your "advice" to me is nothing more than your effort to _escape_. >>>>>>>> ..
You are a brain washed goddamned fool!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is >>>>>>>> a one way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA canThe consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So,
how can survival of the fittest have any part, in the P&R mechanisms.
I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms. >>>>>>>>
are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions
many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness
missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects.
Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few >>>>>>>> beneficial
mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that >>>>>>>>> the > DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better >>>>>>>>> then, thanI think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes can
they are today?
bring about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative
processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any >>>>>>>> fundamental religious.
folk.
Why don't you try to educate yourself before speculating about things?
was frustrated. I attempted to delete it afterwards, but could not! >>>>>
You are in a poor position to call others fools. Above, you specify P&R mechanisms.Please forget I wrote that.
Anybody who knows biochemistry readily sees that Athel is referring to mechanisms.
You revert to discussion of it being known that DNA has proofreading and repair
capabilities but the mechanisms weren't understood.
They are now understood in pretty good detail. But you haven't even begun to
understand those mechanisms, or mechanisms of catalysis in general. But you
feel entitled to call an expert of enzymatic catalysis a fool. An analogy is for
someone who knows nothing of the aerodynamics of flight to call an aerodynamics
engineer who develops and tests wing designs a fool because they don't understand
that flighting machines are magic that have copied angel wings.
You have _not_ explained how this process originated. So, until you do, >>>> you have
Further, you have show no inclination or interest to learn about simple chemical
catalysis, or enzymatic catalysis. You have no idea what experiments are planned
and conducted, how data is acquired or processed, or how deductions are formed.
You also don't understand how comparative genetics is used to explore the evolutionary
histories of the enzymes involved. One of the paper Burkhard cites above does a
very good job of the latter. And it reveals some relevant things. >>>>>
DNA repair has overlaps with transcription, borrowing and recycling many of the
protein domains involved. And the systems are very flexible with the same sets
of protein functional domains appearing in different order in different repair systems.
This implies evolutionary origins for reasons even mediocre students understand.
But you aren't a student of any kind. You just beat a worn out drum claiming it seems
designed to you, from your perspective of near total ignorance of how functional
proteins have been found to have evolved. And you don't want to put in the effort to
learn. You don't want to work, you just want to bang on the drum all day.
No need for you to repeat your story about health problems, and going back to
work as a contractor. You've told it about a dozen times. It's a tough break, but
while it may be in the way of you putting in the time to learn some science, it's
not an excuse to make ignorant accusations towards those who have spent much
of their lives learning and working in the relevant sciences. You don't even need
to believe us, but damn if you don't look like a fool when you call others fools
from your foundation of ignorance.
nothing more to say to me.
I went both cites Google Scholar and PubMed. I read Google scholar word >> for word thereWhy it was designed? Why don't you want to discuss design? Why you
is great deal of information regarding proofreading and repair, but I
there was nothing
regarding the origin of this DNA feature. In PubMed the writer assumes
underwater
thermal vents as the origin of DNA repair through evolution, but
everything was supposition and
hypothesis, and he says as much. This underwater thermal vent
hypothesis, is not accepted by all
scientist. In fact it's one of about six OOL theories.
I have read several on line sites. They go in great detail regarding how >> the 5 proofreading
and repair mechanisms function and how they work, but yet, none of them >> go into any
detail as how these mechanisms came about. Just to assert they evolved
doesn't suffice.
There are theories, hypothesis, but no knows.
I Suspect this feature of the DNA falls into the same category as the
origin of life.
discuss these molecules that you are clearly uninterested in? Why you discuss fighting atheists like Dawkins? Why don't you discuss purpose
of alleged design?
If Dawkins was not addressing, what he wrote to people. why did he write what he did? The universe itself has no thought or sense of good or evil right or wrong. Indeed the universe itself is mindless.
All that slow struggle was organised for what? What was the purpose? Did said designers (or that designer) want various lifeforms to evolve savagely
for tens of millions of human lifetimes?
If the designer was eternal, of what consequences is 100 human lifetimes.
It seems so by ID "top six":
1 and 2) Someone outside of our universe designed it in a way that most
of it was extremely unsuitable for life as we know it.
3) A designer came about 4 bya to this tiny rock, saw that it is potentially
suitable for life as we know it, made primitive DNA-based life. Why? Was it for it can evolve to inhabit variety of environments from common decent?
4) A designer came about 2 - 1.2 bya, added improvements to some of
it (but not all) like sexual reproduction. Why? Was it for improved evolution through sexual selection and gene recombination?
5) A designer came about 500 mya, improved some lifeforms into actively hunting predators. Why? Was it for better evolution through predator:prey arms race?
6) A designer came "only recently", turned some apes into humans.
Why? Was it for to have technological progress through variety of advanced struggle between sub-populations (religions, wars, slavery, genocide, witch
hunts etc.)?
Things are the way they are. Without direct and complete domination and control and tyranny, things often get out of control.
Those designers seemed all to like (and to support) evolution but you seem to dislike it. Why?
The title of this thread is DNA proofreading and repair. you are
avoiding the
topic. Why?
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:55:26 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered. >>>>> However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>>> ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising, >>>>> but very curious.
FWIW, I did a search for "DNA repair" on T.O. archives. There have
been on average at least one major topic which discussed DNA repair
each year since 2010. The following identifies the OP to a recent one >>>> where you and I had an extended back-and-forth:
************************************
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: On "natural selection" as tautology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:01:31 -0500
Message-ID: <itcvvfpdb0s0gagddrbmdhso0i0gh5eajs@4ax.com>
*************************************
There are others. What's curious is that you continue to assert
factual claims that are factually incorrect, and you have no good
reason to assume they are correct. Why is that?
Please provide me with the title of the thread where I participated then. >Because I remember nothing regarding this topic at that time.I said I do not _recall_ any discussion regarding DNA proofreading
and repair on TO.
I know what you said. You also said it multiple times as if it were a
fact. And I said you have no good reason to say it even once. And
now you know your repeated statements are incorrect in fact and in
spirit, but you still don't retract it. Why is that?
For certain it is not a popular subject.
How can you claim certainty when you don't even remember posting to
those topics?
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 11:51:18 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:to find?
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 2:51:17 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:........
On 10/21/23 7:18 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:41:15 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> Ron DeanWhy then is it _never_ discussed?
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently
discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>>>>>> ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only >>>>>>>> surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites >>>>>>>> describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each >>>>>>>> dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it >>>>>>>>> that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R) >>>>>>>>> which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then >>>>>>>>> engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without >>>>>>>>> direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing >>>>>>>>> mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes >>>>>>>>> to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when the >>>>>>>> information in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
Ron, lots of people here are very familiar with DNA proof reading and >>>>>>> repair.
Some time around the turn of the millennium, I came across a review
article about mutation rates in various organisms, from bacteria to
large animals, which made the point that the different mutation rates >>>>> are roughly optimal for the organisms' adaptive needs. E.g., if (say) >>>>> hedgehogs had less efficient DNA repair, the populations would suffer >>>>> from too many harmful mutations. If they had more efficient DNA repair, >>>>> they would suffer from not enough beneficial mutations.
Sorry I can't remember the article. I *think* it was in _Annual Review >>>>> of Ecology and Systematics_.
Since, I do not read every thread, chances are, I would not have associated
DNA proofreading and repair with the title of this thread. But I doubt >>>> the article went into the origin of it or how or why. I think that
design from purpose and forethought and mind is not only the best explanation but the
_only_ explanation.
DNA repair obviously would have had to evolve very early in the history of life, before the evolution of multicellular organisms, in other words, several billion years ago. If DNA repair systems HAD evolved naturally, what evidence would you expect
I think there is a kind of catch-22 situation here, if it happened
through natural processes, then one should expect to find evidence.
OK, but what kind of evidence would you expect to find?
But
if there's no evidence found, there's no reason to believe it happen,
through natural processes. Since, there is no such evidence, design from
purpose, forethought and mind cannot be ruled out, unless one can rule
out _mind_. But then mind can be ruled out, if there is no design. But
this is where ones paradigm and ones biases plays a major role.
My reasons for belief; anytime copying occurs, errors also occur. This
is a reality. A mind would recognize this reality, and determine the
importance of fidelity. Errors over time would be catastrophic. So, this
presents a need and need justifies, design and implementing the multiple
proofreading and repair mechanisms for DNA . And this implementation
wold have occurred very early in the history of life; even as early as
the first life 3.8 billion years ago.
Sure, fidelity in replication is a good thing. So evolution would select for accurate replication. So in either the case of design or of natural evolution, we have a general explanation for why DNA repair systems might exist.
1. If DNA repair mechanisms evolved naturally what sort of evidence would you see of the > >evolutionary process (other than the resulting DNA repair mechanisms)?
2. If DNA repair mechanisms were designed, what for of evidence would you see of the design process (other than the resulting DNA repair mechanism)?
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 00:01:17 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:review articles for you when there are perfectly good ones on-line that you don't want to read.
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Monday, 23 October 2023 at 05:16:16 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 8:36:16 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:If you were actually interested in the evolution of DNA repair systems, you could read about it. Burkhard gave you several useful links on the subject. Or you could search yourself on Google Scholar or PubMed. But don't ask the rest of us to write
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 6:36:16 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:I'm sorry I wrote this, I did not mean to post it, but I did accidentally. I
On 2023-10-21 21:38:19 +0000, Ron Dean said:Actually, the discovery of this was made during the 1930's, but nothing
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
Ron Dean
Proofreading has been known for many years (back to the 1970s, I would
guess); your recent discovery was about half a century too late to earn
you a Nobel Prize.
came of it. Then again during the 1940's it was discovered again when >>>>>>>> scientist working with radiation at oak ridge during nuclear weapons >>>>>>>> development. Thy were studying the effects of radiation on biological >>>>>>>> systems when they discovered that the repair characteristic, but because
of bias and politics it was not studied.
In the 1950's experment with uv light were being conducted. It was >>>>>>>> know that uv mutated and could kill cells. Another scientist working >>>>>>>> with e coli became frustrated and confused by his light experiments. >>>>>>>> He did not understand how a mutated cell did not stay mutated. This >>>>>>>> was before the Watson and Crick discovery in 1953.
Again, I do not believe any creationist or IDests knows anything about this
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not >>>>>>>>>> recall ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
Why is it surprising? Do you expect discussion of things that everyone
in the subject knows? How are you getting on with deciphering the >>>>>>>>> genetic code?
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject. >>>>>>>>>It is extremely rare for useful advances in science to be made by people
in the public at large sitting in their arm chairs who get teir >>>>>>>>> information from creationist propaganda. I can't think of an example. >>>>>>>>>
Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info.
If that is true, whose fault is it?
But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites >>>>>>>>>> describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it >>>>>>>>>>> that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R) >>>>>>>>>>> which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then
engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations. Could this >>>>>>>>>>> have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing >>>>>>>>>>> mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes >>>>>>>>>>> to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when >>>>>>>>>> the information in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
Trying getting away from your creationist propaganda and read a serious
textbook.
subject. You don't either: you made no attempt to answer any of my >>>>>>>> questions,
Your "advice" to me is nothing more than your effort to _escape_. >>>>>>>>>> ..
You are a brain washed goddamned fool!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is >>>>>>>>>> a one way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA canThe consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So,
how can survival of the fittest have any part, in the P&R mechanisms.
I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms. >>>>>>>>>>
are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions
many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness
missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects. >>>>>>>>>> Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few >>>>>>>>>> beneficial
mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that >>>>>>>>>>> the > DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better >>>>>>>>>>> then, thanI think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes can >>>>>>>>>> bring about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative
they are today?
processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any >>>>>>>>>> fundamental religious.
folk.
Why don't you try to educate yourself before speculating about things?
was frustrated. I attempted to delete it afterwards, but could not! >>>>>>>
You are in a poor position to call others fools. Above, you specify P&R mechanisms.Please forget I wrote that.
Anybody who knows biochemistry readily sees that Athel is referring to mechanisms.
You revert to discussion of it being known that DNA has proofreading and repair
capabilities but the mechanisms weren't understood.
They are now understood in pretty good detail. But you haven't even begun to
understand those mechanisms, or mechanisms of catalysis in general. But you
feel entitled to call an expert of enzymatic catalysis a fool. An analogy is for
someone who knows nothing of the aerodynamics of flight to call an aerodynamics
engineer who develops and tests wing designs a fool because they don't understand
that flighting machines are magic that have copied angel wings.
You have _not_ explained how this process originated. So, until you do, >>>>>> you have
Further, you have show no inclination or interest to learn about simple chemical
catalysis, or enzymatic catalysis. You have no idea what experiments are planned
and conducted, how data is acquired or processed, or how deductions are formed.
You also don't understand how comparative genetics is used to explore the evolutionary
histories of the enzymes involved. One of the paper Burkhard cites above does a
very good job of the latter. And it reveals some relevant things. >>>>>>>
DNA repair has overlaps with transcription, borrowing and recycling many of the
protein domains involved. And the systems are very flexible with the same sets
of protein functional domains appearing in different order in different repair systems.
This implies evolutionary origins for reasons even mediocre students understand.
But you aren't a student of any kind. You just beat a worn out drum claiming it seems
designed to you, from your perspective of near total ignorance of how functional
proteins have been found to have evolved. And you don't want to put in the effort to
learn. You don't want to work, you just want to bang on the drum all day.
No need for you to repeat your story about health problems, and going back to
work as a contractor. You've told it about a dozen times. It's a tough break, but
while it may be in the way of you putting in the time to learn some science, it's
not an excuse to make ignorant accusations towards those who have spent much
of their lives learning and working in the relevant sciences. You don't even need
to believe us, but damn if you don't look like a fool when you call others fools
from your foundation of ignorance.
nothing more to say to me.
Dawkins wrote how he thinks it is. I do not see any of it having any purpose and so it is highly probable that Dawkins is correct.If Dawkins was not addressing, what he wrote to people. why did he writeI went both cites Google Scholar and PubMed. I read Google scholar word >>>> for word thereWhy it was designed? Why don't you want to discuss design? Why you
is great deal of information regarding proofreading and repair, but I
there was nothing
regarding the origin of this DNA feature. In PubMed the writer assumes >>>> underwater
thermal vents as the origin of DNA repair through evolution, but
everything was supposition and
hypothesis, and he says as much. This underwater thermal vent
hypothesis, is not accepted by all
scientist. In fact it's one of about six OOL theories.
I have read several on line sites. They go in great detail regarding how >>>> the 5 proofreading
and repair mechanisms function and how they work, but yet, none of them >>>> go into any
detail as how these mechanisms came about. Just to assert they evolved >>>> doesn't suffice.
There are theories, hypothesis, but no knows.
I Suspect this feature of the DNA falls into the same category as the
origin of life.
discuss these molecules that you are clearly uninterested in? Why you
discuss fighting atheists like Dawkins? Why don't you discuss purpose
of alleged design?
what he did? The universe itself has no thought or sense of good or evil
right or wrong. Indeed the universe itself is mindless.
Göbekli Tepe was perhaps built 100 human lifetimes ago.If the designer was eternal, of what consequences is 100 human lifetimes.
All that slow struggle was organised for what? What was the purpose? Did >>> said designers (or that designer) want various lifeforms to evolve savagely >>> for tens of millions of human lifetimes?
Life has vegetated here of tens of millions human lifetimes. If it was garden then it looks abandoned.
If the things were orchestrated at all then by ID top six it is very weak supportIt seems so by ID "top six":Things are the way they are. Without direct and complete domination and
1 and 2) Someone outside of our universe designed it in a way that most
of it was extremely unsuitable for life as we know it.
3) A designer came about 4 bya to this tiny rock, saw that it is potentially
suitable for life as we know it, made primitive DNA-based life. Why? Was >>> it for it can evolve to inhabit variety of environments from common decent? >>> 4) A designer came about 2 - 1.2 bya, added improvements to some of
it (but not all) like sexual reproduction. Why? Was it for improved
evolution through sexual selection and gene recombination?
5) A designer came about 500 mya, improved some lifeforms into actively
hunting predators. Why? Was it for better evolution through predator:prey >>> arms race?
6) A designer came "only recently", turned some apes into humans.
Why? Was it for to have technological progress through variety of advanced >>> struggle between sub-populations (religions, wars, slavery, genocide, witch >>> hunts etc.)?
control and tyranny, things often get out of control.
to very slow evolution in very unsuitable environment.
I am not, you stopped to respond about proofreading and repair topic to meThe title of this thread is DNA proofreading and repair. you are
Those designers seemed all to like (and to support) evolution but you seem >>> to dislike it. Why?
avoiding the
topic. Why?
in this thread.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:to find?
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 11:51:18 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 2:51:17 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:........
On 10/21/23 7:18 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:41:15 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>> Ron DeanWhy then is it _never_ discussed?
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently >>>>>>>> discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only >>>>>>>> surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject. >>>>>>>> Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites >>>>>>>> describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each >>>>>>>> dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it >>>>>>>>> that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R) >>>>>>>>> which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: theninformation in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without >>>>>>>>> direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing >>>>>>>>> mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes >>>>>>>>> to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when the
Ron, lots of people here are very familiar with DNA proof reading and
repair.
Some time around the turn of the millennium, I came across a review >>>>> article about mutation rates in various organisms, from bacteria to >>>>> large animals, which made the point that the different mutation rates >>>>> are roughly optimal for the organisms' adaptive needs. E.g., if (say) >>>>> hedgehogs had less efficient DNA repair, the populations would suffer >>>>> from too many harmful mutations. If they had more efficient DNA repair,
they would suffer from not enough beneficial mutations.
Sorry I can't remember the article. I *think* it was in _Annual Review >>>>> of Ecology and Systematics_.
Since, I do not read every thread, chances are, I would not have associated
DNA proofreading and repair with the title of this thread. But I doubt >>>> the article went into the origin of it or how or why. I think that
design from purpose and forethought and mind is not only the best explanation but the
_only_ explanation.
DNA repair obviously would have had to evolve very early in the history of life, before the evolution of multicellular organisms, in other words, several billion years ago. If DNA repair systems HAD evolved naturally, what evidence would you expect
I think there is a kind of catch-22 situation here, if it happened
through natural processes, then one should expect to find evidence.
OK, but what kind of evidence would you expect to find?
But
if there's no evidence found, there's no reason to believe it happen,
through natural processes. Since, there is no such evidence, design from >> purpose, forethought and mind cannot be ruled out, unless one can rule
out _mind_. But then mind can be ruled out, if there is no design. But
this is where ones paradigm and ones biases plays a major role.
My reasons for belief; anytime copying occurs, errors also occur. This
is a reality. A mind would recognize this reality, and determine the
importance of fidelity. Errors over time would be catastrophic. So, this >> presents a need and need justifies, design and implementing the multiple >> proofreading and repair mechanisms for DNA . And this implementation
wold have occurred very early in the history of life; even as early as
the first life 3.8 billion years ago.
Sure, fidelity in replication is a good thing. So evolution would select for accurate replication. So in either the case of design or of natural evolution, we have a general explanation for why DNA repair systems might exist.
I don't think so! Since, information is a one way street (central dogma
- F. Crick) and since mutations in DNA occurs in random, accidental sequences, there is no guidance and no way for DNA to "know" about
survival of the fittest. IOW information is not reversible from the organism back to the DNA.
So you have to answer the questions
1. If DNA repair mechanisms evolved naturally what sort of evidence would you see of the > >evolutionary process (other than the resulting DNA repair mechanisms)?
That's not my call. But there are ancient insect fossils in Amber. Incomplete P&R would be
evidence. And dinosaurs with soft tissue is another possibility.
2. If DNA repair mechanisms were designed, what for of evidence would you see of the design process (other than the resulting DNA repair mechanism)?
I think the absence of any evidence of evolutionary change in the 5 P &
R machines, leaves no other options than design from purpose,
forethought and mind. I think that the P & R mechanisms function as well
as they do implies planning, design and execution. Furthermore, there are 5 specifically "designed" for their roles in different areas of the code.
The DNA repair mechanisms
in their first stages of development should have eliminated the
additional stages. This implies
that all 5 P&R machines appeared at one and the same time, together with DNA.
What evidence is there for any alternative explanation?
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/23/23 11:50 AM, Ron Dean wrote:In my younger days I was an unquestioning evolution, then I became disenchanted
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/21/23 7:18 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Since, I do not read every thread, chances are, I would not have associated >>> DNA proofreading and repair with the title of this thread. But I doubt
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:41:15 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> Ron DeanWhy then is it _never_ discussed?
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>>>>> ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject. Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an >>>>>>> amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites >>>>>>> describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it >>>>>>>> that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R) >>>>>>>> which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then >>>>>>>> engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without >>>>>>>> direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing >>>>>>>> mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes >>>>>>>> to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when the >>>>>>> information in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
Ron, lots of people here are very familiar with DNA proof reading and repair.
;
Some time around the turn of the millennium, I came across a review
article about mutation rates in various organisms, from bacteria to
large animals, which made the point that the different mutation rates
are roughly optimal for the organisms' adaptive needs. E.g., if (say) >>>> hedgehogs had less efficient DNA repair, the populations would suffer
from too many harmful mutations. If they had more efficient DNA
repair, they would suffer from not enough beneficial mutations.
Sorry I can't remember the article. I *think* it was in _Annual Review >>>> of Ecology and Systematics_.
the article went into the origin of it or how or why. I think that design from
purpose and forethought and mind is not only the best explanation but the >>> _only_ explanation.
Since DNA repair is optimized for evolutionary adaptation, your thought
means that evolution was purposely designed.
with strict dogma and I thought that a programed evolution was a possibility.
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 00:01:17 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:I am not, you stopped to respond about proofreading and repair topic to me in this thread.
The title of this thread is DNA proofreading and repair. you are
Those designers seemed all to like (and to support) evolution but you seem
to dislike it. Why?
avoiding the
topic. Why?
I responded to several post in regards to this. I did not purposely
ignore yours.
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 6:41:18 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:to find?
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 11:51:18 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 2:51:17 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:........
On 10/21/23 7:18 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:41:15 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Ron DeanWhy then is it _never_ discussed?
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently >>>>>>>>>> discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only >>>>>>>>>> surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject. >>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites >>>>>>>>>> describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each >>>>>>>>>> dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it >>>>>>>>>>> that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R) >>>>>>>>>>> which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then
engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without >>>>>>>>>>> direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing >>>>>>>>>>> mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes >>>>>>>>>>> to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when the >>>>>>>>>> information in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
Ron, lots of people here are very familiar with DNA proof reading and >>>>>>>>> repair.
Some time around the turn of the millennium, I came across a review >>>>>>> article about mutation rates in various organisms, from bacteria to >>>>>>> large animals, which made the point that the different mutation rates >>>>>>> are roughly optimal for the organisms' adaptive needs. E.g., if (say) >>>>>>> hedgehogs had less efficient DNA repair, the populations would suffer >>>>>>> from too many harmful mutations. If they had more efficient DNA repair, >>>>>>> they would suffer from not enough beneficial mutations.
Sorry I can't remember the article. I *think* it was in _Annual Review >>>>>>> of Ecology and Systematics_.
Since, I do not read every thread, chances are, I would not have associated
DNA proofreading and repair with the title of this thread. But I doubt >>>>>> the article went into the origin of it or how or why. I think that >>>>>> design from purpose and forethought and mind is not only the best explanation but the
_only_ explanation.
DNA repair obviously would have had to evolve very early in the history of life, before the evolution of multicellular organisms, in other words, several billion years ago. If DNA repair systems HAD evolved naturally, what evidence would you expect
become more common;I don't think so! Since, information is a one way street (central dogmaI think there is a kind of catch-22 situation here, if it happened
through natural processes, then one should expect to find evidence.
OK, but what kind of evidence would you expect to find?
But
if there's no evidence found, there's no reason to believe it happen,
through natural processes. Since, there is no such evidence, design from >>>> purpose, forethought and mind cannot be ruled out, unless one can rule >>>> out _mind_. But then mind can be ruled out, if there is no design. But >>>> this is where ones paradigm and ones biases plays a major role.
My reasons for belief; anytime copying occurs, errors also occur. This >>>> is a reality. A mind would recognize this reality, and determine the
importance of fidelity. Errors over time would be catastrophic. So, this >>>> presents a need and need justifies, design and implementing the multiple >>>> proofreading and repair mechanisms for DNA . And this implementation
wold have occurred very early in the history of life; even as early as >>>> the first life 3.8 billion years ago.
Sure, fidelity in replication is a good thing. So evolution would select for accurate replication. So in either the case of design or of natural evolution, we have a general explanation for why DNA repair systems might exist.
- F. Crick) and since mutations in DNA occurs in random, accidental
sequences, there is no guidance and no way for DNA to "know" about
survival of the fittest. IOW information is not reversible from the organism >> back to the DNA.
So you have to answer the questions
Of course there's a way for DNA to "know" about survival of the fittest. Organisms with DNA > sequences that make them more fit reproduce, and their DNA sequences
organisms with DNA sequences that make them less fit don't reproduce,and their DNA sequences
become less common.
IThat's not my call. But there are ancient insect fossils in Amber.
1. If DNA repair mechanisms evolved naturally what sort of evidence would you see of the > >evolutionary process (other than the resulting DNA repair mechanisms)?
Incomplete P&R would be
evidence. And dinosaurs with soft tissue is another possibility.
Remember, DNA repair mechanisms evolved before multicellular organisms, like insects and dinosaurs. Even if we could get DNA from DNA samples 10's of millions of years old, they would still not be old enough to tell us about the origin of DNA repair.
systems across different taxonomic groups.2. If DNA repair mechanisms were designed, what for of evidence would you see of the design process (other than the resulting DNA repair mechanism)?I think the absence of any evidence of evolutionary change in the 5 P &
R machines, leaves no other options than design from purpose,
forethought and mind. I think that the P & R mechanisms function as well
as they do implies planning, design and execution. Furthermore, there are 5 >> specifically "designed" for their roles in different areas of the code.
The DNA repair mechanisms
in their first stages of development should have eliminated the
additional stages. This implies
that all 5 P&R machines appeared at one and the same time, together with
DNA.
What evidence is there for any alternative explanation?
Even if there were no evidence of evolutionary change in DNA repair mechanisms, that would not >be evidence of design, only evidence that DNA repair mechanisms were highly conserved. In fact, >there's plenty of evidence of evolution of DNA repair
You think so! I know there are hypothesis and theories, but evidence?But >let's say there wasn't such evidence. That would not be evidence of design. Absence of evidence for evolution is in no way positive evidence
evidence of evolution.geared device ever devised 2200 years ago. It
Design can be recognized without knowing anything about the designer For example the antikythera device. That this device was the most complex
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 16:13:51 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:55:26 -0400, Ron DeanPlease provide me with the title of the thread where I participated then. >> Because I remember nothing regarding this topic at that time.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
FWIW, I did a search for "DNA repair" on T.O. archives. There have >>>>> been on average at least one major topic which discussed DNA repair >>>>> each year since 2010. The following identifies the OP to a recent one >>>>> where you and I had an extended back-and-forth:
************************************
From: jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: On "natural selection" as tautology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:01:31 -0500
Message-ID: <itcvvfpdb0s0gagdd...@4ax.com>
*************************************
There are others. What's curious is that you continue to assert
factual claims that are factually incorrect, and you have no good >>>>> reason to assume they are correct. Why is that?
I said I do not _recall_ any discussion regarding DNA proofreading
and repair on TO.
I know what you said. You also said it multiple times as if it were a >>> fact. And I said you have no good reason to say it even once. And
now you know your repeated statements are incorrect in fact and in
spirit, but you still don't retract it. Why is that?
For certain it is not a popular subject.
How can you claim certainty when you don't even remember posting to
those topics?
I just did, immediately above. Why did I even bother to post it?
I have gone to almost every site suggested. At none of these sites is
there the terms "DNA proofreading and repair", or anything related to
this specific subject. I went to TO archives.There are a few threads
about DNA repair. But before my recent involvement in the discussion
of DNA proofreading and repair, I do not remenber ever being engaged in
this topic.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 16:13:51 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:55:26 -0400, Ron DeanPlease provide me with the title of the thread where I participated then.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>>>> ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising, >>>>>> but very curious.
FWIW, I did a search for "DNA repair" on T.O. archives. There have
been on average at least one major topic which discussed DNA repair
each year since 2010. The following identifies the OP to a recent one >>>>> where you and I had an extended back-and-forth:
************************************
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: On "natural selection" as tautology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:01:31 -0500
Message-ID: <itcvvfpdb0s0gagddrbmdhso0i0gh5eajs@4ax.com>
*************************************
There are others. What's curious is that you continue to assert
factual claims that are factually incorrect, and you have no good
reason to assume they are correct. Why is that?
I said I do not _recall_ any discussion regarding DNA proofreading
and repair on TO.
I know what you said. You also said it multiple times as if it were a
fact. And I said you have no good reason to say it even once. And
now you know your repeated statements are incorrect in fact and in
spirit, but you still don't retract it. Why is that?
For certain it is not a popular subject.
How can you claim certainty when you don't even remember posting to
those topics?
Because I remember nothing regarding this topic at that time.
I just did, immediately above. Why did I even bother to post it?
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
broger...@gmail.com wrote:expect to find?
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 6:41:18 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2023 at 11:51:18 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 2:51:17 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
........On 10/21/23 7:18 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 5:41:15 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Why then is it _never_ discussed?
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently >>>>>>>>>> discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only >>>>>>>>>> surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject. >>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each >>>>>>>>>> dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is itinformation in the DNA molecule is > Correct?
that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R) >>>>>>>>>>> which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then
engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations. >>>>>>>>>>> Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing >>>>>>>>>>> mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
to the defect in the DNA molecule?> How can the P&R "know" when the
Ron, lots of people here are very familiar with DNA proof reading and
repair.
Some time around the turn of the millennium, I came across a review >>>>>>> article about mutation rates in various organisms, from bacteria to >>>>>>> large animals, which made the point that the different mutation rates
are roughly optimal for the organisms' adaptive needs. E.g., if (say)
hedgehogs had less efficient DNA repair, the populations would suffer
from too many harmful mutations. If they had more efficient DNA repair,
they would suffer from not enough beneficial mutations.
Sorry I can't remember the article. I *think* it was in _Annual Review
of Ecology and Systematics_.
Since, I do not read every thread, chances are, I would not have associated
DNA proofreading and repair with the title of this thread. But I doubt
the article went into the origin of it or how or why. I think that >>>>>> design from purpose and forethought and mind is not only the best explanation but the
_only_ explanation.
DNA repair obviously would have had to evolve very early in the history of life, before the evolution of multicellular organisms, in other words, several billion years ago. If DNA repair systems HAD evolved naturally, what evidence would you
I don't think so! Since, information is a one way street (central dogma >> - F. Crick) and since mutations in DNA occurs in random, accidentalI think there is a kind of catch-22 situation here, if it happened
through natural processes, then one should expect to find evidence.
OK, but what kind of evidence would you expect to find?
But
if there's no evidence found, there's no reason to believe it happen, >>>> through natural processes. Since, there is no such evidence, design from
purpose, forethought and mind cannot be ruled out, unless one can rule >>>> out _mind_. But then mind can be ruled out, if there is no design. But >>>> this is where ones paradigm and ones biases plays a major role.
My reasons for belief; anytime copying occurs, errors also occur. This >>>> is a reality. A mind would recognize this reality, and determine the >>>> importance of fidelity. Errors over time would be catastrophic. So, this
presents a need and need justifies, design and implementing the multiple
proofreading and repair mechanisms for DNA . And this implementation >>>> wold have occurred very early in the history of life; even as early as >>>> the first life 3.8 billion years ago.
Sure, fidelity in replication is a good thing. So evolution would select for accurate replication. So in either the case of design or of natural evolution, we have a general explanation for why DNA repair systems might exist.
sequences, there is no guidance and no way for DNA to "know" about
survival of the fittest. IOW information is not reversible from the organism
back to the DNA.
So you have to answer the questions
Of course there's a way for DNA to "know" about survival of the fittest. Organisms with DNA > sequences that make them more fit reproduce, and their DNA sequencesbecome more common;
organisms with DNA sequences that make them less fit don't reproduce,and their DNA sequences
become less common.
But once expressed, natural selection weeds out the weak biological organisms. But, still DNA don't know anything about this, because such information is not reversible - again mutations in DNA are random, accidental and by chance.
More often though, it's survival of the lucky. Because the lion catches
the youngest, the oldest and the injured and the one off to one side of
the herd.
You keep saying you used to believe in evolution, but it sure looks like
you didn't understand it even when you believed in it.
I understood enough to think it was logical, rational and the most
likely scenario. But reading
a book, on a challenge, for the first time caused me to question. Have
you ever questioned it?
systems across different taxonomic groups.That's not my call. But there are ancient insect fossils in Amber.
1. If DNA repair mechanisms evolved naturally what sort of evidence would you see of the > >evolutionary process (other than the resulting DNA repair mechanisms)?
Incomplete P&R would be
evidence. And dinosaurs with soft tissue is another possibility.
Remember, DNA repair mechanisms evolved before multicellular organisms, like insects and dinosaurs. Even if we could get DNA from DNA samples 10's of millions of years old, they would still not be old enough to tell us about the origin of DNA repair.I
2. If DNA repair mechanisms were designed, what for of evidence would you see of the design process (other than the resulting DNA repair mechanism)?I think the absence of any evidence of evolutionary change in the 5 P & >> R machines, leaves no other options than design from purpose,
forethought and mind. I think that the P & R mechanisms function as well >> as they do implies planning, design and execution. Furthermore, there are 5
specifically "designed" for their roles in different areas of the code. >> The DNA repair mechanisms
in their first stages of development should have eliminated the
additional stages. This implies
that all 5 P&R machines appeared at one and the same time, together with >> DNA.
What evidence is there for any alternative explanation?
Even if there were no evidence of evolutionary change in DNA repair mechanisms, that would not >be evidence of design, only evidence that DNA repair mechanisms were highly conserved. In fact, >there's plenty of evidence of evolution of DNA repair
You think so! I know there are hypothesis and theories, but evidence?But >let's say there wasn't such evidence. That would not be evidence of design. Absence of evidence for evolution is in no way positive evidence
for design; at most it is evidence that we have no idea what happened. Actual evidence for design would be, for example, independent evidence
of the physical >presence of a designer at the right place and the right time, a detailed description of the design process with evidence for
each step in the process - you know, the sorts of things you demand as >evidence of evolution.
geared device ever devised 2200 years ago. ItDesign can be recognized without knowing anything about the designer For example the antikythera device. That this device was the most complex
was recognized as designed at first sight, when absolutely nothing else
was known about it, otherwise it would have been left at the bottom of
the sea in an ancient ship wreck.
My reason for belief: where there is need, a solution is called for.
There is no hard empirical
evidence for design, but I think there is good circumstantial evidence
for it.
DNA contains vast amounts of information, and during the copying and transferring of information
copious numbers of errors, mistakes and omissions are bound to happen
and thus a need arises to eliminated such mutations....I believe an intelligence would recognize this need, devise and implement solutions.
The 5 proof-reading and repair mechanisms are designed and instrumented
for the purpose meeting this need.
I think a completely unbiased mind that was not committed to the
evolution paradigm would immediately recognize DNA proofreading and
repair machines as designed for a purpose.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 23/10/2023 01:09, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 21/10/2023 22:38, Ron Dean wrote:None of what I wrote above came from Bethe, Denton or Tour.
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently
discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not
recall ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not
only surprising, but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
Furthermore, I doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this
info. But this is an amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that
there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each
dedicated to particular a part of the DNA.
That's a rather low opinion of the ID community you have. If you
think Behe, Denton and Tour are so ignorant why do you place so much
weight on their opinions.
That's a non-sequitur. It's your claim that they are ignorant of DNA
proofreading and repair that represents your low opinion of them.
I did not spell out their names specifically, but years ago, on a
_challenge_ I
read a book by Michael Denton entitled, "Evolution a theory in Crisis".
Prior to this book I was an unquestioning evolutionist. I had no doubt regarding the veracity of evolution. As I understand it this is also what
got Behe to question Darwinian theory. I later read Behe's "Black Box".
Tour, I know nothing about this person.
Behe
and Denton are nominally biochemists - by claiming that they are
unaware of DNA proofreading and repair you are implying that they lack
knowledge of their field.
I do not recall anything regarding DNA proofreading and repair in either book.
No comment!
If you need clarification I was referring to their opinions on
abiogenesis, evolution and design in general.
But rather from sites on the net. The sites go into great detail on
how the
5 DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms function and how they
accomplish
this goal, but virtually nothing regarding how these detect and repair >>> mechanisms originated.
However, the reality of these 5 proofreading and repair machines have
all
the earmarks of design. It takes no faith to recognize design in
this. I strongly
suspect that a person completely unbiased and unfamiliar with modern
scientific confinement and restrictions would recognize this as
design from
need, purpose, forethought and mind.
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 16:13:51 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:55:26 -0400, Ron DeanPlease provide me with the title of the thread where I participated then. >>> Because I remember nothing regarding this topic at that time.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>>>>> ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising, >>>>>>> but very curious.
FWIW, I did a search for "DNA repair" on T.O. archives. There have >>>>>> been on average at least one major topic which discussed DNA repair >>>>>> each year since 2010. The following identifies the OP to a recent one >>>>>> where you and I had an extended back-and-forth:
************************************
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: On "natural selection" as tautology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:01:31 -0500
Message-ID: <itcvvfpdb0s0gagddrbmdhso0i0gh5eajs@4ax.com>
*************************************
There are others. What's curious is that you continue to assert
factual claims that are factually incorrect, and you have no good
reason to assume they are correct. Why is that?
I said I do not _recall_ any discussion regarding DNA proofreading
and repair on TO.
I know what you said. You also said it multiple times as if it were a >>>> fact. And I said you have no good reason to say it even once. And
now you know your repeated statements are incorrect in fact and in
spirit, but you still don't retract it. Why is that?
For certain it is not a popular subject.
How can you claim certainty when you don't even remember posting to
those topics?
I just did, immediately above. Why did I even bother to post it?
I have gone to almost every site suggested.
At none of these sites is
there the terms "DNA proofreading and repair", or anything related to
this specific subject. I went to TO archives.There are a few threads
about DNA repair. But before my recent involvement in the discussion
of DNA proofreading and repair, I do not remenber ever being engaged in
this topic.
On Wednesday, 25 October 2023 at 02:16:18 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:No you talked about such things ... heart (evolved 500 mya) ...
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 00:01:17 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:I responded to several post in regards to this. I did not purposely
Öö Tiib wrote:I am not, you stopped to respond about proofreading and repair topic to me >>> in this thread.
The title of this thread is DNA proofreading and repair. you are
Those designers seemed all to like (and to support) evolution but you seem
to dislike it. Why?
avoiding the
topic. Why?
ignore yours.
flying insects (evolved 300 mya) ... polar bear fur (evolved 5 mya) ...
paths between rivers ... misuse of word function and purpose ...
and now require precise step by step evolution of molecules
that started over 3 bya. You can not even say what purpose
that agonizingly slow and clearly wild evolution had.
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:59:35 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 16:13:51 -0400, Ron DeanI have gone to almost every site suggested.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:55:26 -0400, Ron DeanPlease provide me with the title of the thread where I participated then. >>>> Because I remember nothing regarding this topic at that time.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising, >>>>>>>> but very curious.
FWIW, I did a search for "DNA repair" on T.O. archives. There have >>>>>>> been on average at least one major topic which discussed DNA repair >>>>>>> each year since 2010. The following identifies the OP to a recent one >>>>>>> where you and I had an extended back-and-forth:
************************************
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: On "natural selection" as tautology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:01:31 -0500
Message-ID: <itcvvfpdb0s0gagddrbmdhso0i0gh5eajs@4ax.com>
*************************************
There are others. What's curious is that you continue to assert
factual claims that are factually incorrect, and you have no good >>>>>>> reason to assume they are correct. Why is that?
I said I do not _recall_ any discussion regarding DNA proofreading >>>>>> and repair on TO.
I know what you said. You also said it multiple times as if it were a >>>>> fact. And I said you have no good reason to say it even once. And
now you know your repeated statements are incorrect in fact and in
spirit, but you still don't retract it. Why is that?
For certain it is not a popular subject.
How can you claim certainty when you don't even remember posting to
those topics?
I just did, immediately above. Why did I even bother to post it?
Prove that you read any of the posts from the topic I cited above.
At none of these sites is
there the terms "DNA proofreading and repair", or anything related to
this specific subject. I went to TO archives.There are a few threads
about DNA repair. But before my recent involvement in the discussion
of DNA proofreading and repair, I do not remenber ever being engaged in
this topic.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 October 2023 at 02:16:18 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:No you talked about such things ... heart (evolved 500 mya) ...
On Tuesday, 24 October 2023 at 00:01:17 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:I responded to several post in regards to this. I did not purposely
Öö Tiib wrote:I am not, you stopped to respond about proofreading and repair topic to me
The title of this thread is DNA proofreading and repair. you are
Those designers seemed all to like (and to support) evolution but you seem
to dislike it. Why?
avoiding the
topic. Why?
in this thread.
ignore yours.
flying insects (evolved 300 mya) ... polar bear fur (evolved 5 mya) ... paths between rivers ... misuse of word function and purpose ...
and now require precise step by step evolution of molecules
that started over 3 bya. You can not even say what purpose
that agonizingly slow and clearly wild evolution had.
No, that not my interest.
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:59:35 -0400, Ron DeanAgain Jill, I went to the cite a blank page is all that showed up.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 16:13:51 -0400, Ron DeanI have gone to almost every site suggested.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:55:26 -0400, Ron DeanPlease provide me with the title of the thread where I participated then. >>>>> Because I remember nothing regarding this topic at that time.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
FWIW, I did a search for "DNA repair" on T.O. archives. There have >>>>>>>> been on average at least one major topic which discussed DNA repair >>>>>>>> each year since 2010. The following identifies the OP to a recent one >>>>>>>> where you and I had an extended back-and-forth:
************************************
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: On "natural selection" as tautology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:01:31 -0500
Message-ID: <itcvvfpdb0s0gagddrbmdhso0i0gh5eajs@4ax.com>
*************************************
There are others. What's curious is that you continue to assert >>>>>>>> factual claims that are factually incorrect, and you have no good >>>>>>>> reason to assume they are correct. Why is that?
I said I do not _recall_ any discussion regarding DNA proofreading >>>>>>> and repair on TO.
I know what you said. You also said it multiple times as if it were a >>>>>> fact. And I said you have no good reason to say it even once. And >>>>>> now you know your repeated statements are incorrect in fact and in >>>>>> spirit, but you still don't retract it. Why is that?
For certain it is not a popular subject.
How can you claim certainty when you don't even remember posting to >>>>>> those topics?
I just did, immediately above. Why did I even bother to post it?
Prove that you read any of the posts from the topic I cited above.
But I went to TO archieves,
and there is nothing under the header of "DNA proofreading and repair", >there were some on repair.
But as I wrote I do not recall particopating in any.
But that's neither here nor there,
the topic I'm interested in is currently under discussion.
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:comparing the different DNA repair systems in different organisms in different taxonomic groups. Perhaps that don't have the specific strings of words you are looking for, but lots of folks have been working on the origin and evolution of DNA repair.
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 16:13:51 -0400, Ron DeanI have gone to almost every site suggested. At none of these sites is
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:55:26 -0400, Ron DeanPlease provide me with the title of the thread where I participated then. >>>> Because I remember nothing regarding this topic at that time.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>>>>>> ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising, >>>>>>>> but very curious.
FWIW, I did a search for "DNA repair" on T.O. archives. There have >>>>>>> been on average at least one major topic which discussed DNA repair >>>>>>> each year since 2010. The following identifies the OP to a recent one >>>>>>> where you and I had an extended back-and-forth:
************************************
From: jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: On "natural selection" as tautology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:01:31 -0500
Message-ID: <itcvvfpdb0s0gagdd...@4ax.com>
*************************************
There are others. What's curious is that you continue to assert
factual claims that are factually incorrect, and you have no good >>>>>>> reason to assume they are correct. Why is that?
I said I do not _recall_ any discussion regarding DNA proofreading >>>>>> and repair on TO.
I know what you said. You also said it multiple times as if it were a >>>>> fact. And I said you have no good reason to say it even once. And
now you know your repeated statements are incorrect in fact and in
spirit, but you still don't retract it. Why is that?
For certain it is not a popular subject.
How can you claim certainty when you don't even remember posting to
those topics?
I just did, immediately above. Why did I even bother to post it?
there the terms "DNA proofreading and repair", or anything related to
this specific subject. I went to TO archives.There are a few threads
about DNA repair. But before my recent involvement in the discussion
of DNA proofreading and repair, I do not remenber ever being engaged in
this topic.
That you are unaware of a topic does not mean that nobody has thought about it. There's a huge published literature on DNA repair systems; they are, among other things, quite relevant to the pathogenesis of cancer. There are plenty of articles
One thing may be true, DNA repair systems have not been one of the systems that ID advocates have chosen (more or less at random from a huge number of complex systems), to feature in their attacks on evolution. That may be why you've not heard muchabout them - they have not gotten the spotlight in evolution news or other creationist websites.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
That you are unaware of a topic does not mean that nobody has thought
about it. There's a huge published literature on DNA repair systems;
they are, among other things, quite relevant to the pathogenesis of
cancer. There are plenty of articles comparing the different DNA
repair systems in different organisms in different taxonomic groups.
Perhaps that don't have the specific strings of words you are looking
for, but lots of folks have been working on the origin and evolution
of DNA repair.
There are several cites going into great detail explaining how the DNA
repair functions. But before mutations can be repaired, mutations have
to be detected (proofread). In a universe where random, accidental,
aimless, mindless process are at play, how is it possible for DNA to
"know or care" about errors, omissions, mutations? Since information
goes only one way (central dogma - Crick)
DNA can know nothing regarding fitness or survival?
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of evolution >established. The view, is
of course, they evolved. That's too easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On 27/10/2023 06:22, Ron Dean wrote:
There are several cites going into great detail explaining how the DNA
repair functions. But before mutations can be repaired, mutations have
to be detected (proofread). In a universe where random, accidental,
aimless, mindless process are at play, how is it possible for DNA to
"know or care" about errors, omissions, mutations? Since information
goes only one way (central dogma - Crick)
DNA can know nothing regarding fitness or survival?
If you read your cites again you should find
1) That DNA proofreading and repair do not change DNA to the
"beneficial" state - they attempt to change it to previous state
regardless of the selection coefficient of the previous state.
2) Explanations of what chemical changes are made in which circumstances
by the proofreading and repair mechanisms.
If you were to give the matter a modicum of thought you might realise
that in proofreading the daughter strand can be compared to the parent >strand. The most likely cause of a discrepancy between the two is >misincorporation of a nucleotide into the daughter strand, so modifying
the daughter strand to match the parent strand will correct errors much
more often than not. One would have to read further to discover how the >strands are distinguished, but one would expect that there are markers,
such as position relative to the replication complex.
It is perhaps not so obvious how DNA repair identifies the damaged
strand (and DNA repair, and probably proofreading, doesn't always get it >right), but it could recognise markers such as gaps in strands, or the >presence of non-canonical nucleotides.
I had thought you were engaging in a "(breathless voice) it's so >complicated, I can't imagine how it evolved, it must be designed"
argument, but it turns out that you're now arguing against a strawman of
DNA proofreading and repair. You're projecting the teleology of
creationism onto evolution.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2023 09:58:41 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2023 12:59:35 -0400, Ron DeanAgain Jill, I went to the cite a blank page is all that showed up.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 16:13:51 -0400, Ron DeanI have gone to almost every site suggested.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:55:26 -0400, Ron DeanPlease provide me with the title of the thread where I participated then.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
FWIW, I did a search for "DNA repair" on T.O. archives. There have >>>>>>>>> been on average at least one major topic which discussed DNA repair >>>>>>>>> each year since 2010. The following identifies the OP to a recent one
where you and I had an extended back-and-forth:
************************************
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: On "natural selection" as tautology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:01:31 -0500
Message-ID: <itcvvfpdb0s0gagddrbmdhso0i0gh5eajs@4ax.com>
*************************************
There are others. What's curious is that you continue to assert >>>>>>>>> factual claims that are factually incorrect, and you have no good >>>>>>>>> reason to assume they are correct. Why is that?
I said I do not _recall_ any discussion regarding DNA proofreading >>>>>>>> and repair on TO.
I know what you said. You also said it multiple times as if it were a >>>>>>> fact. And I said you have no good reason to say it even once. And >>>>>>> now you know your repeated statements are incorrect in fact and in >>>>>>> spirit, but you still don't retract it. Why is that?
For certain it is not a popular subject.
How can you claim certainty when you don't even remember posting to >>>>>>> those topics?
Because I remember nothing regarding this topic at that time.
I just did, immediately above. Why did I even bother to post it?
Prove that you read any of the posts from the topic I cited above.
Usenet links don't work in web browsers.
But I went to TO archieves,
and there is nothing under the header of "DNA proofreading and repair",
there were some on repair.
By definition, "repair" necessarily requires an identification of what
to repair aka "proofreading". Your comments above shows you don't
even know what you're talking about.
But as I wrote I do not recall particopating in any.
And as I wrote, my cite proves your recollections are factually
incorrect. Your recent medical misfortunes don't justify your failure
to retract your repeated and willfully ignorant misrepresentations.
But that's neither here nor there,
the topic I'm interested in is currently under discussion.
Once again, and contrary to your claims, this topic has been "under discussion" many times. Just as you pretend the previous discussions
never happened, you will almost certainly conveniently forget any
current discussions as well.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Once again, and contrary to your claims, this topic has been "underWhat's the point with discussing anything with you: if I said it's warm
discussion" many times. Just as you pretend the previous discussions
never happened, you will almost certainly conveniently forget any
current discussions as well.
and sunny here in
Raleigh- Durham, you'd say no it cold and windy. So, there is no point!
G-bye
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:15:31 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip uncommented text>I appreciate that the original charter of TO was to distract creationists (and other trolls?)
Run away brave Sir Dean...Once again, and contrary to your claims, this topic has been "underWhat's the point with discussing anything with you: if I said it's warm >and sunny here in
discussion" many times. Just as you pretend the previous discussions
never happened, you will almost certainly conveniently forget any
current discussions as well.
Raleigh- Durham, you'd say no it cold and windy. So, there is no point!
G-bye
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 1:01:22?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:15:31 -0400, Ron DeanI appreciate that the original charter of TO was to distract creationists (and other trolls?)
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip uncommented text>
Run away brave Sir Dean...Once again, and contrary to your claims, this topic has been "underWhat's the point with discussing anything with you: if I said it's warm
discussion" many times. Just as you pretend the previous discussions
never happened, you will almost certainly conveniently forget any
current discussions as well.
and sunny here in
Raleigh- Durham, you'd say no it cold and windy. So, there is no point!
G-bye
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
away from "serious" discussions of evolution, etc. Is its present purpose to browbeat
creationists and other ignoramuses until they see the light? That never seems to work.
If Ron isn't inclined to change his mind, why taunt him. Let him go.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is biased and
your own isn't?
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:41:39 -0700 (PDT), erik simpsonIt's not directed at you; you were just the last of an extended episode. What's
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 1:01:22?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:It's remarkable how some posters direct comments like the above at me.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:15:31 -0400, Ron DeanI appreciate that the original charter of TO was to distract creationists (and other trolls?)
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip uncommented text>
Run away brave Sir Dean...Once again, and contrary to your claims, this topic has been "underWhat's the point with discussing anything with you: if I said it's warm >> >and sunny here in
discussion" many times. Just as you pretend the previous discussions >> >> never happened, you will almost certainly conveniently forget any
current discussions as well.
Raleigh- Durham, you'd say no it cold and windy. So, there is no point! >> > G-bye
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
away from "serious" discussions of evolution, etc. Is its present purpose to browbeat
creationists and other ignoramuses until they see the light? That never seems to work.
If Ron isn't inclined to change his mind, why taunt him. Let him go.
There is nothing I posted to R.Dean in this topic that remotely
justifies your comments or his. You would know this if you weren't
willfully blind.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion. There is no empirical evidence of the
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too easy.
It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is biased and
your own isn't?
origin of DNA proofreading and repair, (P&R) within the narrow,
restrictive scientific domain. However, I believe, there is good solid circumstantial evidence that suggest deliberate, purposeful design with forethought.
It's a reality, that whenever there's copying or transferring of massive amounts of information
errors, omissions, flaws and other mutations occur. This is often tragic causing horrific
mind and body deformities and diseases. So, need is present. With random chance, accidental unguided natural processes, there is nothing that
knows or cares about mutations. So, why bring about DNA proofreading and repair and how? Furthermore, how does random mutations and natural
selection detect pre-existing mutations and then repair these mutations, through additional random mutations and natural selection? Here we have random mutations
being corrected via random mutations and natural selection; and this by unguided, mindless, aimless natural processes.
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 9:31:22?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:41:39 -0700 (PDT), erik simpsonIt's not directed at you; you were just the last of an extended episode.
<eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 1:01:22?PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:It's remarkable how some posters direct comments like the above at me.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:15:31 -0400, Ron DeanI appreciate that the original charter of TO was to distract creationists (and other trolls?)
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip uncommented text>
Run away brave Sir Dean...Once again, and contrary to your claims, this topic has been "under >> >> >> discussion" many times. Just as you pretend the previous discussions >> >> >> never happened, you will almost certainly conveniently forget anyWhat's the point with discussing anything with you: if I said it's warm >> >> >and sunny here in
current discussions as well.
Raleigh- Durham, you'd say no it cold and windy. So, there is no point! >> >> > G-bye
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
away from "serious" discussions of evolution, etc. Is its present purpose to browbeat
creationists and other ignoramuses until they see the light? That never seems to work.
If Ron isn't inclined to change his mind, why taunt him. Let him go.
There is nothing I posted to R.Dean in this topic that remotely
justifies your comments or his. You would know this if you weren't
willfully blind.
What's so interesting about Ron?
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:55:26 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered. >>>>> However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>>> ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising, >>>>> but very curious.
FWIW, I did a search for "DNA repair" on T.O. archives. There have
been on average at least one major topic which discussed DNA repair
each year since 2010. The following identifies the OP to a recent one >>>> where you and I had an extended back-and-forth:
************************************
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: On "natural selection" as tautology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:01:31 -0500
Message-ID: <itcvvfpdb0s0gagddrbmdhso0i0gh5eajs@4ax.com>
*************************************
There are others. What's curious is that you continue to assert
factual claims that are factually incorrect, and you have no good
reason to assume they are correct. Why is that?
Please provide me with the title of the thread where I participated then. >Because I remember nothing regarding this topic at that time.I said I do not _recall_ any discussion regarding DNA proofreading
and repair on TO.
I know what you said. You also said it multiple times as if it were a
fact. And I said you have no good reason to say it even once. And
now you know your repeated statements are incorrect in fact and in
spirit, but you still don't retract it. Why is that?
For certain it is not a popular subject.
How can you claim certainty when you don't even remember posting to
those topics?
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is biased and
your own isn't?
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
I realize that hard empirical evidence is extremely unlikely, however I believe there is a strong
case for circumstantial evidence can be made.
In order to copy or transfer information, a high degree of fidelity is
is essential and
extremely important. In a random, thoughtless, accidental chemical
molecule, why is
a high level of fidelity is an issue? How is it guided?
I realize that hard empirical evidence is extremely unlikely, however I believe there is a strong
case for circumstantial evidence can be made.
In order to copy or transfer information, a high degree of fidelity is
is essential and
extremely important. In a random, thoughtless, accidental chemical
molecule, why is
a high level of fidelity is an issue? How is it guided?
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 16:13:51 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:55:26 -0400, Ron DeanPlease provide me with the title of the thread where I participated then.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>>>> ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising, >>>>>> but very curious.
FWIW, I did a search for "DNA repair" on T.O. archives. There have
been on average at least one major topic which discussed DNA repair
each year since 2010. The following identifies the OP to a recent one >>>>> where you and I had an extended back-and-forth:
************************************
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: On "natural selection" as tautology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:01:31 -0500
Message-ID: <itcvvfpdb0s0gagddrbmdhso0i0gh5eajs@4ax.com>
*************************************
There are others. What's curious is that you continue to assert
factual claims that are factually incorrect, and you have no good
reason to assume they are correct. Why is that?
I said I do not _recall_ any discussion regarding DNA proofreading
and repair on TO.
I know what you said. You also said it multiple times as if it were a
fact. And I said you have no good reason to say it even once. And
now you know your repeated statements are incorrect in fact and in
spirit, but you still don't retract it. Why is that?
For certain it is not a popular subject.
How can you claim certainty when you don't even remember posting to
those topics?
Because I remember nothing regarding this topic at that time.
I don't know if this is the same post but you did post this back on 18
Jan, 2021 in a thread you started titled 'IS ONE SIDED RESEARCH
VALID?' [your original caps]:
"[…] Everything I advocate is the result of my own research and study.
As far as I'm concerned the strongest evidence points to design. I'm
in reference to: 1) the origin or life from dead matter. the origin of
the DNA Code and living cells with the ability to reproduce. 2) the
origin of the DNA edit and repair machinery. […]"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/v6Iazl0iz9I/m/LlvVkUwuAAAJ
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most modern >>>> phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
[...]
Ron Dean wrote:high level of fidelity is an issue? How is it guided?
I realize that hard empirical evidence is extremely unlikely, however I
believe there is a strong case for circumstantial evidence can be made. In order to copy or transfer information, >> a high degree of fidelity is essential and extremely important. In a random, thoughtless, accidental chemical >> molecule, why is a
You are right, Ron. These thoughtless, unguided DNA
molecules and their godless DNA repair kits are rendered
amoralistic and without any conscience. They cannot
possibly have the high-fidelity kind of data transfer
that we expect in civilized Christian DNA molecules,
which is necessary for life as we all so correctly know
it.
Now you can't have morality without God, so that pretty
much sews up the case for ID, starring God Himself as the
only possible designer.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 16:13:51 -0400, Ron DeanAs I've stated several times I do not recall anything regarding
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:55:26 -0400, Ron DeanPlease provide me with the title of the thread where I participated then. >>> Because I remember nothing regarding this topic at that time.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>>>>> ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising, >>>>>>> but very curious.
FWIW, I did a search for "DNA repair" on T.O. archives. There have >>>>>> been on average at least one major topic which discussed DNA repair >>>>>> each year since 2010. The following identifies the OP to a recent one >>>>>> where you and I had an extended back-and-forth:
************************************
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: On "natural selection" as tautology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:01:31 -0500
Message-ID: <itcvvfpdb0s0gagddrbmdhso0i0gh5eajs@4ax.com>
*************************************
There are others. What's curious is that you continue to assert
factual claims that are factually incorrect, and you have no good
reason to assume they are correct. Why is that?
I said I do not _recall_ any discussion regarding DNA proofreading
and repair on TO.
I know what you said. You also said it multiple times as if it were a >>>> fact. And I said you have no good reason to say it even once. And
now you know your repeated statements are incorrect in fact and in
spirit, but you still don't retract it. Why is that?
For certain it is not a popular subject.
How can you claim certainty when you don't even remember posting to
those topics?
I don't know if this is the same post but you did post this back on 18
Jan, 2021 in a thread you started titled 'IS ONE SIDED RESEARCH
VALID?' [your original caps]:
"[…] Everything I advocate is the result of my own research and study.
As far as I'm concerned the strongest evidence points to design. I'm
in reference to: 1) the origin or life from dead matter. the origin of
the DNA Code and living cells with the ability to reproduce. 2) the
origin of the DNA edit and repair machinery. […]"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/v6Iazl0iz9I/m/LlvVkUwuAAAJ
proofreading and repair. Perhaps I did touch on the topic. I just
forgot. In any case the question of how, why and the origin of
proofreading and repair remains unanswered.
On Friday, 27 October 2023 at 08:26:20 UTC+3, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:How? First versions of repair mechanism probably appeared 3-4 billions
I realize that hard empirical evidence is extremely unlikely, however I
believe there is a strong case for circumstantial evidence can be made.
years ago, we have only pieces of rock that look rather likely formed
from biogenic materials from that time.
In order to copy or transfer information, a high degree of fidelity isIt is unguided. Organism has ability to copy but not to repair? Repairing
is essential and extremely important. In a random, thoughtless, accidental chemical
molecule, why is a high level of fidelity is an issue? How is it guided?
is not that different from copying just cheaper. So there is selective pressure to replace part of copying effort with repairing effort.
Martin Harran wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
Please provide me with the title of the thread where I participated then. >> Because I remember nothing regarding this topic at that time.However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising, >>>>>> but very curious.
FWIW, I did a search for "DNA repair" on T.O. archives. There have >>>>> been on average at least one major topic which discussed DNA repair >>>>> each year since 2010. The following identifies the OP to a recent one >>>>> where you and I had an extended back-and-forth:
************************************
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: On "natural selection" as tautology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:01:31 -0500
Message-ID: <itcvvfpdb0s0gagddrbmdhso0i0gh5eajs@4ax.com>
*************************************
There are others. What's curious is that you continue to assert
factual claims that are factually incorrect, and you have no good
reason to assume they are correct. Why is that?
I said I do not _recall_ any discussion regarding DNA proofreading
and repair on TO.
I know what you said. You also said it multiple times as if it were a >>> fact. And I said you have no good reason to say it even once. And
now you know your repeated statements are incorrect in fact and in
spirit, but you still don't retract it. Why is that?
For certain it is not a popular subject.
How can you claim certainty when you don't even remember posting to
those topics?
I don't know if this is the same post but you did post this back on 18
Jan, 2021 in a thread you started titled 'IS ONE SIDED RESEARCH
VALID?' [your original caps]:
"[] Everything I advocate is the result of my own research and study.
As far as I'm concerned the strongest evidence points to design. I'm
in reference to: 1) the origin or life from dead matter. the origin of
the DNA Code and living cells with the ability to reproduce. 2) the
origin of the DNA edit and repair machinery. []"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/v6Iazl0iz9I/m/LlvVkUwuAAAJ
As I've stated several times I do not recall anything regarding
proofreading and repair. Perhaps I did touch on the topic. I just
forgot. In any case the question of how, why and the origin of
proofreading and repair remains unanswered.
El Kabong wrote:high level of fidelity is an issue? How is it guided?
Ron Dean wrote:
I realize that hard empirical evidence is extremely unlikely, however I
believe there is a strong case for circumstantial evidence can be made. In order to copy or transfer information, >> a high degree of fidelity is essential and extremely important. In a random, thoughtless, accidental chemical >> molecule, why is a
You are right, Ron. These thoughtless, unguided DNA
molecules and their godless DNA repair kits are rendered
amoralistic and without any conscience. They cannot
possibly have the high-fidelity kind of data transfer
that we expect in civilized Christian DNA molecules,
which is necessary for life as we all so correctly know
it.
You are incapable of providing any rational, logical explanation for any
of the comments I make, or deal with any questions I asked, so because
of your conformation bias, you refuse to consider anything that possibly
is contrary. So, what do you do: you resort to distortion, perversion, ridicule, caricature and illogical misrepresentation of that which you
have no exhalation or answers.
Now you can't have morality without God, so that pretty
much sews up the case for ID, starring God Himself as the
only possible designer.
Ron Dean wrote:high level of fidelity is an issue? How is it guided?
El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
I realize that hard empirical evidence is extremely unlikely, however I >>>> believe there is a strong case for circumstantial evidence can be made. In order to copy or transfer information, >> a high degree of fidelity is essential and extremely important. In a random, thoughtless, accidental chemical >> molecule, why is a
>
You are right, Ron. These thoughtless, unguided DNA
molecules and their godless DNA repair kits are rendered
amoralistic and without any conscience. They cannot
possibly have the high-fidelity kind of data transfer
that we expect in civilized Christian DNA molecules,
which is necessary for life as we all so correctly know
it.
You are incapable of providing any rational, logical explanation for any
of the comments I make, or deal with any questions I asked, so because
of your conformation bias, you refuse to consider anything that possibly
is contrary. So, what do you do: you resort to distortion, perversion,
ridicule, caricature and illogical misrepresentation of that which you
have no explation or answers.
Ron, you brought up the "random, thoughtless, accidental
chemical molecule" and asked how it knows or cares. That
is what I addressed.
Perhaps I misinterpreted, and you were trying to make a
serious technical point about secular chemistry?
Now you can't have morality without God, so that pretty
much sews up the case for ID, starring God Himself as the
only possible designer.
Hallelujah.
On 2023-10-28 19:23:54 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 16:13:51 -0400, Ron DeanAs I've stated several times I do not recall anything regarding
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:55:26 -0400, Ron DeanPlease provide me with the title of the thread where I participated
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently
discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received
almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not >>>>>>>> recall
ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only
surprising,
but very curious.
FWIW, I did a search for "DNA repair" on T.O. archives. There have >>>>>>> been on average at least one major topic which discussed DNA repair >>>>>>> each year since 2010. The following identifies the OP to a
recent one
where you and I had an extended back-and-forth:
************************************
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: On "natural selection" as tautology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:01:31 -0500
Message-ID: <itcvvfpdb0s0gagddrbmdhso0i0gh5eajs@4ax.com>
*************************************
There are others. What's curious is that you continue to assert
factual claims that are factually incorrect, and you have no good >>>>>>> reason to assume they are correct. Why is that?
I said I do not _recall_ any discussion regarding DNA proofreading >>>>>> and repair on TO.
I know what you said. You also said it multiple times as if it were a >>>>> fact. And I said you have no good reason to say it even once. And >>>>> now you know your repeated statements are incorrect in fact and in
spirit, but you still don't retract it. Why is that?
For certain it is not a popular subject.
How can you claim certainty when you don't even remember posting to
those topics?
then.
Because I remember nothing regarding this topic at that time.
I don't know if this is the same post but you did post this back on 18
Jan, 2021 in a thread you started titled 'IS ONE SIDED RESEARCH
VALID?' [your original caps]:
"[…] Everything I advocate is the result of my own research and study. >>> As far as I'm concerned the strongest evidence points to design. I'm
in reference to: 1) the origin or life from dead matter. the origin of
the DNA Code and living cells with the ability to reproduce. 2) the
origin of the DNA edit and repair machinery. […]"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/v6Iazl0iz9I/m/LlvVkUwuAAAJ
proofreading and repair. Perhaps I did touch on the topic. I just
forgot. In any case the question of how, why and the origin of
proofreading and repair remains unanswered.
Why are you so anxious to parade your ignorance? Read up about these
things in some serious textbooks, and if you still think nothing is
known, then come back.
El Kabong wrote:a high level of fidelity is an issue? How is it guided?
Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
I realize that hard empirical evidence is extremely unlikely, however I >>>> believe there is a strong case for circumstantial evidence can be made. In order to copy or transfer information, >> a high degree of fidelity is essential and extremely important. In a random, thoughtless, accidental chemical >> molecule, why is
>
You are right, Ron. These thoughtless, unguided DNA
molecules and their godless DNA repair kits are rendered
amoralistic and without any conscience. They cannot
possibly have the high-fidelity kind of data transfer
that we expect in civilized Christian DNA molecules,
which is necessary for life as we all so correctly know
it.
You are incapable of providing any rational, logical explanation for any >> of the comments I make, or deal with any questions I asked, so because
of your conformation bias, you refuse to consider anything that possibly >> is contrary. So, what do you do: you resort to distortion, perversion,
ridicule, caricature and illogical misrepresentation of that which you
have no explation or answers.
Ron, you brought up the "random, thoughtless, accidental
chemical molecule" and asked how it knows or cares. That
is what I addressed.
I asked how and why DNA P&R occurs. No one seem to respond or answer, so
I attempted to depict DNA as a character. So, the question could be understood.
Perhaps I misinterpreted, and you were trying to make a
serious technical point about secular chemistry?
Now you can't have morality without God, so that pretty
much sews up the case for ID, starring God Himself as the
only possible designer.
Hallelujah.
The introduction of a god is a propaganda gimmick that's constantly used
by people who are closed- minded which they hope, discredits anything contrary to their conformation bias.
Another trick is
labeling anyone who questions evolution "a creationist". This is meant
as a slanderous term, intended as a discredit. They have no desire to
honest or truthfully deal with any issue the might
be contrary to their confirmation bias. But in their own mind they think
that biases are everywhere
except in their narrow, limited constrict corner of the world.
El Kabong wrote:a high level of fidelity is an issue? How is it guided?
Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
I realize that hard empirical evidence is extremely unlikely, however I >>>> believe there is a strong case for circumstantial evidence can be made. In order to copy or transfer information, >> a high degree of fidelity is essential and extremely important. In a random, thoughtless, accidental chemical >> molecule, why is
You are incapable of providing any rational, logical explanation for any >> of the comments I make, or deal with any questions I asked, so because
You are right, Ron. These thoughtless, unguided DNA
molecules and their godless DNA repair kits are rendered
amoralistic and without any conscience. They cannot
possibly have the high-fidelity kind of data transfer
that we expect in civilized Christian DNA molecules,
which is necessary for life as we all so correctly know
it.
of your conformation bias, you refuse to consider anything that possibly >> is contrary. So, what do you do: you resort to distortion, perversion,
ridicule, caricature and illogical misrepresentation of that which you
have no explation or answers.
Ron, you brought up the "random, thoughtless, accidental
chemical molecule" and asked how it knows or cares. That
is what I addressed.
I asked how and why DNA P&R occurs. No one seem to respond or answer,
I attempted to depict DNA as a character. So, the question could be understood.
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 1:51:22?AM UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:a high level of fidelity is an issue? How is it guided?
El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
I realize that hard empirical evidence is extremely unlikely, however I
believe there is a strong case for circumstantial evidence can be made. In order to copy or transfer information, >> a high degree of fidelity is essential and extremely important. In a random, thoughtless, accidental chemical >> molecule, why is
I asked how and why DNA P&R occurs. No one seem to respond or answer,You are incapable of providing any rational, logical explanation for any >> >> of the comments I make, or deal with any questions I asked, so because >> >> of your conformation bias, you refuse to consider anything that possibly >> >> is contrary. So, what do you do: you resort to distortion, perversion, >> >> ridicule, caricature and illogical misrepresentation of that which you
You are right, Ron. These thoughtless, unguided DNA
molecules and their godless DNA repair kits are rendered
amoralistic and without any conscience. They cannot
possibly have the high-fidelity kind of data transfer
that we expect in civilized Christian DNA molecules,
which is necessary for life as we all so correctly know
it.
have no explation or answers.
Ron, you brought up the "random, thoughtless, accidental
chemical molecule" and asked how it knows or cares. That
is what I addressed.
simply not true, you've been given several references to the literature that >describes what we know so far
- you did not respond to any of these, as usual
so<snip>
I attempted to depict DNA as a character. So, the question could be
understood.
El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:>
I realize that hard empirical evidence is extremely unlikely,
however I
believe there is a strong case for circumstantial evidence can be
made. In order to copy or transfer information, >> a high degree of
fidelity is essential and extremely important. In a random,
thoughtless, accidental chemical >> molecule, why is a high level
of fidelity is an issue? How is it guided?
You are right, Ron. These thoughtless, unguided DNA
molecules and their godless DNA repair kits are rendered
amoralistic and without any conscience. They cannot
possibly have the high-fidelity kind of data transfer
that we expect in civilized Christian DNA molecules,
which is necessary for life as we all so correctly know
it.
You are incapable of providing any rational, logical explanation for any >>> of the comments I make, or deal with any questions I asked, so because >>> of your conformation bias, you refuse to consider anything that possibly >>> is contrary. So, what do you do: you resort to distortion, perversion,
ridicule, caricature and illogical misrepresentation of that which you >>> have no explation or answers.
Ron, you brought up the "random, thoughtless, accidental
chemical molecule" and asked how it knows or cares. That
is what I addressed.
I asked how and why DNA P&R occurs. No one seem to respond or answer, so
I attempted to depict DNA as a character. So, the question could be understood.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of evolution >>>>> established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most modern >>>>> phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
[...]
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of evolution >>>>>> established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most modern >>>>>> phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is biased and >>>>> your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
[...]
Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 16:13:51 -0400, Ron DeanAs I've stated several times I do not recall anything regarding
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:55:26 -0400, Ron DeanPlease provide me with the title of the thread where I participated then. >>> Because I remember nothing regarding this topic at that time.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >>>>>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >>>>>>> ever
seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising, >>>>>>> but very curious.
FWIW, I did a search for "DNA repair" on T.O. archives. There have >>>>>> been on average at least one major topic which discussed DNA repair >>>>>> each year since 2010. The following identifies the OP to a recent one >>>>>> where you and I had an extended back-and-forth:
************************************
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: On "natural selection" as tautology
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 22:01:31 -0500
Message-ID: <itcvvfpdb0s0gagddrbmdhso0i0gh5eajs@4ax.com>
*************************************
There are others. What's curious is that you continue to assert
factual claims that are factually incorrect, and you have no good
reason to assume they are correct. Why is that?
I said I do not _recall_ any discussion regarding DNA proofreading
and repair on TO.
I know what you said. You also said it multiple times as if it were a >>>> fact. And I said you have no good reason to say it even once. And
now you know your repeated statements are incorrect in fact and in
spirit, but you still don't retract it. Why is that?
For certain it is not a popular subject.
How can you claim certainty when you don't even remember posting to
those topics?
I don't know if this is the same post but you did post this back on 18
Jan, 2021 in a thread you started titled 'IS ONE SIDED RESEARCH
VALID?' [your original caps]:
"[] Everything I advocate is the result of my own research and study.
As far as I'm concerned the strongest evidence points to design. I'm
in reference to: 1) the origin or life from dead matter. the origin of
the DNA Code and living cells with the ability to reproduce. 2) the
origin of the DNA edit and repair machinery. []"
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/v6Iazl0iz9I/m/LlvVkUwuAAAJ
proofreading and repair. Perhaps I did touch on the topic.
I just
forgot. In any case the question of how, why and the origin of
proofreading and repair remains unanswered.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On 10/28/23 4:49 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:I asked how and why DNA P&R occurs. No one seem to respond or answer,
El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:>
I realize that hard empirical evidence is extremely unlikely,
however I
believe there is a strong case for circumstantial evidence can be
made. In order to copy or transfer information, >> a high degree
of fidelity is essential and extremely important. In a random,
thoughtless, accidental chemical >> molecule, why is a high level
of fidelity is an issue? How is it guided?
You are right, Ron. These thoughtless, unguided DNA
molecules and their godless DNA repair kits are rendered
amoralistic and without any conscience. They cannot
possibly have the high-fidelity kind of data transfer
that we expect in civilized Christian DNA molecules,
which is necessary for life as we all so correctly know
it.
You are incapable of providing any rational, logical explanation for
any
of the comments I make, or deal with any questions I asked, so because >>>> of your conformation bias, you refuse to consider anything that
possibly
is contrary. So, what do you do: you resort to distortion, perversion, >>>> ridicule, caricature and illogical misrepresentation of that which you >>>> have no explation or answers.
Ron, you brought up the "random, thoughtless, accidental
chemical molecule" and asked how it knows or cares. That
is what I addressed.
;
so I attempted to depict DNA as a character. So, the question could
be understood.
Certainly you don't care about the answer, since you have ignored those
that have been given.
People who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy. This
is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed with
planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial evidence for
design based on the reality of excessive mutations is unacceptable due
to the horrific diseases and both physical and mental. To recognize
this, requires mind.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/28/23 4:49 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:I asked how and why DNA P&R occurs. No one seem to respond or answer,
El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:>
I realize that hard empirical evidence is extremely unlikely,
however I
believe there is a strong case for circumstantial evidence can be >>>>>> made. In order to copy or transfer information, >> a high degree >>>>>> of fidelity is essential and extremely important. In a random,
thoughtless, accidental chemical >> molecule, why is a high level >>>>>> of fidelity is an issue? How is it guided?
You are right, Ron. These thoughtless, unguided DNA
molecules and their godless DNA repair kits are rendered
amoralistic and without any conscience. They cannot
possibly have the high-fidelity kind of data transfer
that we expect in civilized Christian DNA molecules,
which is necessary for life as we all so correctly know
it.
You are incapable of providing any rational, logical explanation for >>>> any
of the comments I make, or deal with any questions I asked, so because >>>> of your conformation bias, you refuse to consider anything that
possibly
is contrary. So, what do you do: you resort to distortion, perversion, >>>> ridicule, caricature and illogical misrepresentation of that which you >>>> have no explation or answers.
Ron, you brought up the "random, thoughtless, accidental
chemical molecule" and asked how it knows or cares. That
is what I addressed.
so I attempted to depict DNA as a character. So, the question could
be understood.
Certainly you don't care about the answer, since you have ignored those that have been given.
Really, what for example have I ignored. No one has provided me with an answer as to _how_ or _why_ DNA proofreading and repair came about.
I
have seen how P&R works in considerable detail. but nothing regarding
the question as to why in a random, accidental, and aimless natural
process DNA proofreading and repair was needed. Again no one has
provided any solid empirical evidence regarding the question of why or
how this came about including _you_. There is a cite
where life originated near oceanic volcanic vents. But this is strictly hypothesis. Even the vents for the origin of life is hypothesis. and one
of several.
To say the five P&R mechanisms evolved is no answer. It's too simple.
Ron Dean wrote:a high level of fidelity is an issue? How is it guided?
El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
I realize that hard empirical evidence is extremely unlikely, however I >>>>>> believe there is a strong case for circumstantial evidence can be made. In order to copy or transfer information, >> a high degree of fidelity is essential and extremely important. In a random, thoughtless, accidental chemical >> molecule, why is
>>
You are right, Ron. These thoughtless, unguided DNA
molecules and their godless DNA repair kits are rendered
amoralistic and without any conscience. They cannot
possibly have the high-fidelity kind of data transfer
that we expect in civilized Christian DNA molecules,
which is necessary for life as we all so correctly know
it.
You are incapable of providing any rational, logical explanation for any >>>> of the comments I make, or deal with any questions I asked, so because >>>> of your conformation bias, you refuse to consider anything that possibly >>>> is contrary. So, what do you do: you resort to distortion, perversion, >>>> ridicule, caricature and illogical misrepresentation of that which you >>>> have no explanation or answers.
Ron, you brought up the "random, thoughtless, accidental
chemical molecule" and asked how it knows or cares. That
is what I addressed.
I asked how and why DNA P&R occurs. No one seem to respond or answer, so
I attempted to depict DNA as a character. So, the question could be
understood.
Fine, so DNA molecules are characters in your parable. I
have to make myself known to slow people via parables
too.
But you did get abundant answers.
obvious. The "how" is not something you are prepared to
understand, even if it were spoonfed to you.
only interested in saying "see? you don't know either",
as if it would excuse the fact that you haven't got Clue
1 as to how the Holy Designer put finger to tablet and
designed & created the life all about us.
Now go take some remedial reading and biology so you can
slog through the many papers you were given to read.
Don't bother the grownups until then.
Perhaps I misinterpreted, and you were trying to make aThe introduction of a god is a propaganda gimmick that's constantly used
serious technical point about secular chemistry?
Now you can't have morality without God, so that pretty
much sews up the case for ID, starring God Himself as the
only possible designer.
Hallelujah.
by people who are closed- minded which they hope, discredits anything
contrary to their conformation bias.
<boggle>
Ron, you're the passionately credulous god believer here,
and i'm the cynical atheist. Yet you accuse me of
throwing gods into the conversation as a gimmick?!?
So what god designed all this, the Holy Rollin' Easter
Bunny?
Another trick is
labeling anyone who questions evolution "a creationist". This is meant
as a slanderous term, intended as a discredit. They have no desire to
You are trying to convince people a Designer
pencil-whipped a Design and implemented it by,...
creating according to the Grand Design, right?
How does it make sense to talk about "design", and
pretend there was no "creation"?
If we follow your theory to its natural end, you gonna
call it slander? Shouldn't you be blaming yourself?
honest or truthfully deal with any issue the might
be contrary to their confirmation bias. But in their own mind they think
that biases are everywhere
except in their narrow, limited constrict corner of the world.
Your daddy should have slapped you upside the haid for
being so dumb.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/28/23 4:49 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:I asked how and why DNA P&R occurs. No one seem to respond or answer,
El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:>
I realize that hard empirical evidence is extremely unlikely,
however I
believe there is a strong case for circumstantial evidence can be >>>>>>> made. In order to copy or transfer information, >> a high degree >>>>>>> of fidelity is essential and extremely important. In a random,
thoughtless, accidental chemical >> molecule, why is a high level >>>>>>> of fidelity is an issue? How is it guided?
You are right, Ron. These thoughtless, unguided DNA
molecules and their godless DNA repair kits are rendered
amoralistic and without any conscience. They cannot
possibly have the high-fidelity kind of data transfer
that we expect in civilized Christian DNA molecules,
which is necessary for life as we all so correctly know
it.
You are incapable of providing any rational, logical explanation
for any
of the comments I make, or deal with any questions I asked, so
because
of your conformation bias, you refuse to consider anything that
possibly
is contrary. So, what do you do: you resort to distortion, perversion, >>>>> ridicule, caricature and illogical misrepresentation of that which >>>>> you
have no explation or answers.
Ron, you brought up the "random, thoughtless, accidental
chemical molecule" and asked how it knows or cares. That
is what I addressed.
;
so I attempted to depict DNA as a character. So, the question could
be understood.
Certainly you don't care about the answer, since you have ignored
those that have been given.
Really, what for example have I ignored. No one has provided me with an answer as to _how_ or _why_ DNA proofreading and repair came about. I
have seen how P&R works in considerable detail. but nothing regarding
the question as to why in a random, accidental, and aimless natural
process DNA proofreading and repair was needed. Again no one has
provided any solid empirical evidence regarding the question of why or
how this came about including _you_. There is a cite
where life originated near oceanic volcanic vents. But this is strictly hypothesis. Even the vents for the origin of life is hypothesis. and one
of several.
To say the five P&R mechanisms evolved is no answer. It's too simple.
On 23/10/2023 20:06, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 23/10/2023 01:09, Ron Dean wrote:I did not spell out their names specifically, but years ago, on a
Ernest Major wrote:
On 21/10/2023 22:38, Ron Dean wrote:None of what I wrote above came from Bethe, Denton or Tour.
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently
discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received
almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not
recall ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not
only surprising, but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
Furthermore, I doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this
info. But this is an amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that
there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each
dedicated to particular a part of the DNA.
That's a rather low opinion of the ID community you have. If you
think Behe, Denton and Tour are so ignorant why do you place so
much weight on their opinions.
That's a non-sequitur. It's your claim that they are ignorant of DNA
proofreading and repair that represents your low opinion of them.
;
_challenge_ I
read a book by Michael Denton entitled, "Evolution a theory in Crisis".
Prior to this book I was an unquestioning evolutionist. I had no doubt
regarding the veracity of evolution. As I understand it this is also what
got Behe to question Darwinian theory. I later read Behe's "Black Box".
Tour, I know nothing about this person.
Behe
and Denton are nominally biochemists - by claiming that they are
unaware of DNA proofreading and repair you are implying that they
lack knowledge of their field.
;I do not recall anything regarding DNA proofreading and repair in
either book.
The absence of mention of a topic in a particular book is very poor
evidence of the author's lack of knowledge of the topic. Your leap to
that assumption reeks of the Trumpian "not many people know that".
On the one hand you claim that Denton's book converted you to
intelligent design. On the other hand you claim he is ignorant of the subject. Can you not see the tension between those positions?
What is there to say? You assert without justification that something is designed. And you assert that the only reason for disagreement is bias.No comment!
If you need clarification I was referring to their opinions on
abiogenesis, evolution and design in general.
But rather from sites on the net. The sites go into great detail on
how the
5 DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms function and how they
accomplish
this goal, but virtually nothing regarding how these detect and repair >>>> mechanisms originated.
However, the reality of these 5 proofreading and repair machines
have all
the earmarks of design. It takes no faith to recognize design in
this. I strongly
suspect that a person completely unbiased and unfamiliar with modern
scientific confinement and restrictions would recognize this as
design from
need, purpose, forethought and mind.
If you want to convince people of intelligent design you need to give up
your playbook, and find actual evidence and arguments.
El Kabong wrote:
[ … ]
Neither you or your mother knows who your father was!
Your daddy should have slapped you upside the haid for
being so dumb.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 23/10/2023 20:06, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 23/10/2023 01:09, Ron Dean wrote:I did not spell out their names specifically, but years ago, on a
Ernest Major wrote:
On 21/10/2023 22:38, Ron Dean wrote:None of what I wrote above came from Bethe, Denton or Tour.
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently
discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received
almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not >>>>>> recall ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not >>>>>> only surprising, but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
Furthermore, I doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this >>>>>> info. But this is an amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that
there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each
dedicated to particular a part of the DNA.
That's a rather low opinion of the ID community you have. If you
think Behe, Denton and Tour are so ignorant why do you place so
much weight on their opinions.
That's a non-sequitur. It's your claim that they are ignorant of DNA
proofreading and repair that represents your low opinion of them.
_challenge_ I
read a book by Michael Denton entitled, "Evolution a theory in Crisis".
Prior to this book I was an unquestioning evolutionist. I had no doubt
regarding the veracity of evolution. As I understand it this is also what >> got Behe to question Darwinian theory. I later read Behe's "Black Box".
Tour, I know nothing about this person.
Behe
and Denton are nominally biochemists - by claiming that they are
unaware of DNA proofreading and repair you are implying that they
lack knowledge of their field.
You prove to me that they did know anything regarding this subject.
I do not recall anything regarding DNA proofreading and repair in
either book.
The absence of mention of a topic in a particular book is very poor evidence of the author's lack of knowledge of the topic. Your leap to
that assumption reeks of the Trumpian "not many people know that".
As crucial as this topic is, and their mindset as far as evolution is concerned
indicates they did not know about it.
On the one hand you claim that Denton's book converted you to
intelligent design. On the other hand you claim he is ignorant of the subject. Can you not see the tension between those positions?
I disagree, in fact his work converted Behe. There are new developments
in biology
since Denton published his book, so, yes you can say he was "ignorant"
of today's new
information in the mid 1980's. But, I've seen no significant errors in
the test at the time
of publication.
What is there to say? You assert without justification that something is designed. And you assert that the only reason for disagreement is bias.No comment!
If you need clarification I was referring to their opinions on
abiogenesis, evolution and design in general.
But rather from sites on the net. The sites go into great detail on
how the
5 DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms function and how they
accomplish
this goal, but virtually nothing regarding how these detect and repair >>>> mechanisms originated.
However, the reality of these 5 proofreading and repair machines
have all
the earmarks of design. It takes no faith to recognize design in
this. I strongly
suspect that a person completely unbiased and unfamiliar with modern >>>> scientific confinement and restrictions would recognize this as
design from
need, purpose, forethought and mind.
If you want to convince people of intelligent design you need to give up your playbook, and find actual evidence and arguments.
Need is crucial. Where there is no need, design has no purpose. The
question in my mind is why and how did DNA proofreading and repair come about. Design is the best answer as to why the 6 DNA proofreading and
repair mechanisms were devised. Obviously where there is mind it can recognize need and take measures to meet the need. Question is: when
there is random, aimless, mindless, chance and accidental natural
processes what recognized the need for P&E. It requires mind to
recognize need.
You're an atheist, okay. Of course, this places you in the same boat as extreme religious fundamentalist.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of
evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most
modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is biased and >>>>>> your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
People who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy. This
is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed with
planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial evidence for
design based on the reality of excessive mutations is unacceptable due
to the horrific diseases and both physical and mental. To recognize
this, requires mind.
On 10/29/23 3:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
You're an atheist, okay. Of course, this places you in the same boat as extreme religious fundamentalist.The subject of your bias came up elsewhere. In the above statement,
your bias is again on blaring display.
(You probably have trouble seeing that. If so, consider that if you
believe your statement, you must also believe the logically equivalent: "You're not a popular music fan, okay. Of course, this places you in the same boat as the most fanatical Taylor Swift groupies.")
On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 1:46:17?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2023 12:47:13 -0400, Ron DeanI would expect other opinions. An opinion offered is that they evolved.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023 17:38:19 -0400, Ron DeanMaybe, the origins of these DNA proofreading and repair protein machines >> >> fall into the same category as the origin of life and information.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron DeanDNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered.
However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no >> >>>> interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall >> >>>> ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject. Furthermore, I
doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info. But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated
to particular a part of the DNA.But nothing which explains how and why these mechanisms came about.
These DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms are a reality.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/dna-as-the-genetic-material/dna-replication/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair
..
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=DNA+proofreading+and+repair++machines&va=b&t=hr&iax=images&ia=images
In mindless, purposeless and aimless natural processes, how is it..
that DNA has Proofreading and multiple Repair Mechanisms, (P&R)
which detects _virtually_ all the mutations within the molecule: then >> >>>>> engages multiple mechanisms to repair these mutations.
Could this have evolved in a step by step sequence, if so, without
direction plan or purpose how and why?
Can random mutations and natural selection detect pre-existing
mutations in the DNA molecule and then message the repair enzymes
to the defect in the DNA molecule? How can the P&R "know" when the
information in the DNA molecule is Correct?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP8-5Bhd2ag> Since, information is a >> >>>>> one way street (Central Dogma - Crick), DNA can
not read information from folded proteins back to the DNA molecule. So,
how can survival of the fittest, have any part, in the P&R mechanisms.
I realize that a few mutations get past the DNA's P&R mechanisms.
The consequences of these few mutation that get past then P&R enzymes >> >>>> are the cause of serious an catastrophic physical and mental conditions
many of which are obvious such as cancer, sickle cell anemia, blindness
missing arms or other body parts and numerous other obvious defects. >> >>>> Of course, these are detrimental mutations, but there are a few beneficial
mutations which are rarely if ever observed.
But the human race is from about 200,000 years. Who is to say that
the DNA's proofreading and repair machines were not far better then, than
they are today?
I think random, aimless, pointless, accidental natural processes (bringing)
about this highly complex, sophisticated and mutually cooperative
processes working together, requires faith and trust equal to any
fundamental religious.
folk.
I think it requires religious faith to expect opinions without
expressed basis to support a persuasive line of reasoning. I leave as >> >>> an exercise whose thinking is closer to reality.
How and why they exist - you Jill, have no answer.
Neither do you. So your criticism about me is pointless.
FWIW I and others shared with you answers several times to "how and
why they exist". You either don't remember, or suffer convenient
amnesia.
But nothing about how or why. The simplest answer is design from purpose, >> forethought and mind. I'll acknowledge that design does not fit into
the modern
scientific arena, that does not mean it's not true. There is no other
answer.
Your "simplest answer" is a non-answer as you have said that ID proponents >don't go on to ask who, or how, or why. For some reason you think that's a >good thing.
The simple answer about "why" proof reading is that to the first approximation >an organism that has survived to reproduce wants to make an identical copy
of itself --- to make more of itself. Selves that do that outbreed selves that don't,
at least on average. It's basic math and fairly obvious.
A second reason is that a significant enough fraction of replication errors are
detrimental or disadvantageous. This works synergistically with the above answer
to help organisms that faithfully reproduce faithful copies to outbreed organisms
that don't reproduce faithful copies. But here the effect is more subtle. Mutations
that provide for neutral changes neither gain advantages or lose them. Then there's
the rarer beneficial mutation, the most obvious examples that are readily studied
in the lab are those that confirm resistance to drugs like antibiotics. Yes, they
happen, and they have been studied in deep detail hundreds of times, and can >be reproduced.
Such rare mutations turn out to have absolutely huge survival advantages. >And math can be done based on that. There's a typical cost to mutations, but >there's a potential reward for mutations. The math can be run to look for a balance
between the two and come up with a best compromise for the fidelity of replication.
Naturally, one can extend this to mutations that occur as a result of damage to
DNA after replication which also leads to mutations.
Put a different way, an ancestor's best chance of having it's progeny survive is to
firstly have most of its offspring have faithful copies of its genes, but to have a small
fraction have some novel alternatives in case future environments contain poisons
(like antibiotics) or different food stuffs, or different predators.
This is all part of an education in biology. It's well studied. There have been both
designed experiments to test it, and retrospective studies to confirm it in wild.
It isn't a secret that has been hidden.
That Ron Dean is unaware of it is a statement that Ron Dean has little knowledge
of the field of biology and molecular biology, nothing more. Presumably you've >spent your live learning other things that were of greater importance and interest
in your life. But a man's got to know and respect his limitations.
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of evolution >>>>>>>> established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too easy. >>>>>>>> It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most modern >>>>>>>> phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is biased and >>>>>>> your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy. This
is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed with
planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial evidence for
design based on the reality of excessive mutations is unacceptable due
to the horrific diseases and both physical and mental. To recognize
this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). To not
recognize that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your
mind -- requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument
(if it can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
On 2023-10-29 22:34:52 +0000, Ron Dean said:
El Kabong wrote:
[ ]
Neither you or your mother knows who your father was!
Your daddy should have slapped you upside the haid for
being so dumb.
So you're reduced to childish insults now.
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:01:24 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:pay taxes. Both atheism and religion are based on belief and faith.
On 10/29/23 3:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
You're an atheist, okay. Of course, this places you in the same boat asThe subject of your bias came up elsewhere. In the above statement,
extreme religious fundamentalist.
your bias is again on blaring display.
(You probably have trouble seeing that. If so, consider that if you
believe your statement, you must also believe the logically equivalent:
"You're not a popular music fan, okay. Of course, this places you in the
same boat as the most fanatical Taylor Swift groupies.")
Like with other things, Ron seems to have a private definition of atheism that
is very different from the literal or usual meaning of the word.
It's impossible to know for an absolute fact; you will die and you will
On 2023-10-30 14:45:47 +0000, Mark Isaak said:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of
evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most >>>>>>>>> modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is
biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed
with planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial
evidence for design based on the reality of excessive mutations is
unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both physical and
mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). To not
recognize that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your
mind -- requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument
(if it can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
As I'm sure you know, but maybe Ron Dean doesn't, this argument against design goes back to Darwin: “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent
and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with
the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars…”
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of
evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most >>>>>>>> modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is biased >>>>>>> and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
;
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed with
planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial evidence for
design based on the reality of excessive mutations is unacceptable due
to the horrific diseases and both physical and mental. To recognize
this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created).
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind --
requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it
can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most >>>>>>>> modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is biased >>>>>>> and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed with
planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial evidence for
design based on the reality of excessive mutations is unacceptable due
to the horrific diseases and both physical and mental. To recognize
this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against* design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created).
As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise, and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better than today.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind -- requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it
can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:01:24 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 3:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
You're an atheist, okay. Of course, this places you in the same boat as >>> extreme religious fundamentalist.The subject of your bias came up elsewhere. In the above statement,
your bias is again on blaring display.
(You probably have trouble seeing that. If so, consider that if you
believe your statement, you must also believe the logically equivalent: >> "You're not a popular music fan, okay. Of course, this places you in the >> same boat as the most fanatical Taylor Swift groupies.")
Like with other things, Ron seems to have a private definition of atheism that
is very different from the literal or usual meaning of the word.
It's impossible to know for an absolute fact; you will die and you willpay taxes. Both atheism and religion are based on belief and faith.
Land animals need legs. Nobody needs to notice that and
say "hey, let's put legs on lizards." It's just that
lizards with fins don't have a good survival rate. The
situation is self-correcting.
Is that hard for you to understand?
El Kabong wrote:is a high level of fidelity is an issue? How is it guided?
Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
I realize that hard empirical evidence is extremely unlikely, however I
believe there is a strong case for circumstantial evidence can be made. In order to copy or transfer information, >> a high degree of fidelity is essential and extremely important. In a random, thoughtless, accidental chemical >> molecule, why
>>
You are right, Ron. These thoughtless, unguided DNA
molecules and their godless DNA repair kits are rendered
amoralistic and without any conscience. They cannot
possibly have the high-fidelity kind of data transfer
that we expect in civilized Christian DNA molecules,
which is necessary for life as we all so correctly know
it.
You are incapable of providing any rational, logical explanation for any >>>> of the comments I make, or deal with any questions I asked, so because >>>> of your conformation bias, you refuse to consider anything that possibly >>>> is contrary. So, what do you do: you resort to distortion, perversion, >>>> ridicule, caricature and illogical misrepresentation of that which you >>>> have no explanation or answers.
Ron, you brought up the "random, thoughtless, accidental
chemical molecule" and asked how it knows or cares. That
is what I addressed.
I asked how and why DNA P&R occurs. No one seem to respond or answer, so >> I attempted to depict DNA as a character. So, the question could be
understood.
Fine, so DNA molecules are characters in your parable. I
have to make myself known to slow people via parables
too.
But you did get abundant answers.
No one has explained why or how a random, accidental and aimless process began the DNA P&R.
The "why" of P&R is
obvious. The "how" is not something you are prepared to
understand, even if it were spoonfed to you.
Why it's obvious. There is need. But it requires mind to recognize the problems mutations cause and conceive solutions. There is nothing in the random, accidental aimless world of DNA that has that
capacity. Thus mind and design is the only possible explanation.
I understand exactly what you are doing by accusing me of willfully
failing to understand, you are attempting to deflect your own inability
and absence of understanding to me. It doesn't work!
You are attempting to implant motives in me. Whatever, you think my
Now go take some remedial reading and biology so you can
slog through the many papers you were given to read.
Don't bother the grownups until then.
Here again you're trying to pass off you own ignorance to me, because
you have no explanation. So stop these false charging against me.
Ron, you're the passionately credulous god believer here,
and i'm the cynical atheist. Yet you accuse me of
throwing gods into the conversation as a gimmick?!?
You're an atheist, okay. Of course, this places you in the same boat as extreme religious fundamentalist. There's no possible way to _know_,
So, it's a matter of belief; you do not believe they do.
Obviously, you have no past or understanding of where I come from,
because you believe the propaganda aimed at creationist. And you
identify me in this propagandized universe created by anti-moralist and anti-theistist. But this is wrong.
Design stands on its own, the
identity of the
designer is unknown and unknowable. So, while I recognize evidence for
design I know of no
evidence that points to the identity of the designer. However......
Another trick is
labeling anyone who questions evolution "a creationist". This is meant
as a slanderous term, intended as a discredit. They have no desire to
You are trying to convince people a Designer
pencil-whipped a Design and implemented it by,...
creating according to the Grand Design, right?
You don't know me, yet you make these asinine comments about me. What
gives you this right??
How does it make sense to talk about "design", and
pretend there was no "creation"?
I'll admit, I'm not a biologist.
An an engineer MsEE, when I seen need, this
raises my quest for explanation. As an engineer, I recognize these
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 14:45:47 +0000, Mark Isaak said:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved? >>>> Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most >>>>>>>>>> modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is
biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed
with planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial
evidence for design based on the reality of excessive mutations is
unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both physical and
mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). To not
recognize that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your
mind -- requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument >>> (if it can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
I realize this, but most mutations are caught and repaired. There are a
few that the 6 proofreading and repair mechanisms fails to catch. As
time passes, there are increases in in percentages people being affected
by genetic disorders, There are diseases on the rise, cancer for example
and there are previously unknown genetic disorders being found. So, if
you if you go back in time, the percentages
of genetic disorders would lessen. Chances are good that 200,000 years
ago when humans first appeared DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms
were much better than at present. And as time passes, genetic disorders
and diseases become increasingly worse for our decedents.
Darwin wasn't right about everything.
As I'm sure you know, but maybe Ron Dean doesn't, this argument against
design goes back to Darwin: “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent >> and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with
the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of
Caterpillars…”
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 7:51:24 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:01:24 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 3:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
You're an atheist, okay. Of course, this places you in the same boat as >>>>> extreme religious fundamentalist.The subject of your bias came up elsewhere. In the above statement,
your bias is again on blaring display.
(You probably have trouble seeing that. If so, consider that if you
believe your statement, you must also believe the logically equivalent: >>>> "You're not a popular music fan, okay. Of course, this places you in the >>>> same boat as the most fanatical Taylor Swift groupies.")
Like with other things, Ron seems to have a private definition of atheism that
is very different from the literal or usual meaning of the word.
Two things. You are old enough to learn to post. Stop screwing up the way you insert your own text such that it looks like others wrote it.
Two, atheism isn't a claim of absolute knowledge. It is a statement of lack of belief. Saying you don't believe in any gods isn't saying you know for a fact that no gods exist. You have a persistent mental block about this fact about the meaning of the term "atheism"
[Ron Dean wrote (with screwed up indents ">"]
It's impossible to know for an absolute fact; you will die and you willpay taxes. Both atheism and religion are based on belief and faith.
No. Atheism is a lack of belief. Furthermore, belief isn't a claim to know something for an absolute fact.
wrongness and then sprinkle on some more wrongness. Worse still,
you believe that you think logically when you are revealed to be a font
of non sequiturs. Prediction: you won't even understand the ways you have just been refuted.
On 29/10/2023 16:56, Ron Dean wrote:
People who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed with
planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial evidence for
design based on the reality of excessive mutations is unacceptable due
to the horrific diseases and both physical and mental. To recognize
this, requires mind.
Simplicio says that there is strong circumstantial evidence for design
(of industrial melanism) based on the reality that excessive predation
is unacceptable. Simplicio says that to recognise this, requires mind.
How does this (apart from your addition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam
based on the evidence having been erased over time) differ from your argument? Or do you agree with Simplicio?
In reality, if there is variation in DNA replication and maintenancefidelity, natural selection, in a sufficiently large population, will
lead to change in the fidelity of DNA replication and maintenance in the population in the direction of the optimum. No recogniser is required.
No involvement of mind is required.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of
evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most >>>>>>>>> modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is
biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
;
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed
with planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial
evidence for design based on the reality of excessive mutations is
unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both physical and
mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created).
As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise, and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better than today.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind --
requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it
can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:01:24 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 3:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
You're an atheist, okay. Of course, this places you in the same boat as >>>> extreme religious fundamentalist.
The subject of your bias came up elsewhere. In the above statement,
your bias is again on blaring display.
(You probably have trouble seeing that. If so, consider that if you
believe your statement, you must also believe the logically equivalent:
"You're not a popular music fan, okay. Of course, this places you in the >>> same boat as the most fanatical Taylor Swift groupies.")
Like with other things, Ron seems to have a private definition of
atheism that
is very different from the literal or usual meaning of the word.
It's impossible to know for an absolute fact; you will die and you will
pay taxes. Both atheism and religion are based on belief and faith.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 14:45:47 +0000, Mark Isaak said:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R)
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of >>>>>>>>>> most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is
biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is
too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully
designed with planning and forethought. There is strong
circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive
mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both
physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). To not
recognize that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your
mind -- requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only
argument (if it can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
I realize this, but most mutations are caught and repaired. There are a
few that the 6 proofreading and repair mechanisms fails to catch. As
time passes, there are increases in in percentages people being affected
by genetic disorders, There are diseases on the rise, cancer for example
and there are previously unknown genetic disorders being found. So, if
you if you go back in time, the percentages
of genetic disorders would lessen. Chances are good that 200,000 years
ago when humans first appeared DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms
were much better than at present. And as time passes, genetic disorders
and diseases become increasingly worse for our decedents.
As I'm sure you know, but maybe Ron Dean doesn't, this argumentDarwin wasn't right about everything.
against design goes back to Darwin: “I cannot persuade myself that a
beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the
Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the
living bodies of Caterpillars…”
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 14:45:47 +0000, Mark Isaak said:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too easy. >>>>>>>>>> It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is biased and >>>>>>>>> your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy. This >>>> is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed with
planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial evidence for
design based on the reality of excessive mutations is unacceptable due >>>> to the horrific diseases and both physical and mental. To recognize
this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). To not
recognize that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your
mind -- requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument
(if it can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
I realize this, but most mutations are caught and repaired. There are a
few that the 6 proofreading and repair mechanisms fails to catch. As
time passes, there are increases in in percentages people being
affected by genetic disorders, There are diseases on the rise, cancer
for example and there are previously unknown genetic disorders being
found. So, if you if you go back in time, the percentages
of genetic disorders would lessen. Chances are good that 200,000 years
ago when humans first appeared DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms
were much better than at present. And as time passes, genetic disorders
and diseases become increasingly worse for our decedents.
Darwin wasn't right about everything.
As I'm sure you know, but maybe Ron Dean doesn't, this argument against
design goes back to Darwin: “I cannot persuade myself that a
beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the
Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the
living bodies of Caterpillars…”
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of evolution >>>>>>>>> established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too easy. >>>>>>>>> It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is biased and >>>>>>>> your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy. This
is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed with
planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial evidence for
design based on the reality of excessive mutations is unacceptable due
to the horrific diseases and both physical and mental. To recognize
this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created).
As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer
for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise, and
new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant past
DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better than
today.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind --
requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it
can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 29/10/2023 16:56, Ron Dean wrote:
People who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed with
planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial evidence for
design based on the reality of excessive mutations is unacceptable due
to the horrific diseases and both physical and mental. To recognize
this, requires mind.
Simplicio says that there is strong circumstantial evidence for design
(of industrial melanism) based on the reality that excessive predation
is unacceptable. Simplicio says that to recognise this, requires mind.
_Why_ is it unacceptable? In a world where chance, randomness,
purposeless, mindlessness and accident describes naturalism, there is
no rhyme or reason, why DNA proofreading and repair should exist. But if there is a mind, it recognizes the need for repair, given the fact that countless mistakes happens in reproduction, which is extremely
undesirable and it (mind) sets in motion the proofreading and repair enzymes. In natural processes, there is no purpose, everything is
aimless and unguided, mistakes, errors, omissions and there is no mind.
So in the DNA molecule, exactly why and what is it that sets the proofreading processes in motion? Information is always downstream
(central dogma), so information regarding survival of the fittest cannot
get back upstream to the DNA.
The bird's _brain_ recognizes the distinction of colors between the...................
insect and the background. This bird brain doesn't know that it's unacceptable to eat the insects that it finds.
How does this (apart from your addition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam based on the evidence having been erased over time) differ from your argument? Or do you agree with Simplicio?
In reality, if there is variation in DNA replication and maintenancefidelity, natural selection, in a sufficiently large population, will
lead to change in the fidelity of DNA replication and maintenance in the population in the direction of the optimum. No recogniser is required.
No involvement of mind is required.
No, that violates the central dogma. There is no information getting
back to DNA regarding natural selection in a large population!
Information does not go from protein (large populations) to RNA back to
DNA.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:.....
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 7:51:24 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:01:24 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>> On 10/29/23 3:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
You're an atheist, okay. Of course, this places you in the same boat asThe subject of your bias came up elsewhere. In the above statement, >>>> your bias is again on blaring display.
extreme religious fundamentalist.
(You probably have trouble seeing that. If so, consider that if you >>>> believe your statement, you must also believe the logically equivalent: >>>> "You're not a popular music fan, okay. Of course, this places you in the
same boat as the most fanatical Taylor Swift groupies.")
Like with other things, Ron seems to have a private definition of atheism that
is very different from the literal or usual meaning of the word.
Two things. You are old enough to learn to post. Stop screwing up the way you
insert your own text such that it looks like others wrote it.
If that happened it was not deliberate.
Two, atheism isn't a claim of absolute knowledge. It is a statement of lack
of belief. Saying you don't believe in any gods isn't saying you know for a
fact that no gods exist. You have a persistent mental block about this fact
about the meaning of the term "atheism"
I dId not say it was about knowledge. Quite the contrary, like religion
it's about belief.
Unbelief is the exact same lack of belief. Atheism is lack of belief
that god(s) exist.
[Ron Dean wrote (with screwed up indents ">"]
It's impossible to know for an absolute fact; you will die and you will >> pay taxes. Both atheism and religion are based on belief and faith.
No. Atheism is a lack of belief. Furthermore, belief isn't a claim to know something for an absolute fact.
You have a goddamn problem with understanding. I DID NOT SAY ATHEISM IS ABOUT KNOWING! quite the contrary! Atheism is a lack of belief that
God(s) exist! Agnosticism
is neither belief nor disbelief. Prove
You compound being wrong with more
wrongness and then sprinkle on some more wrongness. Worse still,
you believe that you think logically when you are revealed to be a font
of non sequiturs. Prediction: you won't even understand the ways you have just been refuted.
It's so goddamn easy to make accusations without backing them up - Get
lost and drop dead~!
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 14:45:47 +0000, Mark Isaak said:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved? >>> Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most >>>>>>>>> modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is
biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you >>>> decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed
with planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial
evidence for design based on the reality of excessive mutations is
unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both physical and
mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). To not
recognize that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your
mind -- requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument
(if it can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
I realize this, but most mutations are caught and repaired. There are a
few that the 6 proofreading and repair mechanisms fails to catch. As
time passes, there are increases in in percentages people being affected
by genetic disorders, There are diseases on the rise, cancer for example
and there are previously unknown genetic disorders being found. So, if
you if you go back in time, the percentages
of genetic disorders would lessen.
Chances are good that 200,000 years
ago when humans first appeared DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms
were much better than at present.
And as time passes, genetic disorders
and diseases become increasingly worse for our decedents.
As I'm sure you know, but maybe Ron Dean doesn't, this argument against design goes back to Darwin: “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars…”
Darwin wasn't right about everything.
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 10:42:22 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com>:
On 2023-10-29 22:34:52 +0000, Ron Dean said:
El Kabong wrote:
[ … ]
Neither you or your mother knows who your father was!
Your daddy should have slapped you upside the haid for
being so dumb.
So you're reduced to childish insults now.
There are two childish insults above.
--
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R)
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of >>>>>>>>>> most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is
biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
;
evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is
too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully
designed with planning and forethought. There is strong
circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive
mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both
physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created).
;
for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise,
and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant
past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better
than today.
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do
evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind --
requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it
can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 20:23:16 -0700, El Kabong <twang@the.noodle> wrote:
<snip-a-doodle>
Land animals need legs. Nobody needs to notice that and
say "hey, let's put legs on lizards." It's just that
lizards with fins don't have a good survival rate. The
situation is self-correcting.
Is that hard for you to understand?
A point of pedantry: Land animals need legs only when they compete
with other land animals with legs. Otherwise, they get along just
fine on fins (mudskippers), tentacles (octopuses), flopping around
from side-to-side (lungfish), or even staying in one place
(barnacles).
You are correct that lizards with fins have zero survival rate, and
with your larger point, that organisms which are more fit to an
environment reproduce more in that environment than organisms which
are less fit. This is a point that cdesign proponentsists like R.Dean
have trouble understanding.
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 12:26:24 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:impossible. Regardless of whether you accept evolution, natural and artificial selection obviously happen. So your understanding of the "central dogma" is incorrect. If your understanding of evolution and biology is so weak, I'm not surprised Denton's
Ernest Major wrote:...................
On 29/10/2023 16:56, Ron Dean wrote:_Why_ is it unacceptable? In a world where chance, randomness,
People who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed with >>>> planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial evidence for
design based on the reality of excessive mutations is unacceptable due >>>> to the horrific diseases and both physical and mental. To recognize
this, requires mind.
Simplicio says that there is strong circumstantial evidence for design
(of industrial melanism) based on the reality that excessive predation
is unacceptable. Simplicio says that to recognise this, requires mind.
purposeless, mindlessness and accident describes naturalism, there is
no rhyme or reason, why DNA proofreading and repair should exist. But if
there is a mind, it recognizes the need for repair, given the fact that
countless mistakes happens in reproduction, which is extremely
undesirable and it (mind) sets in motion the proofreading and repair
enzymes. In natural processes, there is no purpose, everything is
aimless and unguided, mistakes, errors, omissions and there is no mind.
So in the DNA molecule, exactly why and what is it that sets the
proofreading processes in motion? Information is always downstream
(central dogma), so information regarding survival of the fittest cannot
get back upstream to the DNA.
The bird's _brain_ recognizes the distinction of colors between the
insect and the background. This bird brain doesn't know that it's
unacceptable to eat the insects that it finds.
How does this (apart from your addition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam
based on the evidence having been erased over time) differ from your
argument? Or do you agree with Simplicio?
In reality, if there is variation in DNA replication and maintenancefidelity, natural selection, in a sufficiently large population, will
lead to change in the fidelity of DNA replication and maintenance in the >>> population in the direction of the optimum. No recogniser is required.
No involvement of mind is required.
No, that violates the central dogma. There is no information getting
back to DNA regarding natural selection in a large population!
Information does not go from protein (large populations) to RNA back to
DNA.
First, the "central dogma" is not a dogma, just an observation. Second, your understanding of it is flawed. You should be able to figure that out by yourself. If your understanding were correct, it would make natural selection (and artificial selection)
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 20:23:16 -0700, El Kabong <tw...@the.noodle> wrote:
<snip-a-doodle>
Land animals need legs. Nobody needs to notice that and
say "hey, let's put legs on lizards." It's just that
lizards with fins don't have a good survival rate. The
situation is self-correcting.
Is that hard for you to understand?
A point of pedantry: Land animals need legs only when they competeIndeed a vital point of bipedantry and quadrapedantry,
with other land animals with legs. Otherwise, they get along just
fine on fins (mudskippers), tentacles (octopuses), flopping around
from side-to-side (lungfish), or even staying in one place
(barnacles).
and maybe octopedantry. There aren't many land animals
on tentacles, but they could give us bipedants a run for
our money, and would eventually dominate european soccer.
You are correct that lizards with fins have zero survival rate, and
with your larger point, that organisms which are more fit to an environment reproduce more in that environment than organisms which
are less fit. This is a point that cdesign proponentsists like R.Dean
have trouble understanding.
On 2023-10-30 23:40:14 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 14:45:47 +0000, Mark Isaak said:I realize this, but most mutations are caught and repaired. There are
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:;
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R)
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron Dean I know.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of >>>>>>>>>>> most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you >>>>>> decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is
too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully
designed with planning and forethought. There is strong
circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of
excessive mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases
and both physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases
which, per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). To
not recognize that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered
your mind -- requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only
argument (if it can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
a few that the 6 proofreading and repair mechanisms fails to catch. As
time passes, there are increases in in percentages people being
affected by genetic disorders, There are diseases on the rise, cancer
for example and there are previously unknown genetic disorders being
found. So, if you if you go back in time, the percentages
of genetic disorders would lessen. Chances are good that 200,000 years
ago when humans first appeared DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms
were much better than at present. And as time passes, genetic
disorders and diseases become increasingly worse for our decedents.
Darwin wasn't right about everything.
As I'm sure you know, but maybe Ron Dean doesn't, this argument
against design goes back to Darwin: “I cannot persuade myself that >>> a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the
Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the
living bodies of Caterpillars…â€
Did I, or anyone else, say he was?
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R)
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of >>>>>>>>>> most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is
biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
;
evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is
too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully
designed with planning and forethought. There is strong
circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive
mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both
physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created).
;
for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise,
and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant
past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better
than today.
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do
evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind --
requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it
can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 12:26:24 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:...................
On 29/10/2023 16:56, Ron Dean wrote:_Why_ is it unacceptable? In a world where chance, randomness,
People who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed with >>>> planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial evidence for
design based on the reality of excessive mutations is unacceptable due >>>> to the horrific diseases and both physical and mental. To recognize
this, requires mind.
Simplicio says that there is strong circumstantial evidence for design
(of industrial melanism) based on the reality that excessive predation
is unacceptable. Simplicio says that to recognise this, requires mind.
purposeless, mindlessness and accident describes naturalism, there is
no rhyme or reason, why DNA proofreading and repair should exist. But if
there is a mind, it recognizes the need for repair, given the fact that
countless mistakes happens in reproduction, which is extremely
undesirable and it (mind) sets in motion the proofreading and repair
enzymes. In natural processes, there is no purpose, everything is
aimless and unguided, mistakes, errors, omissions and there is no mind.
So in the DNA molecule, exactly why and what is it that sets the
proofreading processes in motion? Information is always downstream
(central dogma), so information regarding survival of the fittest cannot
get back upstream to the DNA.
The bird's _brain_ recognizes the distinction of colors between the
insect and the background. This bird brain doesn't know that it's
unacceptable to eat the insects that it finds.
How does this (apart from your addition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam
based on the evidence having been erased over time) differ from your
argument? Or do you agree with Simplicio?
In reality, if there is variation in DNA replication and maintenancefidelity, natural selection, in a sufficiently large population, will
lead to change in the fidelity of DNA replication and maintenance in the >>> population in the direction of the optimum. No recogniser is required.
No involvement of mind is required.
No, that violates the central dogma. There is no information getting
back to DNA regarding natural selection in a large population!
Information does not go from protein (large populations) to RNA back to
DNA.
First, the "central dogma" is not a dogma, just an observation. Second, your understanding of it is flawed. You should be able to figure that out by yourself. If your understanding were correct, it would make natural selection (and artificial selection)impossible. Regardless of whether you accept evolution, natural and artificial selection obviously happen. So your understanding of the "central dogma" is incorrect. If your understanding of evolution and biology is so weak, I'm not surprised Denton's
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 12:41:25 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:.....
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 7:51:24 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:If that happened it was not deliberate.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:01:24 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 10/29/23 3:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
You're an atheist, okay. Of course, this places you in the same boat as >>>>>>> extreme religious fundamentalist.The subject of your bias came up elsewhere. In the above statement, >>>>>> your bias is again on blaring display.
(You probably have trouble seeing that. If so, consider that if you >>>>>> believe your statement, you must also believe the logically equivalent: >>>>>> "You're not a popular music fan, okay. Of course, this places you in the >>>>>> same boat as the most fanatical Taylor Swift groupies.")
Like with other things, Ron seems to have a private definition of atheism that
is very different from the literal or usual meaning of the word.
Two things. You are old enough to learn to post. Stop screwing up the way you
insert your own text such that it looks like others wrote it.
I dId not say it was about knowledge. Quite the contrary, like religion
Two, atheism isn't a claim of absolute knowledge. It is a statement of lack >>> of belief. Saying you don't believe in any gods isn't saying you know for a >>> fact that no gods exist. You have a persistent mental block about this fact >>> about the meaning of the term "atheism"
it's about belief.
Unbelief is the exact same lack of belief. Atheism is lack of belief
that god(s) exist.
You have a goddamn problem with understanding. I DID NOT SAY ATHEISM IS
[Ron Dean wrote (with screwed up indents ">"]
It's impossible to know for an absolute fact; you will die and you will >>>> pay taxes. Both atheism and religion are based on belief and faith.
No. Atheism is a lack of belief. Furthermore, belief isn't a claim to know >>> something for an absolute fact.
ABOUT KNOWING! quite the contrary! Atheism is a lack of belief that
God(s) exist! Agnosticism
is neither belief nor disbelief. Prove
You compound being wrong with more
wrongness and then sprinkle on some more wrongness. Worse still,
you believe that you think logically when you are revealed to be a font
of non sequiturs. Prediction: you won't even understand the ways you have >>> just been refuted.
It's so goddamn easy to make accusations without backing them up - Get
lost and drop dead~!
Christian love and turning the other cheek at their most inspiring.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R)
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of >>>>>>>>>> most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you >>>>> decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is
too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully
designed with planning and forethought. There is strong
circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive >>>> mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both
physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which, >>> per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created).
for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise,
and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant
past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better
than today.
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy.
There are over 6,000 known genetic disorders known, and you think these 6000+disorders were around 1000 years ago even 10000 years ago. And you think what I wrote is complete fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
There are new genetic diseases being discovered even more often than expected.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230125/newly-discovered-genetic-disease-more-common-than-expected.
It's you, that's living in a fantasy world.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind --
requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it >>> can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
A point of pedantry: Land animals need legs only when they compete
with other land animals with legs. Otherwise, they get along just
fine on fins (mudskippers), tentacles (octopuses), flopping around
from side-to-side (lungfish), or even staying in one place
(barnacles).
You are correct that lizards with fins have zero survival rate, and
with your larger point, that organisms which are more fit to an
environment reproduce more in that environment than organisms which
are less fit. This is a point that cdesign proponentsists like R.Dean
have trouble understanding.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:If the designer is dead, why does believing in the designer provide you any comfort with respect to Dawkins' view of the universe as indifferent and uncaring?
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 12:41:25 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Lawyer Daggett wrote:.....
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 7:51:24 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:If that happened it was not deliberate.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:01:24 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 10/29/23 3:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
You're an atheist, okay. Of course, this places you in the same boat asThe subject of your bias came up elsewhere. In the above statement, >>>>>> your bias is again on blaring display.
extreme religious fundamentalist.
(You probably have trouble seeing that. If so, consider that if you >>>>>> believe your statement, you must also believe the logically equivalent:
"You're not a popular music fan, okay. Of course, this places you in the
same boat as the most fanatical Taylor Swift groupies.")
Like with other things, Ron seems to have a private definition of atheism that
is very different from the literal or usual meaning of the word.
Two things. You are old enough to learn to post. Stop screwing up the way you
insert your own text such that it looks like others wrote it.
I dId not say it was about knowledge. Quite the contrary, like religion >> it's about belief.
Two, atheism isn't a claim of absolute knowledge. It is a statement of lack
of belief. Saying you don't believe in any gods isn't saying you know for a
fact that no gods exist. You have a persistent mental block about this fact
about the meaning of the term "atheism"
Unbelief is the exact same lack of belief. Atheism is lack of belief
that god(s) exist.
You have a goddamn problem with understanding. I DID NOT SAY ATHEISM IS >> ABOUT KNOWING! quite the contrary! Atheism is a lack of belief that
[Ron Dean wrote (with screwed up indents ">"]
It's impossible to know for an absolute fact; you will die and you willpay taxes. Both atheism and religion are based on belief and faith.
No. Atheism is a lack of belief. Furthermore, belief isn't a claim to know
something for an absolute fact.
God(s) exist! Agnosticism
is neither belief nor disbelief. Prove
You compound being wrong with more
wrongness and then sprinkle on some more wrongness. Worse still,
you believe that you think logically when you are revealed to be a font >>> of non sequiturs. Prediction: you won't even understand the ways you have
just been refuted.
It's so goddamn easy to make accusations without backing them up - Get
lost and drop dead~!
Christian love and turning the other cheek at their most inspiring.
As far as I'm concerned this person is dead. He is the 2/nd regular on
TO that I never read again nor respond to.
I'm simply a theist! As I pointed out before, the designer might have
lived sometimes between 13.7 billion and the present. Nothing is
forever, the designer might very well be dead!
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 12:26:24 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:...................
On 29/10/2023 16:56, Ron Dean wrote:_Why_ is it unacceptable? In a world where chance, randomness,
People who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved? >>>> Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed with >>>> planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial evidence for >>>> design based on the reality of excessive mutations is unacceptable due >>>> to the horrific diseases and both physical and mental. To recognize >>>> this, requires mind.
Simplicio says that there is strong circumstantial evidence for design >>> (of industrial melanism) based on the reality that excessive predation >>> is unacceptable. Simplicio says that to recognise this, requires mind. >>>
purposeless, mindlessness and accident describes naturalism, there is
no rhyme or reason, why DNA proofreading and repair should exist. But if >> there is a mind, it recognizes the need for repair, given the fact that >> countless mistakes happens in reproduction, which is extremely
undesirable and it (mind) sets in motion the proofreading and repair
enzymes. In natural processes, there is no purpose, everything is
aimless and unguided, mistakes, errors, omissions and there is no mind. >> So in the DNA molecule, exactly why and what is it that sets the
proofreading processes in motion? Information is always downstream
(central dogma), so information regarding survival of the fittest cannot >> get back upstream to the DNA.
The bird's _brain_ recognizes the distinction of colors between the
insect and the background. This bird brain doesn't know that it's
unacceptable to eat the insects that it finds.
How does this (apart from your addition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam >>> based on the evidence having been erased over time) differ from your
argument? Or do you agree with Simplicio?
In reality, if there is variation in DNA replication and maintenance >>> fidelity, natural selection, in a sufficiently large population, will >>> lead to change in the fidelity of DNA replication and maintenance in the >>> population in the direction of the optimum. No recogniser is required. >>> No involvement of mind is required.
No, that violates the central dogma. There is no information getting
back to DNA regarding natural selection in a large population!
Information does not go from protein (large populations) to RNA back to >> DNA.
selection) impossible. Regardless of whether you accept evolution, natural and artificial selection obviously happen. So your understanding of the "central dogma" is incorrect. If your understanding of evolution and biology is so weak, I'm not surprisedFirst, the "central dogma" is not a dogma, just an observation. Second, your understanding of it is flawed. You should be able to figure that out by yourself. If your understanding were correct, it would make natural selection (and artificial
It called a "dogma", and it has not been falsified. https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/physiol.00017.2018
Artificial selection is guided by mind. Breeders choose characteristics
they desire in animals and plants which they allow to breed. So, the DNA already possesses the information, which expresses the desired characteristics. So, this is mind at play!
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most >>>>>>>> modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is biased >>>>>>> and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed with
planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial evidence for
design based on the reality of excessive mutations is unacceptable due
to the horrific diseases and both physical and mental. To recognize
this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against* design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created).
As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise, and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better than today.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R)
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of >>>>>>>>>> most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you >>>>> decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is
too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully
designed with planning and forethought. There is strong
circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive >>>> mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both
physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which, >>> per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created).
for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise,
and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant
past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better
than today.
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy.
There are over 6,000 known genetic disorders known, and you think these 6000+disorders were around 1000 years ago even 10000 years ago. And you think what I wrote is complete fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
There are new genetic diseases being discovered even more often than expected.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230125/newly-discovered-genetic-disease-more-common-than-expected.
It's you, that's living in a fantasy world.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind --
requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it >>> can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 2:31:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 12:41:25 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:As far as I'm concerned this person is dead. He is the 2/nd regular on
Lawyer Daggett wrote:.....
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 7:51:24 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:If that happened it was not deliberate.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:01:24 AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/29/23 3:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
You're an atheist, okay. Of course, this places you in the same boat asThe subject of your bias came up elsewhere. In the above statement, >>>>>>>> your bias is again on blaring display.
extreme religious fundamentalist.
(You probably have trouble seeing that. If so, consider that if you >>>>>>>> believe your statement, you must also believe the logically equivalent:
"You're not a popular music fan, okay. Of course, this places you in the
same boat as the most fanatical Taylor Swift groupies.")
Like with other things, Ron seems to have a private definition of atheism that
is very different from the literal or usual meaning of the word.
Two things. You are old enough to learn to post. Stop screwing up the way you
insert your own text such that it looks like others wrote it.
I dId not say it was about knowledge. Quite the contrary, like religion >>>> it's about belief.
Two, atheism isn't a claim of absolute knowledge. It is a statement of lack
of belief. Saying you don't believe in any gods isn't saying you know for a
fact that no gods exist. You have a persistent mental block about this fact
about the meaning of the term "atheism"
Unbelief is the exact same lack of belief. Atheism is lack of belief
that god(s) exist.
You have a goddamn problem with understanding. I DID NOT SAY ATHEISM IS >>>> ABOUT KNOWING! quite the contrary! Atheism is a lack of belief that
[Ron Dean wrote (with screwed up indents ">"]
No. Atheism is a lack of belief. Furthermore, belief isn't a claim to knowIt's impossible to know for an absolute fact; you will die and you will >>>>>> pay taxes. Both atheism and religion are based on belief and faith. >>>>>
something for an absolute fact.
God(s) exist! Agnosticism
is neither belief nor disbelief. Prove
You compound being wrong with more
wrongness and then sprinkle on some more wrongness. Worse still,
you believe that you think logically when you are revealed to be a font >>>>> of non sequiturs. Prediction: you won't even understand the ways you have >>>>> just been refuted.
It's so goddamn easy to make accusations without backing them up - Get >>>> lost and drop dead~!
Christian love and turning the other cheek at their most inspiring.
TO that I never read again nor respond to.
I'm simply a theist! As I pointed out before, the designer might have
lived sometimes between 13.7 billion and the present. Nothing is
forever, the designer might very well be dead!
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 1:01:24 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer for
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron Dean>
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most >>>>>>>>>> modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is biased >>>>>>>>> and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
People who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed with >>>> planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial evidence for
design based on the reality of excessive mutations is unacceptable due >>>> to the horrific diseases and both physical and mental. To recognize
this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created).
example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise, and new
disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant past DNA
proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better than today.
Rather than inventing your own biology based on nothing
but wild speculation, why not try to find out what we actually know?
If only for the novelty value. The picture we get from DNA analysis
is both interesting and complex; our very distant ancestors had more
genetic illnesses than us, on average. More recent ones had indeed
fewer. https://dnascience.plos.org/2017/08/31/were-ancient-humans-healthier-than-us/
So far from a deteriorating repair system, something else seems at play here: more recent humans are more likely to survive genetical illnesses due to better
health care and other improvements in our life style. That means that the selective pressure is reduced, and people passing on the defect becomes more common - pretty much as the theory of evolution would predict https://dnascience.plos.org/2017/08/31/were-ancient-humans-healthier-than-us/
On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 01:41:24 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 14:45:47 +0000, Mark Isaak said:I realize this, but most mutations are caught and repaired. There are a
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved? >>>>> Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most >>>>>>>>>>> modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you >>>>>> decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed
with planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial
evidence for design based on the reality of excessive mutations is
unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both physical and
mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). To not
recognize that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your
mind -- requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument >>>> (if it can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
few that the 6 proofreading and repair mechanisms fails to catch. As
time passes, there are increases in in percentages people being affected
by genetic disorders, There are diseases on the rise, cancer for example
and there are previously unknown genetic disorders being found. So, if
you if you go back in time, the percentages
of genetic disorders would lessen.
All health problems including genetic disorders were more deadly to most humans just few generations ago. My grandmother had still level of
medicine like that if someone had respiratory illness then apply a thin layer of goose fat to the chest and soles of the feet. Kids with disorders did die, and goose fat advertisements were not spammed everywhere. Now you
both see the people with disorders and more promotions of medicine and
so think that medical issues are on rise. In reality life expectancy of human population has significally improved.
Chances are good that 200,000 years
ago when humans first appeared DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms
were much better than at present.
From where you take that? Mutation rate of mammals (including humans)
is 2.2 × 10 in −9 per base pair per year and genome sizes vary between
2.5 and 3.5 billions of base pairs. Claim that humans had surprisingly different low mutation rate mere 200,000 (about 8000 generations) ago
is extraordinary and totally groundless.
And as time passes, genetic disordersThat can happen because people with genetic disorder give offspring.
and diseases become increasingly worse for our decedents.
Or it can happen that we learn to repair genes and so disorders will
remain only to those who refuse the treatment.
Definitely he was wrong about several things. Someone who does somethingDarwin wasn't right about everything.
As I'm sure you know, but maybe Ron Dean doesn't, this argument against
design goes back to Darwin: “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent >>> and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with
the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of
Caterpillars…”
also makes mistakes. The ID proponents have no explanations, do nothing,
just deny fruits of others work and badmouth them. That is ugly.
Darwin's explanation is plausible. God does not design nor micromanage any weird forms of cooperation but lets those to evolve.
Think yourself. Only few birds want to eat caterpillars. Here in Estonia it is
only cuckoo. Cuckoo has evolved strong enough stomach to digest whatever, including caterpillars. That is because it lays eggs to other birds nests and there its chicks can not be picky about diet. But that form of reproduction limits cuckoo population with other birds population. Therefore wasps have always enough of caterpillars to lay eggs into and the whole system works.
Creationist explanation however is missing. None, nil, nada, zip, zero.
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 6:11:25?PM UTC+1, El Kabong wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 20:23:16 -0700, El Kabong <tw...@the.noodle> wrote:
<snip-a-doodle>
Land animals need legs. Nobody needs to notice that and
say "hey, let's put legs on lizards." It's just that
lizards with fins don't have a good survival rate. The
situation is self-correcting.
Is that hard for you to understand?
A point of pedantry: Land animals need legs only when they competeIndeed a vital point of bipedantry and quadrapedantry,
with other land animals with legs. Otherwise, they get along just
fine on fins (mudskippers), tentacles (octopuses), flopping around
from side-to-side (lungfish), or even staying in one place
(barnacles).
and maybe octopedantry. There aren't many land animals
on tentacles, but they could give us bipedants a run for
our money, and would eventually dominate european soccer.
There is the star-nosed mole of course, but it is arguably not
"on" tentacles - unless it topples over for no reasons and
falls on its face. In football terms, "doing a Ronaldo"
Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 1:01:24 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer for >> example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise, and new >> disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant past DNA
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved? >>>> Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most >>>>>>>>>> modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is biased >>>>>>>>> and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you >>>>> decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed with >>>> planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial evidence for >>>> design based on the reality of excessive mutations is unacceptable due >>>> to the horrific diseases and both physical and mental. To recognize >>>> this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created).
proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better than today.
Rather than inventing your own biology based on nothing
but wild speculation, why not try to find out what we actually know?
If only for the novelty value. The picture we get from DNA analysis
is both interesting and complex; our very distant ancestors had more genetic illnesses than us, on average. More recent ones had indeed
fewer. https://dnascience.plos.org/2017/08/31/were-ancient-humans-healthier-than-us/
So far from a deteriorating repair system, something else seems at play here:
more recent humans are more likely to survive genetical illnesses due to better
health care and other improvements in our life style. That means that the selective pressure is reduced, and people passing on the defect becomes more
common - pretty much as the theory of evolution would predict https://dnascience.plos.org/2017/08/31/were-ancient-humans-healthier-than-us/
Ok, but it does not make sense. Because of health care, genetic
disorders are increasing;
more offspring with disorders are becoming more common. This seen to be survival of the
unfit, which is contrary to evolution.
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 01:41:24 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 14:45:47 +0000, Mark Isaak said:I realize this, but most mutations are caught and repaired. There are a >> few that the 6 proofreading and repair mechanisms fails to catch. As
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved? >>>>> Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy. >>>>> This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed >>>>> with planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most >>>>>>>>>>> modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you >>>>>> decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't? >>>>>>
evidence for design based on the reality of excessive mutations is >>>>> unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both physical and
mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against* >>>> design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which, >>>> per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). To not
recognize that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your >>>> mind -- requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument >>>> (if it can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
time passes, there are increases in in percentages people being affected >> by genetic disorders, There are diseases on the rise, cancer for example >> and there are previously unknown genetic disorders being found. So, if
you if you go back in time, the percentages
of genetic disorders would lessen.
All health problems including genetic disorders were more deadly to most humans just few generations ago. My grandmother had still level of medicine like that if someone had respiratory illness then apply a thin layer
of goose fat to the chest and soles of the feet. Kids with disorders did die,
and goose fat advertisements were not spammed everywhere. Now you
both see the people with disorders and more promotions of medicine and
so think that medical issues are on rise. In reality life expectancy of human
population has significally improved.
Chances are good that 200,000 years
ago when humans first appeared DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms
were much better than at present.
From where you take that? Mutation rate of mammals (including humans)
is 2.2 × 10 in −9 per base pair per year and genome sizes vary between 2.5 and 3.5 billions of base pairs. Claim that humans had surprisingly different low mutation rate mere 200,000 (about 8000 generations) ago
is extraordinary and totally groundless.
And as time passes, genetic disordersThat can happen because people with genetic disorder give offspring.
and diseases become increasingly worse for our decedents.
Or it can happen that we learn to repair genes and so disorders will remain only to those who refuse the treatment.
Okay, still higher rates do occur.
Definitely he was wrong about several things. Someone who does something also makes mistakes. The ID proponents have no explanations, do nothing, just deny fruits of others work and badmouth them. That is ugly.Darwin wasn't right about everything.
As I'm sure you know, but maybe Ron Dean doesn't, this argument against >>> design goes back to Darwin: “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent
and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with >>> the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of
Caterpillars…”
Well he was not right about everything is factual, not ugly.
Darwin's explanation is plausible. God does not design nor micromanage any weird forms of cooperation but lets those to evolve.
Think yourself. Only few birds want to eat caterpillars. Here in Estonia it is
only cuckoo. Cuckoo has evolved strong enough stomach to digest whatever, including caterpillars. That is because it lays eggs to other birds nests and
there its chicks can not be picky about diet. But that form of reproduction
limits cuckoo population with other birds population. Therefore wasps have always enough of caterpillars to lay eggs into and the whole system works.
Creationist explanation however is missing. None, nil, nada, zip, zero.
I don't care about creationist. But ID is where I find myself, after becoming disillusioned with evolution a few years ago. In the past, I
was a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. However, on a challenge I
read a book by Michael Denton called, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis",
that started me questioning. This book woke me up! After "falling away"
from evolution, I had no where to go, but
as a engineer MsEE myself, design seemed reasonable. At this time of my life, I had never heard of intelligent design. So, I arrived at my views
on my own.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 12:01:27?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 1:01:24?AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:Ok, but it does not make sense. Because of health care, genetic
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer for >> >> example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise, and new >> >> disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant past DNA
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved? >> >>>> Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of
evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most >> >>>>>>>>>> modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is biased >> >>>>>>>>> and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >> >>>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed with >> >>>> planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial evidence for >> >>>> design based on the reality of excessive mutations is unacceptable due >> >>>> to the horrific diseases and both physical and mental. To recognize
this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created).
proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better than today.
Rather than inventing your own biology based on nothing
but wild speculation, why not try to find out what we actually know?
If only for the novelty value. The picture we get from DNA analysis
is both interesting and complex; our very distant ancestors had more
genetic illnesses than us, on average. More recent ones had indeed
fewer.
https://dnascience.plos.org/2017/08/31/were-ancient-humans-healthier-than-us/
So far from a deteriorating repair system, something else seems at play here:
more recent humans are more likely to survive genetical illnesses due to better
health care and other improvements in our life style. That means that the >> > selective pressure is reduced, and people passing on the defect becomes more
common - pretty much as the theory of evolution would predict
https://dnascience.plos.org/2017/08/31/were-ancient-humans-healthier-than-us/
disorders are increasing;
more offspring with disorders are becoming more common. This seen to be
survival of the
unfit, which is contrary to evolution.
Again you give no evidence of ever having understood the theory of evolution, back when you were a "dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist."
Fitness depends on the environment. In an environment without health care, some genetic diseases make you unfit; in an environment with health care, the same diseases may have no effect on fitness. It makes sense just fine.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:26:26 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 01:41:24 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:Okay, still higher rates do occur.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 14:45:47 +0000, Mark Isaak said:I realize this, but most mutations are caught and repaired. There are a >>>> few that the 6 proofreading and repair mechanisms fails to catch. As
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved? >>>>>>> Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy. >>>>>>> This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed >>>>>>> with planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most >>>>>>>>>>>>> modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you >>>>>>>> decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't? >>>>>>>>
evidence for design based on the reality of excessive mutations is >>>>>>> unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both physical and
mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against* >>>>>> design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which, >>>>>> per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). To not
recognize that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your >>>>>> mind -- requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument >>>>>> (if it can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
time passes, there are increases in in percentages people being affected >>>> by genetic disorders, There are diseases on the rise, cancer for example >>>> and there are previously unknown genetic disorders being found. So, if >>>> you if you go back in time, the percentages
of genetic disorders would lessen.
All health problems including genetic disorders were more deadly to most >>> humans just few generations ago. My grandmother had still level of
medicine like that if someone had respiratory illness then apply a thin layer
of goose fat to the chest and soles of the feet. Kids with disorders did die,
and goose fat advertisements were not spammed everywhere. Now you
both see the people with disorders and more promotions of medicine and
so think that medical issues are on rise. In reality life expectancy of human
population has significally improved.
Chances are good that 200,000 years
ago when humans first appeared DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms
were much better than at present.
From where you take that? Mutation rate of mammals (including humans)
is 2.2 × 10 in −9 per base pair per year and genome sizes vary between >>> 2.5 and 3.5 billions of base pairs. Claim that humans had surprisingly
different low mutation rate mere 200,000 (about 8000 generations) ago
is extraordinary and totally groundless.
And as time passes, genetic disordersThat can happen because people with genetic disorder give offspring.
and diseases become increasingly worse for our decedents.
Or it can happen that we learn to repair genes and so disorders will
remain only to those who refuse the treatment.
Well he was not right about everything is factual, not ugly.Definitely he was wrong about several things. Someone who does something >>> also makes mistakes. The ID proponents have no explanations, do nothing, >>> just deny fruits of others work and badmouth them. That is ugly.Darwin wasn't right about everything.
As I'm sure you know, but maybe Ron Dean doesn't, this argument against >>>>> design goes back to Darwin: “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent >>>>> and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with >>>>> the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of
Caterpillars…”
I don't care about creationist. But ID is where I find myself, after
Darwin's explanation is plausible. God does not design nor micromanage any >>> weird forms of cooperation but lets those to evolve.
Think yourself. Only few birds want to eat caterpillars. Here in Estonia it is
only cuckoo. Cuckoo has evolved strong enough stomach to digest whatever, >>> including caterpillars. That is because it lays eggs to other birds nests and
there its chicks can not be picky about diet. But that form of reproduction >>> limits cuckoo population with other birds population. Therefore wasps have >>> always enough of caterpillars to lay eggs into and the whole system works. >>>
Creationist explanation however is missing. None, nil, nada, zip, zero.
becoming disillusioned with evolution a few years ago. In the past, I
was a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. However, on a challenge I
read a book by Michael Denton called, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis",
that started me questioning. This book woke me up! After "falling away"
from evolution, I had no where to go, but
as a engineer MsEE myself, design seemed reasonable. At this time, of my
life, I had never heard of intelligent design. So, I arrived at my views
on my own.
You keep saying you were a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. You give no evidence of having understood the theory of evolution or the evidence supporting it.
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said:There are over 6,000 known genetic disorders known, and you think these
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:>
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron Dean>
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of >>>>>>>>>>>> most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you >>>>>>> decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
People who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R)
evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is
too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully >>>>>> designed with planning and forethought. There is strong
circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive >>>>>> mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both
physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which, >>>>> per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created).
As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer
for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise,
and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant >>>> past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better
than today.
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do
evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy.
6000+disorders were around 1000 years ago even 10000 years ago. And you
think what I wrote is complete fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
There are new genetic diseases being discovered even more often than
expected.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230125/newly-discovered-genetic-disease-more-common-than-expected.
It's you, that's living in a fantasy world.
So you think things only start to exist when we discover them?
That is indeed a fantasy world. In the real world, we discover e.g. new islands all the time - do yo think that means that new islands are
created constantly too?
Here an example from genetic diseases: Klinefelter syndrome was
identified as a genetic disease in 1959. Yet recently, it was shown in a
1000 year old skeleton: https://www.sciencealert.com/rare-genetic-syndrome-in-1000-year-old-skeleton-is-oldest-case-ever-found
As our diagnostic tools get better and better, of course we should
expect more and more diseases to be identified, that's why we
constantly improve on our methods and equipment.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind --
requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it >>>>> can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:26:26 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 01:41:24 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:Okay, still higher rates do occur.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 14:45:47 +0000, Mark Isaak said:I realize this, but most mutations are caught and repaired. There are a >>>> few that the 6 proofreading and repair mechanisms fails to catch. As >>>> time passes, there are increases in in percentages people being affected
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most
modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you >>>>>>>> decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't? >>>>>>>>
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy. >>>>>>> This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed >>>>>>> with planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial >>>>>>> evidence for design based on the reality of excessive mutations is >>>>>>> unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both physical and >>>>>>> mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against* >>>>>> design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which, >>>>>> per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). To not
recognize that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your >>>>>> mind -- requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument >>>>>> (if it can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
by genetic disorders, There are diseases on the rise, cancer for example
and there are previously unknown genetic disorders being found. So, if >>>> you if you go back in time, the percentages
of genetic disorders would lessen.
All health problems including genetic disorders were more deadly to most >>> humans just few generations ago. My grandmother had still level of
medicine like that if someone had respiratory illness then apply a thin layer
of goose fat to the chest and soles of the feet. Kids with disorders did die,
and goose fat advertisements were not spammed everywhere. Now you
both see the people with disorders and more promotions of medicine and >>> so think that medical issues are on rise. In reality life expectancy of human
population has significally improved.
Chances are good that 200,000 years
ago when humans first appeared DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms >>>> were much better than at present.
From where you take that? Mutation rate of mammals (including humans) >>> is 2.2 × 10 in −9 per base pair per year and genome sizes vary between
2.5 and 3.5 billions of base pairs. Claim that humans had surprisingly >>> different low mutation rate mere 200,000 (about 8000 generations) ago >>> is extraordinary and totally groundless.
And as time passes, genetic disordersThat can happen because people with genetic disorder give offspring.
and diseases become increasingly worse for our decedents.
Or it can happen that we learn to repair genes and so disorders will
remain only to those who refuse the treatment.
Well he was not right about everything is factual, not ugly.Definitely he was wrong about several things. Someone who does something >>> also makes mistakes. The ID proponents have no explanations, do nothing, >>> just deny fruits of others work and badmouth them. That is ugly.Darwin wasn't right about everything.
As I'm sure you know, but maybe Ron Dean doesn't, this argument against
design goes back to Darwin: “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent
and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with
the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of >>>>> Caterpillars…”
I don't care about creationist. But ID is where I find myself, after
Darwin's explanation is plausible. God does not design nor micromanage any
weird forms of cooperation but lets those to evolve.
Think yourself. Only few birds want to eat caterpillars. Here in Estonia it is
only cuckoo. Cuckoo has evolved strong enough stomach to digest whatever,
including caterpillars. That is because it lays eggs to other birds nests and
there its chicks can not be picky about diet. But that form of reproduction
limits cuckoo population with other birds population. Therefore wasps have
always enough of caterpillars to lay eggs into and the whole system works.
Creationist explanation however is missing. None, nil, nada, zip, zero. >>>
becoming disillusioned with evolution a few years ago. In the past, I
was a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. However, on a challenge I
read a book by Michael Denton called, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis",
that started me questioning. This book woke me up! After "falling away" >> from evolution, I had no where to go, but
as a engineer MsEE myself, design seemed reasonable. At this time, of my >> life, I had never heard of intelligent design. So, I arrived at my views >> on my own.
You keep saying you were a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. You give no evidence of having understood the theory of evolution or the evidence supporting it.
I did. What do you know? IOW have you ever questioned evolution? If so, what- and how did you resolve It?
Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 1:01:24 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer for >> example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise, and new >> disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant past DNA
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved? >>>> Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most >>>>>>>>>> modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is biased >>>>>>>>> and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you >>>>> decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed with >>>> planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial evidence for >>>> design based on the reality of excessive mutations is unacceptable due >>>> to the horrific diseases and both physical and mental. To recognize >>>> this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created).
proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better than today.
Rather than inventing your own biology based on nothing
but wild speculation, why not try to find out what we actually know?
If only for the novelty value. The picture we get from DNA analysis
is both interesting and complex; our very distant ancestors had more genetic illnesses than us, on average. More recent ones had indeed
fewer. https://dnascience.plos.org/2017/08/31/were-ancient-humans-healthier-than-us/
So far from a deteriorating repair system, something else seems at play here:
more recent humans are more likely to survive genetical illnesses due to better
health care and other improvements in our life style. That means that the selective pressure is reduced, and people passing on the defect becomes more
common - pretty much as the theory of evolution would predict https://dnascience.plos.org/2017/08/31/were-ancient-humans-healthier-than-us/
Ok, but it does not make sense. Because of health care, genetic
disorders are increasing;
more offspring with disorders are becoming more common. This seen to be survival of the
unfit, which is contrary to evolution.
Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said:There are over 6,000 known genetic disorders known, and you think these >> 6000+disorders were around 1000 years ago even 10000 years ago. And you >> think what I wrote is complete fantasy.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer >>>> for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise, >>>> and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant >>>> past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better >>>> than today.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R)
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of >>>>>>>>>>>> most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you >>>>>>> decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't? >>>>>> >
evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is >>>>>> too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully >>>>>> designed with planning and forethought. There is strong
circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive >>>>>> mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both >>>>>> physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against* >>>>> design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which, >>>>> per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created).
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do
evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
There are new genetic diseases being discovered even more often than
expected.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230125/newly-discovered-genetic-disease-more-common-than-expected.
It's you, that's living in a fantasy world.
So you think things only start to exist when we discover them?
So, you're claiming that things have always been the same. They were
just discovered. Prove it!
That is indeed a fantasy world. In the real world, we discover e.g. new islands all the time - do yo think that means that new islands are
created constantly too?
This is riodiculous
Here an example from genetic diseases: Klinefelter syndrome was
identified as a genetic disease in 1959. Yet recently, it was shown in a 1000 year old skeleton: https://www.sciencealert.com/rare-genetic-syndrome-in-1000-year-old-skeleton-is-oldest-case-ever-found
As our diagnostic tools get better and better, of course we should
expect more and more diseases to be identified, that's why we
constantly improve on our methods and equipment.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind -- >>>>> requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it >>>>> can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 8:16:26 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:So, you're claiming that things have always been the same. They were
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said:There are over 6,000 known genetic disorders known, and you think these >>>> 6000+disorders were around 1000 years ago even 10000 years ago. And you >>>> think what I wrote is complete fantasy.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer >>>>>> for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise, >>>>>> and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant >>>>>> past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better >>>>>> than today.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R)
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>>>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you >>>>>>>>> decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't? >>>>>>>>>
evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is >>>>>>>> too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully >>>>>>>> designed with planning and forethought. There is strong
circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive >>>>>>>> mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both >>>>>>>> physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against* >>>>>>> design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which, >>>>>>> per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created).
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do
evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
There are new genetic diseases being discovered even more often than
expected.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230125/newly-discovered-genetic-disease-more-common-than-expected.
It's you, that's living in a fantasy world.
So you think things only start to exist when we discover them?
just discovered. Prove it!
I gave you the proof for genetic illnesses in the two citations that
you, as aways, failed to address.
This is riodiculous
That is indeed a fantasy world. In the real world, we discover e.g. new
islands all the time - do yo think that means that new islands are
created constantly too?
It is indeed - so why do you keep posting such
nonsense?
Here an example from genetic diseases: Klinefelter syndrome was
identified as a genetic disease in 1959. Yet recently, it was shown in a >>> 1000 year old skeleton:
https://www.sciencealert.com/rare-genetic-syndrome-in-1000-year-old-skeleton-is-oldest-case-ever-found
As our diagnostic tools get better and better, of course we should
expect more and more diseases to be identified, that's why we
constantly improve on our methods and equipment.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind -- >>>>>>> requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it >>>>>>> can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
Burkhard wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 8:16:26 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:So, you're claiming that things have always been the same. They were
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said:There are over 6,000 known genetic disorders known, and you think these >>>> 6000+disorders were around 1000 years ago even 10000 years ago. And you >>>> think what I wrote is complete fantasy.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer >>>>>> for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise, >>>>>> and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant >>>>>> past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better >>>>>> than today.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) >>>>>>>> evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is >>>>>>>> too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully >>>>>>>> designed with planning and forethought. There is strong
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't? >>>>>>>>>
circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive
mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both >>>>>>>> physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against* >>>>>>> design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which, >>>>>>> per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created).
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do >>>>> evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
There are new genetic diseases being discovered even more often than >>>> expected.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230125/newly-discovered-genetic-disease-more-common-than-expected.
It's you, that's living in a fantasy world.
So you think things only start to exist when we discover them?
just discovered. Prove it!
I gave you the proof for genetic illnesses in the two citations that
you, as aways, failed to address.
This is riodiculous
That is indeed a fantasy world. In the real world, we discover e.g. new >>> islands all the time - do yo think that means that new islands are
created constantly too?
It is indeed - so why do you keep posting such
nonsense?
That's how proofreading and repair comes across. So far, all that been posted as an explanation as to how and why a random, aimless, mindless natural process was able, via hit and miss methods, to evolved the six
DNA proofreading and repair machines. Supposition, hypothesis and theories are little better than guesswork. No one can really know the multiple processes and procedures evolution had to have taken, to have created
such complex machines. To think, it just happen through aimless,
mindless processes takes great faith. If there is a mind beyond ours.
The best explanation is deliberate purposeful design. And who can state,
for an absolute fact there isn't a greater mind. This, places the
burden, upon those who disagreed, to falsify the existence of this mind..
Here an example from genetic diseases: Klinefelter syndrome was
identified as a genetic disease in 1959. Yet recently, it was shown in a >>> 1000 year old skeleton:
https://www.sciencealert.com/rare-genetic-syndrome-in-1000-year-old-skeleton-is-oldest-case-ever-found
As our diagnostic tools get better and better, of course we should
expect more and more diseases to be identified, that's why we
constantly improve on our methods and equipment.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind -- >>>>>>> requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it >>>>>>> can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:11:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:do to find evidence for or against the claim.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:I've certainly questioned evolution (and lots of other areas of science) by asking "How do we know X?" or "What is the evidence for Y?" If somebody makes a claim about nature, the first thing I think about is what sort of experiment you would have to
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:26:26 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:I did. What do you know? IOW have you ever questioned evolution? If so,
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 01:41:24 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:Okay, still higher rates do occur.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 14:45:47 +0000, Mark Isaak said:I realize this, but most mutations are caught and repaired. There are a >>>>>> few that the 6 proofreading and repair mechanisms fails to catch. As >>>>>> time passes, there are increases in in percentages people being affected >>>>>> by genetic disorders, There are diseases on the rise, cancer for example >>>>>> and there are previously unknown genetic disorders being found. So, if >>>>>> you if you go back in time, the percentages
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved? >>>>>>>>> Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy. >>>>>>>>> This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed >>>>>>>>> with planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial >>>>>>>>> evidence for design based on the reality of excessive mutations is >>>>>>>>> unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both physical and >>>>>>>>> mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are >>>>>>>>>>>> expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you >>>>>>>>>> decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't? >>>>>>>>>>
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against* >>>>>>>> design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which, >>>>>>>> per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). To not
recognize that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your >>>>>>>> mind -- requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument >>>>>>>> (if it can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
of genetic disorders would lessen.
All health problems including genetic disorders were more deadly to most >>>>> humans just few generations ago. My grandmother had still level of
medicine like that if someone had respiratory illness then apply a thin layer
of goose fat to the chest and soles of the feet. Kids with disorders did die,
and goose fat advertisements were not spammed everywhere. Now you
both see the people with disorders and more promotions of medicine and >>>>> so think that medical issues are on rise. In reality life expectancy of human
population has significally improved.
Chances are good that 200,000 years
ago when humans first appeared DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms >>>>>> were much better than at present.
From where you take that? Mutation rate of mammals (including humans) >>>>> is 2.2 × 10 in −9 per base pair per year and genome sizes vary between >>>>> 2.5 and 3.5 billions of base pairs. Claim that humans had surprisingly >>>>> different low mutation rate mere 200,000 (about 8000 generations) ago >>>>> is extraordinary and totally groundless.
And as time passes, genetic disordersThat can happen because people with genetic disorder give offspring. >>>>> Or it can happen that we learn to repair genes and so disorders will >>>>> remain only to those who refuse the treatment.
and diseases become increasingly worse for our decedents.
Well he was not right about everything is factual, not ugly.Definitely he was wrong about several things. Someone who does something >>>>> also makes mistakes. The ID proponents have no explanations, do nothing, >>>>> just deny fruits of others work and badmouth them. That is ugly.Darwin wasn't right about everything.
As I'm sure you know, but maybe Ron Dean doesn't, this argument against >>>>>>> design goes back to Darwin: “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent
and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with >>>>>>> the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of >>>>>>> Caterpillars…”
I don't care about creationist. But ID is where I find myself, after
Darwin's explanation is plausible. God does not design nor micromanage any
weird forms of cooperation but lets those to evolve.
Think yourself. Only few birds want to eat caterpillars. Here in Estonia it is
only cuckoo. Cuckoo has evolved strong enough stomach to digest whatever, >>>>> including caterpillars. That is because it lays eggs to other birds nests and
there its chicks can not be picky about diet. But that form of reproduction
limits cuckoo population with other birds population. Therefore wasps have
always enough of caterpillars to lay eggs into and the whole system works.
Creationist explanation however is missing. None, nil, nada, zip, zero. >>>>>
becoming disillusioned with evolution a few years ago. In the past, I
was a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. However, on a challenge I >>>> read a book by Michael Denton called, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis",
that started me questioning. This book woke me up! After "falling away" >>>> from evolution, I had no where to go, but
as a engineer MsEE myself, design seemed reasonable. At this time, of my >>>> life, I had never heard of intelligent design. So, I arrived at my views >>>> on my own.
You keep saying you were a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. You give no evidence of having understood the theory of evolution or the evidence supporting it.
what- and how did you resolve It?
I repeat that you have shown no evidence in anything you've posted that you understand what the theory of evolution claims and what evidence biologists use to support it. I highly doubt you could write a coherent paragraph or two summarizing the mainlines of evidence for evolution in such a way that a biologist would say "Yes, that's what we are saying." If you do not understand a position, you will not be able to critique it effectively.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:06:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 8:16:26 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:That's how proofreading and repair comes across. So far, all that been
Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:So, you're claiming that things have always been the same. They were
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said:There are over 6,000 known genetic disorders known, and you think these >>>>>> 6000+disorders were around 1000 years ago even 10000 years ago. And you >>>>>> think what I wrote is complete fantasy.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer >>>>>>>> for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise, >>>>>>>> and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant >>>>>>>> past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better >>>>>>>> than today.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) >>>>>>>>>> evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is >>>>>>>>>> too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully >>>>>>>>>> designed with planning and forethought. There is strong
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you >>>>>>>>>>> decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't? >>>>>>>>>>>
circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive >>>>>>>>>> mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both >>>>>>>>>> physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against* >>>>>>>>> design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which, >>>>>>>>> per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created).
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do >>>>>>> evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
There are new genetic diseases being discovered even more often than >>>>>> expected.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230125/newly-discovered-genetic-disease-more-common-than-expected.
It's you, that's living in a fantasy world.
So you think things only start to exist when we discover them?
just discovered. Prove it!
I gave you the proof for genetic illnesses in the two citations that
you, as aways, failed to address.
This is riodiculous
That is indeed a fantasy world. In the real world, we discover e.g. new >>>>> islands all the time - do yo think that means that new islands are
created constantly too?
It is indeed - so why do you keep posting such
nonsense?
posted as an explanation as to how and why a random, aimless, mindless
natural process was able, via hit and miss methods, to evolved the six
DNA proofreading and repair machines. Supposition, hypothesis and theories >> are little better than guesswork. No one can really know the multiple
processes and procedures evolution had to have taken, to have created
such complex machines. To think, it just happen through aimless,
mindless processes takes great faith. If there is a mind beyond ours.
The best explanation is deliberate purposeful design. And who can state,
for an absolute fact there isn't a greater mind. This, places the
burden, upon those who disagreed, to falsify the existence of this mind..
Nobody is under any obligation to convince you of anything.
Here an example from genetic diseases: Klinefelter syndrome was
identified as a genetic disease in 1959. Yet recently, it was shown in a >>>>> 1000 year old skeleton:
https://www.sciencealert.com/rare-genetic-syndrome-in-1000-year-old-skeleton-is-oldest-case-ever-found
As our diagnostic tools get better and better, of course we should
expect more and more diseases to be identified, that's why we
constantly improve on our methods and equipment.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind -- >>>>>>>>> requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it >>>>>>>>> can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:06:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 8:16:26 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> Burkhard wrote:That's how proofreading and repair comes across. So far, all that been
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:So, you're claiming that things have always been the same. They were >>>> just discovered. Prove it!
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said:There are over 6,000 known genetic disorders known, and you think these
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) >>>>>>>>>> evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is >>>>>>>>>> too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't? >>>>>>>>>>>
designed with planning and forethought. There is strong >>>>>>>>>> circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive
mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both >>>>>>>>>> physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created).
for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise, >>>>>>>> and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant
past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better >>>>>>>> than today.
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do >>>>>>> evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy.
6000+disorders were around 1000 years ago even 10000 years ago. And you
think what I wrote is complete fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
There are new genetic diseases being discovered even more often than >>>>>> expected.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230125/newly-discovered-genetic-disease-more-common-than-expected.
It's you, that's living in a fantasy world.
So you think things only start to exist when we discover them?
I gave you the proof for genetic illnesses in the two citations that
you, as aways, failed to address.
This is riodiculous
That is indeed a fantasy world. In the real world, we discover e.g. new
islands all the time - do yo think that means that new islands are >>>>> created constantly too?
It is indeed - so why do you keep posting such
nonsense?
posted as an explanation as to how and why a random, aimless, mindless
natural process was able, via hit and miss methods, to evolved the six
DNA proofreading and repair machines. Supposition, hypothesis and theories
are little better than guesswork. No one can really know the multiple
processes and procedures evolution had to have taken, to have created
such complex machines. To think, it just happen through aimless,
mindless processes takes great faith. If there is a mind beyond ours.
The best explanation is deliberate purposeful design. And who can state, >> for an absolute fact there isn't a greater mind. This, places the
burden, upon those who disagreed, to falsify the existence of this mind..
Nobody is under any obligation to convince you of anything.
Of course not, where have I made any such claim? All I did was state an observation which neither I nor you or nor anyone else can possibly know.
Here an example from genetic diseases: Klinefelter syndrome was
identified as a genetic disease in 1959. Yet recently, it was shown in a
1000 year old skeleton:
https://www.sciencealert.com/rare-genetic-syndrome-in-1000-year-old-skeleton-is-oldest-case-ever-found
As our diagnostic tools get better and better, of course we should >>>>> expect more and more diseases to be identified, that's why we
constantly improve on our methods and equipment.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind --
requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it
can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:do to find evidence for or against the claim.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:11:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:I've certainly questioned evolution (and lots of other areas of science) by asking "How do we know X?" or "What is the evidence for Y?" If somebody makes a claim about nature, the first thing I think about is what sort of experiment you would have to
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:26:26 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> Öö Tiib wrote:I did. What do you know? IOW have you ever questioned evolution? If so, >> what- and how did you resolve It?
On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 01:41:24 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:Okay, still higher rates do occur.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 14:45:47 +0000, Mark Isaak said:I realize this, but most mutations are caught and repaired. There are a
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most
modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't? >>>>>>>>>>
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy. >>>>>>>>> This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed >>>>>>>>> with planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial >>>>>>>>> evidence for design based on the reality of excessive mutations is >>>>>>>>> unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both physical and >>>>>>>>> mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against* >>>>>>>> design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). To not >>>>>>>> recognize that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your
mind -- requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument
(if it can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
few that the 6 proofreading and repair mechanisms fails to catch. As >>>>>> time passes, there are increases in in percentages people being affected
by genetic disorders, There are diseases on the rise, cancer for example
and there are previously unknown genetic disorders being found. So, if
you if you go back in time, the percentages
of genetic disorders would lessen.
All health problems including genetic disorders were more deadly to most
humans just few generations ago. My grandmother had still level of >>>>> medicine like that if someone had respiratory illness then apply a thin layer
of goose fat to the chest and soles of the feet. Kids with disorders did die,
and goose fat advertisements were not spammed everywhere. Now you >>>>> both see the people with disorders and more promotions of medicine and >>>>> so think that medical issues are on rise. In reality life expectancy of human
population has significally improved.
Chances are good that 200,000 years
ago when humans first appeared DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms >>>>>> were much better than at present.
From where you take that? Mutation rate of mammals (including humans) >>>>> is 2.2 × 10 in −9 per base pair per year and genome sizes vary between
2.5 and 3.5 billions of base pairs. Claim that humans had surprisingly >>>>> different low mutation rate mere 200,000 (about 8000 generations) ago >>>>> is extraordinary and totally groundless.
And as time passes, genetic disordersThat can happen because people with genetic disorder give offspring. >>>>> Or it can happen that we learn to repair genes and so disorders will >>>>> remain only to those who refuse the treatment.
and diseases become increasingly worse for our decedents.
Well he was not right about everything is factual, not ugly.Definitely he was wrong about several things. Someone who does somethingDarwin wasn't right about everything.
As I'm sure you know, but maybe Ron Dean doesn't, this argument against
design goes back to Darwin: “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent
and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with
the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of >>>>>>> Caterpillars…”
also makes mistakes. The ID proponents have no explanations, do nothing,
just deny fruits of others work and badmouth them. That is ugly.
I don't care about creationist. But ID is where I find myself, after >>>> becoming disillusioned with evolution a few years ago. In the past, I >>>> was a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. However, on a challenge I >>>> read a book by Michael Denton called, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis", >>>> that started me questioning. This book woke me up! After "falling away" >>>> from evolution, I had no where to go, but
Darwin's explanation is plausible. God does not design nor micromanage any
weird forms of cooperation but lets those to evolve.
Think yourself. Only few birds want to eat caterpillars. Here in Estonia it is
only cuckoo. Cuckoo has evolved strong enough stomach to digest whatever,
including caterpillars. That is because it lays eggs to other birds nests and
there its chicks can not be picky about diet. But that form of reproduction
limits cuckoo population with other birds population. Therefore wasps have
always enough of caterpillars to lay eggs into and the whole system works.
Creationist explanation however is missing. None, nil, nada, zip, zero.
as a engineer MsEE myself, design seemed reasonable. At this time, of my
life, I had never heard of intelligent design. So, I arrived at my views
on my own.
You keep saying you were a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. You give no evidence of having understood the theory of evolution or the evidence supporting it.
This is telling me nothing specific!
lines of evidence for evolution in such a way that a biologist would say "Yes, that's what we are saying." If you do not understand a position, you will not be able to critique it effectively.I repeat that you have shown no evidence in anything you've posted that you understand what the theory of evolution claims and what evidence biologists use to support it. I highly doubt you could write a coherent paragraph or two summarizing the main
The concept of evolution is quite simple random mutations and natural selection. Through mutations (errors, omissions mismatched bases etc)
the majority of mutations are neutral, many are deleterious and natural selection supposedly weeds them out, but there are a few that are beneficial, which is explained as "survival of the fittest" (a phrase
not attributed to Darwin) But this, it's claimed, means that the fittest
are those that produce the most offspring. But fittest has (another meaning). As evidence, intermediates which have characteristics of
ancestral organisms and
descendant organisms. Genetics which supposedly relates to close
relatives and evolutionary distant relatives originating from a common ancestor. In fact, all living organisms both extinct and extant
supposedly are decedent from a common ancestor that lived prior to 3.8 billion years ago. The
fossil record from oldest rocks to younger strata you see increasing
levels of complexity from
lifeless chemical molecules to single cell organisms to modern highly complex organisms.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:11:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:26:26 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
I repeat that you have shown no evidence in anything you've posted that you understand
what the theory of evolution claims and what evidence biologists use to support it. I highly
doubt you could write a coherent paragraph or two summarizing the main lines of evidence
for evolution in such a way that a biologist would say "Yes, that's what we are saying."
If you do not understand a position, you will not be able to critique it effectively.
The concept of evolution is quite simple random mutations and natural selection. Through mutations (errors, omissions mismatched bases etc)
the majority of mutations are neutral, many are deleterious and natural selection supposedly weeds them out, but there are a few that are beneficial, which is explained as "survival of the fittest" (a phrase
not attributed to Darwin) But this, it's claimed, means that the fittest
are those that produce the most offspring. But fittest has (another meaning). As evidence, intermediates which have characteristics of
ancestral organisms and
descendant organisms. Genetics which supposedly relates to close
relatives and evolutionary distant relatives originating from a common ancestor. In fact, all living organisms both extinct and extant
supposedly are decedent from a common ancestor that lived prior to 3.8 billion years ago. The
fossil record from oldest rocks to younger strata you see increasing
levels of complexity from
lifeless chemical molecules to single cell organisms to modern highly complex organisms.
The concept of evolution is quite simple random mutations and natural selection. Through mutations (errors, omissions mismatched bases etc)
the majority of mutations are neutral, many are deleterious and natural selection supposedly weeds them out, but there are a few that are
beneficial, which is explained as "survival of the fittest" (a phrase
not attributed to Darwin) But this, it's claimed, means that the
fittest are those that produce the most offspring. But fittest has
(another meaning). As evidence, intermediates which have
characteristics of ancestral organisms and
descendant organisms. Genetics which supposedly relates to close
relatives and evolutionary distant relatives originating from a common ancestor. In fact, all living organisms both extinct and extant
supposedly are decedent from a common ancestor that lived prior to 3.8 billion years ago.
The
fossil record from oldest rocks to younger strata you see increasing
levels of complexity from
lifeless chemical molecules to single cell organisms to modern highly
complex organisms.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
This, places theNobody is under any obligation to convince you of anything.
burden, upon those who disagreed, to falsify the existence of this mind.. >>
Of course not, where have I made any such claim?
All I did was state an observation which neither I nor you or nor
anyone else can possibly know.
The concept of evolution is quite simple random mutations and natural
selection. Through mutations (errors, omissions mismatched bases etc)
the majority of mutations are neutral, many are deleterious and
natural selection supposedly weeds them out, but there are a few that
are beneficial, which is explained as "survival of the fittest" (a
phrase not attributed to Darwin) But this, it's claimed, means that
the fittest are those that produce the most offspring. But fittest has
(another meaning). As evidence, intermediates which have
characteristics of ancestral organisms and
descendant organisms. Genetics which supposedly relates to close
relatives and evolutionary distant relatives originating from a common
ancestor. In fact, all living organisms both extinct and extant
supposedly are decedent from a common ancestor that lived prior to 3.8
billion years ago.
LUCA is very much more recent than that! No one thinks that LUCA lived
3.8 billion years ago.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:51:26?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:11:26?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:26:26?AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
...
I repeat that you have shown no evidence in anything you've posted that you understand
what the theory of evolution claims and what evidence biologists use to support it. I highly
doubt you could write a coherent paragraph or two summarizing the main lines of evidence
for evolution in such a way that a biologist would say "Yes, that's what we are saying."
If you do not understand a position, you will not be able to critique it effectively.
The concept of evolution is quite simple random mutations and natural
selection. Through mutations (errors, omissions mismatched bases etc)
the majority of mutations are neutral, many are deleterious and natural
selection supposedly weeds them out, but there are a few that are
beneficial, which is explained as "survival of the fittest" (a phrase
not attributed to Darwin) But this, it's claimed, means that the fittest
are those that produce the most offspring. But fittest has (another
meaning). As evidence, intermediates which have characteristics of
ancestral organisms and
descendant organisms. Genetics which supposedly relates to close
relatives and evolutionary distant relatives originating from a common
ancestor. In fact, all living organisms both extinct and extant
supposedly are decedent from a common ancestor that lived prior to 3.8
billion years ago. The
fossil record from oldest rocks to younger strata you see increasing
levels of complexity from
lifeless chemical molecules to single cell organisms to modern highly
complex organisms.
If a student handed that in I would hand it back and tell them they need to learn
to write proper sentences, There are fragments of ideas about evolution in >there but they are not expressed in an intelligible manner. It's a mishmash of >sentence fragments and run-ons. How did you ever graduate from college >without being able to construct proper sentences? If one cannot write clearly,
one cannot demonstrate an ability to think clearly, or clearly express an >understanding of a topic.
The concept of evolution is quite simple random mutations and natural selection.
Through mutations (errors, omissions mismatched bases etc)
the majority of mutations are neutral, many are deleterious and natural selection supposedly weeds them out, but there are a few that are
beneficial, which is explained as "survival of the fittest" (a phrase
not attributed to Darwin) But this, it's claimed, means that the fittest
are those that produce the most offspring. But fittest has (another
meaning).
As evidence, intermediates which have characteristics of
ancestral organisms and
descendant organisms. Genetics which supposedly relates to close
relatives and evolutionary distant relatives originating from a common ancestor.
In fact, all living organisms both extinct and extant
supposedly are decedent from a common ancestor that lived prior to 3.8 billion years ago. The
fossil record from oldest rocks to younger strata you see increasing
levels of complexity from
lifeless chemical molecules to single cell organisms to modern highly
complex organisms.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 12:41:25?AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:As far as I'm concerned this person is dead. He is the 2/nd regular on
Lawyer Daggett wrote:.....
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 7:51:24?PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:If that happened it was not deliberate.
Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:01:24?AM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>>> On 10/29/23 3:34 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
[...]
You're an atheist, okay. Of course, this places you in the same boat asThe subject of your bias came up elsewhere. In the above statement, >>>>>>> your bias is again on blaring display.
extreme religious fundamentalist.
(You probably have trouble seeing that. If so, consider that if you >>>>>>> believe your statement, you must also believe the logically equivalent: >>>>>>> "You're not a popular music fan, okay. Of course, this places you in the
same boat as the most fanatical Taylor Swift groupies.")
Like with other things, Ron seems to have a private definition of atheism that
is very different from the literal or usual meaning of the word.
Two things. You are old enough to learn to post. Stop screwing up the way you
insert your own text such that it looks like others wrote it.
I dId not say it was about knowledge. Quite the contrary, like religion
Two, atheism isn't a claim of absolute knowledge. It is a statement of lack
of belief. Saying you don't believe in any gods isn't saying you know for a
fact that no gods exist. You have a persistent mental block about this fact
about the meaning of the term "atheism"
it's about belief.
Unbelief is the exact same lack of belief. Atheism is lack of belief
that god(s) exist.
You have a goddamn problem with understanding. I DID NOT SAY ATHEISM IS
[Ron Dean wrote (with screwed up indents ">"]
It's impossible to know for an absolute fact; you will die and you will >>>>> pay taxes. Both atheism and religion are based on belief and faith.
No. Atheism is a lack of belief. Furthermore, belief isn't a claim to know >>>> something for an absolute fact.
ABOUT KNOWING! quite the contrary! Atheism is a lack of belief that
God(s) exist! Agnosticism
is neither belief nor disbelief. Prove
You compound being wrong with more
wrongness and then sprinkle on some more wrongness. Worse still,
you believe that you think logically when you are revealed to be a font >>>> of non sequiturs. Prediction: you won't even understand the ways you have >>>> just been refuted.
It's so goddamn easy to make accusations without backing them up - Get
lost and drop dead~!
Christian love and turning the other cheek at their most inspiring.
TO that I never read again nor respond to.
On 02/11/2023 09:43, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
The concept of evolution is quite simple random mutations and natural
selection. Through mutations (errors, omissions mismatched bases etc)
the majority of mutations are neutral, many are deleterious and natural
selection supposedly weeds them out, but there are a few that are
beneficial, which is explained as "survival of the fittest" (a phrase
not attributed to Darwin) But this, it's claimed, means that the
fittest are those that produce the most offspring. But fittest has
(another meaning). As evidence, intermediates which have
characteristics of ancestral organisms and
descendant organisms. Genetics which supposedly relates to close
relatives and evolutionary distant relatives originating from a common
ancestor. In fact, all living organisms both extinct and extant
supposedly are decedent from a common ancestor that lived prior to 3.8
billion years ago.
LUCA is very much more recent than that! No one thinks that LUCA lived
3.8 billion years ago.
To be fair he doesn't explicitly state equate that common ancestor with
LUCA, rather than an ancestor of LUCA. And to be even more fair, he implicitly says that it was an ancestor of LUCA, in that he includes
all extinct organisms; not all extinct organisms are descended from
LUCA (coalescence is a thing). (However my provisional assumption that
all organisms found in the fossil record are descended from LUCA.)
It turns out that there's a claim (doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0644-x) of
LUCA at 4.5 billion years. I'm skeptical - both of the accuracy of
molecular clock methods, and of the assumption that 3.4 billion year
old microfossils postdate LUCA.
On the other hand the descent of all modern day organisms from a
universal common ancestor is contingent (the theory of evolution
doesn't require abiogenesis to have happened exactly once) and
provisional (people are actively researching the possibility that
abiogenesis happened more than once, and organisms that don't share a
common ancestor with us still exist, but have been overlooked). And personally I wouldn't share his confidence in that 3.8 billion date.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:51:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:do to find evidence for or against the claim.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:11:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:I've certainly questioned evolution (and lots of other areas of science) by asking "How do we know X?" or "What is the evidence for Y?" If somebody makes a claim about nature, the first thing I think about is what sort of experiment you would have to
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:26:26 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> Öö Tiib wrote:I did. What do you know? IOW have you ever questioned evolution? If so, >>>> what- and how did you resolve It?
On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 01:41:24 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:Okay, still higher rates do occur.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 14:45:47 +0000, Mark Isaak said:I realize this, but most mutations are caught and repaired. There are a
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron DeanIt's certainly not my opinion.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most
modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't? >>>>>>>>>>>>
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy. >>>>>>>>>>> This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed >>>>>>>>>>> with planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial >>>>>>>>>>> evidence for design based on the reality of excessive mutations is >>>>>>>>>>> unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both physical and >>>>>>>>>>> mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against* >>>>>>>>>> design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which, >>>>>>>>>> per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). To not >>>>>>>>>> recognize that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your
mind -- requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument
(if it can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
few that the 6 proofreading and repair mechanisms fails to catch. As >>>>>>>> time passes, there are increases in in percentages people being affected
by genetic disorders, There are diseases on the rise, cancer for example
and there are previously unknown genetic disorders being found. So, if >>>>>>>> you if you go back in time, the percentages
of genetic disorders would lessen.
All health problems including genetic disorders were more deadly to most
humans just few generations ago. My grandmother had still level of >>>>>>> medicine like that if someone had respiratory illness then apply a thin layer
of goose fat to the chest and soles of the feet. Kids with disorders did die,
and goose fat advertisements were not spammed everywhere. Now you >>>>>>> both see the people with disorders and more promotions of medicine and >>>>>>> so think that medical issues are on rise. In reality life expectancy of human
population has significally improved.
Chances are good that 200,000 years
ago when humans first appeared DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms >>>>>>>> were much better than at present.
From where you take that? Mutation rate of mammals (including humans) >>>>>>> is 2.2 × 10 in −9 per base pair per year and genome sizes vary between
2.5 and 3.5 billions of base pairs. Claim that humans had surprisingly >>>>>>> different low mutation rate mere 200,000 (about 8000 generations) ago >>>>>>> is extraordinary and totally groundless.
And as time passes, genetic disordersThat can happen because people with genetic disorder give offspring. >>>>>>> Or it can happen that we learn to repair genes and so disorders will >>>>>>> remain only to those who refuse the treatment.
and diseases become increasingly worse for our decedents.
Well he was not right about everything is factual, not ugly.Definitely he was wrong about several things. Someone who does somethingDarwin wasn't right about everything.
As I'm sure you know, but maybe Ron Dean doesn't, this argument against
design goes back to Darwin: “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent
and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with
the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of >>>>>>>>> Caterpillars…”
also makes mistakes. The ID proponents have no explanations, do nothing,
just deny fruits of others work and badmouth them. That is ugly. >>>>>>>
I don't care about creationist. But ID is where I find myself, after >>>>>> becoming disillusioned with evolution a few years ago. In the past, I >>>>>> was a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. However, on a challenge I >>>>>> read a book by Michael Denton called, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis", >>>>>> that started me questioning. This book woke me up! After "falling away" >>>>>> from evolution, I had no where to go, but
Darwin's explanation is plausible. God does not design nor micromanage any
weird forms of cooperation but lets those to evolve.
Think yourself. Only few birds want to eat caterpillars. Here in Estonia it is
only cuckoo. Cuckoo has evolved strong enough stomach to digest whatever,
including caterpillars. That is because it lays eggs to other birds nests and
there its chicks can not be picky about diet. But that form of reproduction
limits cuckoo population with other birds population. Therefore wasps have
always enough of caterpillars to lay eggs into and the whole system works.
Creationist explanation however is missing. None, nil, nada, zip, zero. >>>>>>>
as a engineer MsEE myself, design seemed reasonable. At this time, of my >>>>>> life, I had never heard of intelligent design. So, I arrived at my views >>>>>> on my own.
You keep saying you were a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. You give no evidence of having understood the theory of evolution or the evidence supporting it.
apicoplast genes and chloroplast genes to convince oneself that it was likely, and what sorts of comparisons you would have to be able to make to decide exactly what sort of chloroplast had ended up inside a proto-malaria cell. This is already moreThis is telling me nothing specific!
OK. One example among many...Long ago I heard the the apicoplast of the malaria parasite was derived from chloroplasts. Sounded interesting, but the first thing that occurred to me was what sort of homologies one would have to identify between
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2009.0273lines of evidence for evolution in such a way that a biologist would say "Yes, that's what we are saying." If you do not understand a position, you will not be able to critique it effectively.
I repeat that you have shown no evidence in anything you've posted that you understand what the theory of evolution claims and what evidence biologists use to support it. I highly doubt you could write a coherent paragraph or two summarizing the main
The concept of evolution is quite simple random mutations and natural
selection. Through mutations (errors, omissions mismatched bases etc)
the majority of mutations are neutral, many are deleterious and natural
selection supposedly weeds them out, but there are a few that are
beneficial, which is explained as "survival of the fittest" (a phrase
not attributed to Darwin) or (differential reproduction). But this, it's
claimed, means that the fittest>> are those that produce the most offspring. But fittest has (another
meaning). As evidence, intermediates which have characteristics of
ancestral organisms and
descendant organisms. Genetics which supposedly relates to close
relatives and evolutionary distant relatives originating from a common
ancestor. In fact, all living organisms both extinct and extant
supposedly are decedent from a common ancestor that lived prior to 3.8
billion years ago. The
fossil record from oldest rocks to younger strata you see increasing
levels of complexity from
lifeless chemical molecules to single cell organisms to modern highly
complex organisms.
Good luck finding a biologist who will say "Yes, that's what we are saying."
broger...@gmail.com wrote:to do to find evidence for or against the claim.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:51:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:11:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
I've certainly questioned evolution (and lots of other areas of science) by asking "How do we know X?" or "What is the evidence for Y?" If somebody makes a claim about nature, the first thing I think about is what sort of experiment you would haveOn Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:26:26 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> Öö Tiib wrote:I did. What do you know? IOW have you ever questioned evolution? If so, >>>> what- and how did you resolve It?
On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 01:41:24 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Okay, still higher rates do occur.
On 2023-10-30 14:45:47 +0000, Mark Isaak said:I realize this, but most mutations are caught and repaired. There are a
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:It's certainly not my opinion.
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of
evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most
modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed
with planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial >>>>>>>>>>> evidence for design based on the reality of excessive mutations is
unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both physical and >>>>>>>>>>> mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). To not >>>>>>>>>> recognize that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your
mind -- requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument
(if it can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
few that the 6 proofreading and repair mechanisms fails to catch. As
time passes, there are increases in in percentages people being affected
by genetic disorders, There are diseases on the rise, cancer for example
and there are previously unknown genetic disorders being found. So, if
you if you go back in time, the percentages
of genetic disorders would lessen.
All health problems including genetic disorders were more deadly to most
humans just few generations ago. My grandmother had still level of >>>>>>> medicine like that if someone had respiratory illness then apply a thin layer
of goose fat to the chest and soles of the feet. Kids with disorders did die,
and goose fat advertisements were not spammed everywhere. Now you >>>>>>> both see the people with disorders and more promotions of medicine and
so think that medical issues are on rise. In reality life expectancy of human
population has significally improved.
Chances are good that 200,000 years
ago when humans first appeared DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms
were much better than at present.
From where you take that? Mutation rate of mammals (including humans)
is 2.2 × 10 in −9 per base pair per year and genome sizes vary between
2.5 and 3.5 billions of base pairs. Claim that humans had surprisingly
different low mutation rate mere 200,000 (about 8000 generations) ago
is extraordinary and totally groundless.
And as time passes, genetic disordersThat can happen because people with genetic disorder give offspring. >>>>>>> Or it can happen that we learn to repair genes and so disorders will >>>>>>> remain only to those who refuse the treatment.
and diseases become increasingly worse for our decedents.
Well he was not right about everything is factual, not ugly.Definitely he was wrong about several things. Someone who does somethingDarwin wasn't right about everything.
As I'm sure you know, but maybe Ron Dean doesn't, this argument against
design goes back to Darwin: “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent
and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with
the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of >>>>>>>>> Caterpillars…”
also makes mistakes. The ID proponents have no explanations, do nothing,
just deny fruits of others work and badmouth them. That is ugly. >>>>>>>
I don't care about creationist. But ID is where I find myself, after >>>>>> becoming disillusioned with evolution a few years ago. In the past, I >>>>>> was a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. However, on a challenge I
Darwin's explanation is plausible. God does not design nor micromanage any
weird forms of cooperation but lets those to evolve.
Think yourself. Only few birds want to eat caterpillars. Here in Estonia it is
only cuckoo. Cuckoo has evolved strong enough stomach to digest whatever,
including caterpillars. That is because it lays eggs to other birds nests and
there its chicks can not be picky about diet. But that form of reproduction
limits cuckoo population with other birds population. Therefore wasps have
always enough of caterpillars to lay eggs into and the whole system works.
Creationist explanation however is missing. None, nil, nada, zip, zero.
read a book by Michael Denton called, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis", >>>>>> that started me questioning. This book woke me up! After "falling away"
from evolution, I had no where to go, but
as a engineer MsEE myself, design seemed reasonable. At this time, of my
life, I had never heard of intelligent design. So, I arrived at my views
on my own.
You keep saying you were a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. You give no evidence of having understood the theory of evolution or the evidence supporting it.
apicoplast genes and chloroplast genes to convince oneself that it was likely, and what sorts of comparisons you would have to be able to make to decide exactly what sort of chloroplast had ended up inside a proto-malaria cell. This is already moreThis is telling me nothing specific!
OK. One example among many...Long ago I heard the the apicoplast of the malaria parasite was derived from chloroplasts. Sounded interesting, but the first thing that occurred to me was what sort of homologies one would have to identify between
main lines of evidence for evolution in such a way that a biologist would say "Yes, that's what we are saying." If you do not understand a position, you will not be able to critique it effectively.https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2009.0273
I repeat that you have shown no evidence in anything you've posted that you understand what the theory of evolution claims and what evidence biologists use to support it. I highly doubt you could write a coherent paragraph or two summarizing the
No, I didn't think you'd pay attention to any criticism, and since you seem to have ignored the more detailed criticisms by Ernest Major and Lawyer Daggett, I think I was correct.The concept of evolution is quite simple random mutations and natural
selection. Through mutations (errors, omissions mismatched bases etc)
the majority of mutations are neutral, many are deleterious and natural >> selection supposedly weeds them out, but there are a few that are
beneficial, which is explained as "survival of the fittest" (a phrase
not attributed to Darwin) or (differential reproduction). But this, it's >> claimed, means that the fittest>> are those that produce the most offspring. But fittest has (another
meaning). As evidence, intermediates which have characteristics of
ancestral organisms and
descendant organisms. Genetics which supposedly relates to close
relatives and evolutionary distant relatives originating from a common
ancestor. In fact, all living organisms both extinct and extant
supposedly are decedent from a common ancestor that lived prior to 3.8
billion years ago. The
fossil record from oldest rocks to younger strata you see increasing
levels of complexity from
lifeless chemical molecules to single cell organisms to modern highly
complex organisms.
Good luck finding a biologist who will say "Yes, that's what we are saying."
You asked for a paragraph. What I wrote was an overview of a few points
I could have gone in more detail, time permitting.
I noted you offered no criticism.
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 6:51:27 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:to do to find evidence for or against the claim.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:51:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:11:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
I've certainly questioned evolution (and lots of other areas of science) by asking "How do we know X?" or "What is the evidence for Y?" If somebody makes a claim about nature, the first thing I think about is what sort of experiment you would haveOn Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:26:26 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> Öö Tiib wrote:I did. What do you know? IOW have you ever questioned evolution? If so, >>>>>> what- and how did you resolve It?
On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 01:41:24 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Okay, still higher rates do occur.
On 2023-10-30 14:45:47 +0000, Mark Isaak said:I realize this, but most mutations are caught and repaired. There are a
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:It's certainly not my opinion.
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most
modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed >>>>>>>>>>>>> with planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial >>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence for design based on the reality of excessive mutations is
unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both physical and >>>>>>>>>>>>> mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). To not >>>>>>>>>>>> recognize that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your
mind -- requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument
(if it can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
few that the 6 proofreading and repair mechanisms fails to catch. As >>>>>>>>>> time passes, there are increases in in percentages people being affected
by genetic disorders, There are diseases on the rise, cancer for example
and there are previously unknown genetic disorders being found. So, if
you if you go back in time, the percentages
of genetic disorders would lessen.
All health problems including genetic disorders were more deadly to most
humans just few generations ago. My grandmother had still level of >>>>>>>>> medicine like that if someone had respiratory illness then apply a thin layer
of goose fat to the chest and soles of the feet. Kids with disorders did die,
and goose fat advertisements were not spammed everywhere. Now you >>>>>>>>> both see the people with disorders and more promotions of medicine and
so think that medical issues are on rise. In reality life expectancy of human
population has significally improved.
Chances are good that 200,000 years
ago when humans first appeared DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms
were much better than at present.
From where you take that? Mutation rate of mammals (including humans)
is 2.2 × 10 in −9 per base pair per year and genome sizes vary between
2.5 and 3.5 billions of base pairs. Claim that humans had surprisingly
different low mutation rate mere 200,000 (about 8000 generations) ago >>>>>>>>> is extraordinary and totally groundless.
And as time passes, genetic disordersThat can happen because people with genetic disorder give offspring. >>>>>>>>> Or it can happen that we learn to repair genes and so disorders will >>>>>>>>> remain only to those who refuse the treatment.
and diseases become increasingly worse for our decedents.
Well he was not right about everything is factual, not ugly.Definitely he was wrong about several things. Someone who does somethingDarwin wasn't right about everything.
As I'm sure you know, but maybe Ron Dean doesn't, this argument against
design goes back to Darwin: “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent
and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with
the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of >>>>>>>>>>> Caterpillars…”
also makes mistakes. The ID proponents have no explanations, do nothing,
just deny fruits of others work and badmouth them. That is ugly. >>>>>>>>>
I don't care about creationist. But ID is where I find myself, after >>>>>>>> becoming disillusioned with evolution a few years ago. In the past, I >>>>>>>> was a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. However, on a challenge I >>>>>>>> read a book by Michael Denton called, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis", >>>>>>>> that started me questioning. This book woke me up! After "falling away"
Darwin's explanation is plausible. God does not design nor micromanage any
weird forms of cooperation but lets those to evolve.
Think yourself. Only few birds want to eat caterpillars. Here in Estonia it is
only cuckoo. Cuckoo has evolved strong enough stomach to digest whatever,
including caterpillars. That is because it lays eggs to other birds nests and
there its chicks can not be picky about diet. But that form of reproduction
limits cuckoo population with other birds population. Therefore wasps have
always enough of caterpillars to lay eggs into and the whole system works.
Creationist explanation however is missing. None, nil, nada, zip, zero.
from evolution, I had no where to go, but
as a engineer MsEE myself, design seemed reasonable. At this time, of my
life, I had never heard of intelligent design. So, I arrived at my views
on my own.
You keep saying you were a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. You give no evidence of having understood the theory of evolution or the evidence supporting it.
apicoplast genes and chloroplast genes to convince oneself that it was likely, and what sorts of comparisons you would have to be able to make to decide exactly what sort of chloroplast had ended up inside a proto-malaria cell. This is already moreThis is telling me nothing specific!
OK. One example among many...Long ago I heard the the apicoplast of the malaria parasite was derived from chloroplasts. Sounded interesting, but the first thing that occurred to me was what sort of homologies one would have to identify between
main lines of evidence for evolution in such a way that a biologist would say "Yes, that's what we are saying." If you do not understand a position, you will not be able to critique it effectively.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2009.0273
I repeat that you have shown no evidence in anything you've posted that you understand what the theory of evolution claims and what evidence biologists use to support it. I highly doubt you could write a coherent paragraph or two summarizing the
No, I didn't think you'd pay attention to any criticism, and since you seem to have ignored the more detailed criticisms by Ernest Major and Lawyer Daggett, I think I was correct.offspring. But fittest has (anotherThe concept of evolution is quite simple random mutations and natural
selection. Through mutations (errors, omissions mismatched bases etc)
the majority of mutations are neutral, many are deleterious and natural >>>> selection supposedly weeds them out, but there are a few that are
beneficial, which is explained as "survival of the fittest" (a phrase
not attributed to Darwin) or (differential reproduction). But this, it's >>>> claimed, means that the fittest>> are those that produce the most
You asked for a paragraph. What I wrote was an overview of a few pointsmeaning). As evidence, intermediates which have characteristics of
ancestral organisms and
descendant organisms. Genetics which supposedly relates to close
relatives and evolutionary distant relatives originating from a common >>>> ancestor. In fact, all living organisms both extinct and extant
supposedly are decedent from a common ancestor that lived prior to 3.8 >>>> billion years ago. The
fossil record from oldest rocks to younger strata you see increasing
levels of complexity from
lifeless chemical molecules to single cell organisms to modern highly
complex organisms.
Good luck finding a biologist who will say "Yes, that's what we are saying."
I could have gone in more detail, time permitting.
I noted you offered no criticism.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 7:01:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:06:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Of course not, where have I made any such claim? All I did was state an
Burkhard wrote:Nobody is under any obligation to convince you of anything.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 8:16:26 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> Burkhard wrote:That's how proofreading and repair comes across. So far, all that been >>>> posted as an explanation as to how and why a random, aimless, mindless >>>> natural process was able, via hit and miss methods, to evolved the six >>>> DNA proofreading and repair machines. Supposition, hypothesis and theories >>>> are little better than guesswork. No one can really know the multiple
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:So, you're claiming that things have always been the same. They were >>>>>> just discovered. Prove it!
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said:There are over 6,000 known genetic disorders known, and you think these
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer >>>>>>>>>> for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise, >>>>>>>>>> and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) >>>>>>>>>>>> evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is >>>>>>>>>>>> too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully >>>>>>>>>>>> designed with planning and forethought. There is strong >>>>>>>>>>>> circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:It's certainly not my opinion.
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both >>>>>>>>>>>> physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against* >>>>>>>>>>> design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created).
past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better >>>>>>>>>> than today.
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do >>>>>>>>> evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy.
6000+disorders were around 1000 years ago even 10000 years ago. And you
think what I wrote is complete fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
There are new genetic diseases being discovered even more often than >>>>>>>> expected.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230125/newly-discovered-genetic-disease-more-common-than-expected.
It's you, that's living in a fantasy world.
So you think things only start to exist when we discover them?
I gave you the proof for genetic illnesses in the two citations that >>>>> you, as aways, failed to address.
This is riodiculous
That is indeed a fantasy world. In the real world, we discover e.g. new >>>>>>> islands all the time - do yo think that means that new islands are >>>>>>> created constantly too?
It is indeed - so why do you keep posting such
nonsense?
processes and procedures evolution had to have taken, to have created
such complex machines. To think, it just happen through aimless,
mindless processes takes great faith. If there is a mind beyond ours.
The best explanation is deliberate purposeful design. And who can state, >>>> for an absolute fact there isn't a greater mind. This, places the
burden, upon those who disagreed, to falsify the existence of this mind.. >>>
observation which neither I nor you or nor anyone else can possibly know.
One thing that is very convenient about your view is that you provide no specific characteristics of the designer and even allow that the designer might not exist any more - that makes your view immune to testing, much less disproof.
Here an example from genetic diseases: Klinefelter syndrome was
identified as a genetic disease in 1959. Yet recently, it was shown in a
1000 year old skeleton:
https://www.sciencealert.com/rare-genetic-syndrome-in-1000-year-old-skeleton-is-oldest-case-ever-found
As our diagnostic tools get better and better, of course we should >>>>>>> expect more and more diseases to be identified, that's why we
constantly improve on our methods and equipment.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind -- >>>>>>>>>>> requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it
can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
On 01/11/2023 22:51, Ron Dean wrote:
The concept of evolution is quite simple random mutations and natural
selection.
Mutation and natural selection are not the only evolutionary processes.
If you want to restrict them to two, then they would be introduction of
novel variation to a population (mutation and gene flow) and
differential reproductive success within a population (natural selection
and drift), but common practice is to recognise 4 or more, depending how finely you want to slice them - for example one might not want to
include interdemic gene flow, interspecific introgression, foreign DNA
uptake (the intimate connection with their hosts result in parasitic
plants acquiring genes from the hosts) and bacterial and viral mediated horizontal gene transfer as a single process. One might also not want to include point mutation, gene duplication and allopolyploidy as a single process.
Darwin may have only identified novel variation (but he knew he didn't
have a worked out theory of variation - only the observation that it occurred) and natural (and sexual) selection, but he remained open to
the possibility that other mechanisms existed.
That evolution consists solely of random mutation and natural selection
is a common creationist strawman.
Through mutations (errors, omissions mismatched bases etc) the
majority of mutations are neutral, many are deleterious and natural
selection supposedly weeds them out, but there are a few that are
beneficial, which is explained as "survival of the fittest" (a phrase
not attributed to Darwin) But this, it's claimed, means that the
fittest are those that produce the most offspring. But fittest has
(another meaning).
"natural selection" (Darwin) and "survival of the fittest" (Spencer) are
both attempts to explain "different reproductive success correlated with hereditary features" by analogy.
Quibbling that "fitness" as a term of art in evolutionary biology is not
an exact synonym of vernacular usage is a creationist tactic.
As evidence, intermediates which have characteristics of ancestral
organisms and
descendant organisms. Genetics which supposedly relates to close
relatives and evolutionary distant relatives originating from a common
ancestor.
The fossil record has never been the major part of the evidence for
common descent with modification through the agency of natural selection
and other processes. In Darwin's day that role was played by
morphological homologies, biogeography, and the contemporary observation
of evolutionary processes.
hierarchy) and their correlation with morphological homologies (the twin nested hierarchy) takes pride of place.
Another bit of evidence is the near universality of the genetic code and
the nature and phylogenetic distribution of the divergences.
The fossil evidence is not solely the existence of intermediates filling
gaps between modern groups, but also the fact of faunal succession
(rocks of different ages contain fossils of different species) with a correlation between the fauna (strictly biota) of successive strata, and palaeobiogeography (where the past distributions of land and sea are reflected in the where taxa are found in time and space), and the
existence of fossils with characters appropriate to a common ancestor of multiple modern groups.
That the fossil record is the primary evidence for evolution is another creationist strawman.
In fact, all living organisms both extinct and extant
supposedly are decedent from a common ancestor that lived prior to 3.8
billion years ago. The
fossil record from oldest rocks to younger strata you see increasing
levels of complexity from
lifeless chemical molecules to single cell organisms to modern highly
complex organisms.
See my reply to Athel for comments on problems in this paragraph. The
last sentence isn't obviously wrong, but in light of your previous posts
it is possible that it reflects your Lamarckian view of evolution.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:have to do to find evidence for or against the claim.
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 6:51:27 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:51:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:11:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
I've certainly questioned evolution (and lots of other areas of science) by asking "How do we know X?" or "What is the evidence for Y?" If somebody makes a claim about nature, the first thing I think about is what sort of experiment you wouldOn Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:26:26 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:I did. What do you know? IOW have you ever questioned evolution? If so,
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 01:41:24 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Okay, still higher rates do occur.
On 2023-10-30 14:45:47 +0000, Mark Isaak said:I realize this, but most mutations are caught and repaired. There are a
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:I know.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:It's certainly not my opinion.
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of
evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most
modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is
biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed
with planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial >>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence for design based on the reality of excessive mutations is
unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both physical and
mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). To not >>>>>>>>>>>> recognize that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your
mind -- requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument
(if it can be called that) I have ever seen you make. >>>>>>>>>>>
few that the 6 proofreading and repair mechanisms fails to catch. As
time passes, there are increases in in percentages people being affected
by genetic disorders, There are diseases on the rise, cancer for example
and there are previously unknown genetic disorders being found. So, if
you if you go back in time, the percentages
of genetic disorders would lessen.
All health problems including genetic disorders were more deadly to most
humans just few generations ago. My grandmother had still level of >>>>>>>>> medicine like that if someone had respiratory illness then apply a thin layer
of goose fat to the chest and soles of the feet. Kids with disorders did die,
and goose fat advertisements were not spammed everywhere. Now you >>>>>>>>> both see the people with disorders and more promotions of medicine and
so think that medical issues are on rise. In reality life expectancy of human
population has significally improved.
Chances are good that 200,000 years
ago when humans first appeared DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms
were much better than at present.
From where you take that? Mutation rate of mammals (including humans)
is 2.2 × 10 in −9 per base pair per year and genome sizes vary between
2.5 and 3.5 billions of base pairs. Claim that humans had surprisingly
different low mutation rate mere 200,000 (about 8000 generations) ago
is extraordinary and totally groundless.
And as time passes, genetic disordersThat can happen because people with genetic disorder give offspring.
and diseases become increasingly worse for our decedents. >>>>>>>>>>
Or it can happen that we learn to repair genes and so disorders will
remain only to those who refuse the treatment.
Well he was not right about everything is factual, not ugly. >>>>>>>>>Definitely he was wrong about several things. Someone who does somethingDarwin wasn't right about everything.
As I'm sure you know, but maybe Ron Dean doesn't, this argument against
design goes back to Darwin: “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent
and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with
the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of
Caterpillars…”
also makes mistakes. The ID proponents have no explanations, do nothing,
just deny fruits of others work and badmouth them. That is ugly. >>>>>>>>>
Darwin's explanation is plausible. God does not design nor micromanage anyI don't care about creationist. But ID is where I find myself, after
weird forms of cooperation but lets those to evolve.
Think yourself. Only few birds want to eat caterpillars. Here in Estonia it is
only cuckoo. Cuckoo has evolved strong enough stomach to digest whatever,
including caterpillars. That is because it lays eggs to other birds nests and
there its chicks can not be picky about diet. But that form of reproduction
limits cuckoo population with other birds population. Therefore wasps have
always enough of caterpillars to lay eggs into and the whole system works.
Creationist explanation however is missing. None, nil, nada, zip, zero.
becoming disillusioned with evolution a few years ago. In the past, I
was a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. However, on a challenge I
read a book by Michael Denton called, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis",
that started me questioning. This book woke me up! After "falling away"
from evolution, I had no where to go, but
as a engineer MsEE myself, design seemed reasonable. At this time, of my
life, I had never heard of intelligent design. So, I arrived at my views
on my own.
You keep saying you were a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. You give no evidence of having understood the theory of evolution or the evidence supporting it.
what- and how did you resolve It?
apicoplast genes and chloroplast genes to convince oneself that it was likely, and what sorts of comparisons you would have to be able to make to decide exactly what sort of chloroplast had ended up inside a proto-malaria cell. This is already moreThis is telling me nothing specific!
OK. One example among many...Long ago I heard the the apicoplast of the malaria parasite was derived from chloroplasts. Sounded interesting, but the first thing that occurred to me was what sort of homologies one would have to identify between
main lines of evidence for evolution in such a way that a biologist would say "Yes, that's what we are saying." If you do not understand a position, you will not be able to critique it effectively.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2009.0273
I repeat that you have shown no evidence in anything you've posted that you understand what the theory of evolution claims and what evidence biologists use to support it. I highly doubt you could write a coherent paragraph or two summarizing the
No, I didn't think you'd pay attention to any criticism, and since you seem to have ignored the more detailed criticisms by Ernest Major and Lawyer Daggett, I think I was correct.offspring. But fittest has (anotherThe concept of evolution is quite simple random mutations and natural >>>> selection. Through mutations (errors, omissions mismatched bases etc) >>>> the majority of mutations are neutral, many are deleterious and natural >>>> selection supposedly weeds them out, but there are a few that are
beneficial, which is explained as "survival of the fittest" (a phrase >>>> not attributed to Darwin) or (differential reproduction). But this, it's
claimed, means that the fittest>> are those that produce the most
You asked for a paragraph. What I wrote was an overview of a few points >> I could have gone in more detail, time permitting.meaning). As evidence, intermediates which have characteristics of
ancestral organisms and
descendant organisms. Genetics which supposedly relates to close
relatives and evolutionary distant relatives originating from a common >>>> ancestor. In fact, all living organisms both extinct and extant
supposedly are decedent from a common ancestor that lived prior to 3.8 >>>> billion years ago. The
fossil record from oldest rocks to younger strata you see increasing >>>> levels of complexity from
lifeless chemical molecules to single cell organisms to modern highly >>>> complex organisms.
Good luck finding a biologist who will say "Yes, that's what we are saying."
I noted you offered no criticism.
I have not gotten around to Major yet, Daggertt is dead to me. But still nothing from you
broger...@gmail.com wrote:have to do to find evidence for or against the claim.
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 6:51:27 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:51:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:11:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
I've certainly questioned evolution (and lots of other areas of science) by asking "How do we know X?" or "What is the evidence for Y?" If somebody makes a claim about nature, the first thing I think about is what sort of experiment you wouldOn Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:26:26 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:I did. What do you know? IOW have you ever questioned evolution? If so,
Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 31 October 2023 at 01:41:24 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:Okay, still higher rates do occur.
On 2023-10-30 14:45:47 +0000, Mark Isaak said:I realize this, but most mutations are caught and repaired. There are a
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) evolved?
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:I know.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:It's certainly not my opinion.
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of
evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of most
modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is
biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is too easy.
This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully designed
with planning and forethought. There is strong circumstantial >>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence for design based on the reality of excessive mutations is
unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both physical and
mental. To recognize this, requires mind.
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). To not >>>>>>>>>>>> recognize that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your
mind -- requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument
(if it can be called that) I have ever seen you make. >>>>>>>>>>>
few that the 6 proofreading and repair mechanisms fails to catch. As
time passes, there are increases in in percentages people being affected
by genetic disorders, There are diseases on the rise, cancer for example
and there are previously unknown genetic disorders being found. So, if
you if you go back in time, the percentages
of genetic disorders would lessen.
All health problems including genetic disorders were more deadly to most
humans just few generations ago. My grandmother had still level of >>>>>>>>> medicine like that if someone had respiratory illness then apply a thin layer
of goose fat to the chest and soles of the feet. Kids with disorders did die,
and goose fat advertisements were not spammed everywhere. Now you >>>>>>>>> both see the people with disorders and more promotions of medicine and
so think that medical issues are on rise. In reality life expectancy of human
population has significally improved.
Chances are good that 200,000 years
ago when humans first appeared DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms
were much better than at present.
From where you take that? Mutation rate of mammals (including humans)
is 2.2 × 10 in −9 per base pair per year and genome sizes vary between
2.5 and 3.5 billions of base pairs. Claim that humans had surprisingly
different low mutation rate mere 200,000 (about 8000 generations) ago
is extraordinary and totally groundless.
And as time passes, genetic disordersThat can happen because people with genetic disorder give offspring.
and diseases become increasingly worse for our decedents. >>>>>>>>>>
Or it can happen that we learn to repair genes and so disorders will
remain only to those who refuse the treatment.
Well he was not right about everything is factual, not ugly. >>>>>>>>>Definitely he was wrong about several things. Someone who does somethingDarwin wasn't right about everything.
As I'm sure you know, but maybe Ron Dean doesn't, this argument against
design goes back to Darwin: “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent
and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with
the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of
Caterpillars…”
also makes mistakes. The ID proponents have no explanations, do nothing,
just deny fruits of others work and badmouth them. That is ugly. >>>>>>>>>
Darwin's explanation is plausible. God does not design nor micromanage anyI don't care about creationist. But ID is where I find myself, after
weird forms of cooperation but lets those to evolve.
Think yourself. Only few birds want to eat caterpillars. Here in Estonia it is
only cuckoo. Cuckoo has evolved strong enough stomach to digest whatever,
including caterpillars. That is because it lays eggs to other birds nests and
there its chicks can not be picky about diet. But that form of reproduction
limits cuckoo population with other birds population. Therefore wasps have
always enough of caterpillars to lay eggs into and the whole system works.
Creationist explanation however is missing. None, nil, nada, zip, zero.
becoming disillusioned with evolution a few years ago. In the past, I
was a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. However, on a challenge I
read a book by Michael Denton called, "Evolution a Theory in Crisis",
that started me questioning. This book woke me up! After "falling away"
from evolution, I had no where to go, but
as a engineer MsEE myself, design seemed reasonable. At this time, of my
life, I had never heard of intelligent design. So, I arrived at my views
on my own.
You keep saying you were a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist. You give no evidence of having understood the theory of evolution or the evidence supporting it.
what- and how did you resolve It?
apicoplast genes and chloroplast genes to convince oneself that it was likely, and what sorts of comparisons you would have to be able to make to decide exactly what sort of chloroplast had ended up inside a proto-malaria cell. This is already moreThis is telling me nothing specific!
OK. One example among many...Long ago I heard the the apicoplast of the malaria parasite was derived from chloroplasts. Sounded interesting, but the first thing that occurred to me was what sort of homologies one would have to identify between
main lines of evidence for evolution in such a way that a biologist would say "Yes, that's what we are saying." If you do not understand a position, you will not be able to critique it effectively.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2009.0273
I repeat that you have shown no evidence in anything you've posted that you understand what the theory of evolution claims and what evidence biologists use to support it. I highly doubt you could write a coherent paragraph or two summarizing the
No, I didn't think you'd pay attention to any criticism, and since you seem to have ignored the more detailed criticisms by Ernest Major and Lawyer Daggett, I think I was correct.offspring. But fittest has (anotherThe concept of evolution is quite simple random mutations and natural >>>> selection. Through mutations (errors, omissions mismatched bases etc) >>>> the majority of mutations are neutral, many are deleterious and natural >>>> selection supposedly weeds them out, but there are a few that are
beneficial, which is explained as "survival of the fittest" (a phrase >>>> not attributed to Darwin) or (differential reproduction). But this, it's
claimed, means that the fittest>> are those that produce the most
You asked for a paragraph. What I wrote was an overview of a few points >> I could have gone in more detail, time permitting.meaning). As evidence, intermediates which have characteristics of
ancestral organisms and
descendant organisms. Genetics which supposedly relates to close
relatives and evolutionary distant relatives originating from a common >>>> ancestor. In fact, all living organisms both extinct and extant
supposedly are decedent from a common ancestor that lived prior to 3.8 >>>> billion years ago. The
fossil record from oldest rocks to younger strata you see increasing >>>> levels of complexity from
lifeless chemical molecules to single cell organisms to modern highly >>>> complex organisms.
Good luck finding a biologist who will say "Yes, that's what we are saying."
I noted you offered no criticism.
I have not gotten around to Major yet, Daggertt is dead to me. But still nothing from you
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 7:01:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:06:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> Burkhard wrote:Of course not, where have I made any such claim? All I did was state an >> observation which neither I nor you or nor anyone else can possibly know.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 8:16:26 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> Burkhard wrote:That's how proofreading and repair comes across. So far, all that been >>>> posted as an explanation as to how and why a random, aimless, mindless >>>> natural process was able, via hit and miss methods, to evolved the six >>>> DNA proofreading and repair machines. Supposition, hypothesis and theories
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:So, you're claiming that things have always been the same. They were >>>>>> just discovered. Prove it!
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said:There are over 6,000 known genetic disorders known, and you think these
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer
Martin Harran wrote:There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) >>>>>>>>>>>> evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron DeanI know.
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:It's certainly not my opinion.
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of
evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of
most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully
designed with planning and forethought. There is strong >>>>>>>>>>>> circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive
mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both >>>>>>>>>>>> physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind. >>>>>>>>>>>
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). >>>>>>>>>>>
for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise,
and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant
past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better
than today.
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do >>>>>>>>> evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy.
6000+disorders were around 1000 years ago even 10000 years ago. And you
think what I wrote is complete fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
There are new genetic diseases being discovered even more often than
expected.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230125/newly-discovered-genetic-disease-more-common-than-expected.
It's you, that's living in a fantasy world.
So you think things only start to exist when we discover them? >>>>>>>
I gave you the proof for genetic illnesses in the two citations that >>>>> you, as aways, failed to address.
This is riodiculous
That is indeed a fantasy world. In the real world, we discover e.g. new
islands all the time - do yo think that means that new islands are >>>>>>> created constantly too?
It is indeed - so why do you keep posting such
nonsense?
are little better than guesswork. No one can really know the multiple >>>> processes and procedures evolution had to have taken, to have created >>>> such complex machines. To think, it just happen through aimless,
mindless processes takes great faith. If there is a mind beyond ours. >>>> The best explanation is deliberate purposeful design. And who can state,
for an absolute fact there isn't a greater mind. This, places the
burden, upon those who disagreed, to falsify the existence of this mind..
Nobody is under any obligation to convince you of anything.
One thing that is very convenient about your view is that you provide no specific characteristics of the designer and even allow that the designer might not exist any more - that makes your view immune to testing, much less disproof.
You cannot answer my question so, you avoid it by introducing a another subject. But in response to your issue.
Design is frequently self-evident. When divers first observed the antikythera device in an ancient shipwreck, at the bottom of the Mediterranean sea. The device was recognized as designed, although its purpose was totally unknown.
complex than any other device known 2000 years ago. Here was a case
where design was self-evident, and without knowing anything about the designer. A child observes a bicycle; the child recognizes design
without knowing anything about the designer. To insist on knowing the designer before admitting a design is just a face-saving strategy. The 6 highly complex DNA proofreading and repair machines are self-evident
design. This would be obvious to the person who is unbiased and
uncommitted to naturalism and the prison it forces then into. They
cannot consider anything outside this prison.
Here an example from genetic diseases: Klinefelter syndrome was >>>>>>> identified as a genetic disease in 1959. Yet recently, it was shown in a
1000 year old skeleton:
https://www.sciencealert.com/rare-genetic-syndrome-in-1000-year-old-skeleton-is-oldest-case-ever-found
As our diagnostic tools get better and better, of course we should >>>>>>> expect more and more diseases to be identified, that's why we >>>>>>> constantly improve on our methods and equipment.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind --
requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it
can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:26:27 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 7:01:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:06:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> Burkhard wrote:Of course not, where have I made any such claim? All I did was state an >> observation which neither I nor you or nor anyone else can possibly know.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 8:16:26 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:That's how proofreading and repair comes across. So far, all that been
Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:So, you're claiming that things have always been the same. They were
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said:There are over 6,000 known genetic disorders known, and you think these
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer
Martin Harran wrote:There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) >>>>>>>>>>>> evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:I know.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:It's certainly not my opinion.
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of
evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of
most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is
biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully
designed with planning and forethought. There is strong >>>>>>>>>>>> circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive
mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both
physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind. >>>>>>>>>>>
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). >>>>>>>>>>>
for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise,
and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant
past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better
than today.
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do
evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy.
6000+disorders were around 1000 years ago even 10000 years ago. And you
think what I wrote is complete fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
There are new genetic diseases being discovered even more often than
expected.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230125/newly-discovered-genetic-disease-more-common-than-expected.
It's you, that's living in a fantasy world.
So you think things only start to exist when we discover them? >>>>>>>
just discovered. Prove it!
I gave you the proof for genetic illnesses in the two citations that >>>>> you, as aways, failed to address.
This is riodiculous
That is indeed a fantasy world. In the real world, we discover e.g. new
islands all the time - do yo think that means that new islands are >>>>>>> created constantly too?
It is indeed - so why do you keep posting such
nonsense?
posted as an explanation as to how and why a random, aimless, mindless
natural process was able, via hit and miss methods, to evolved the six
DNA proofreading and repair machines. Supposition, hypothesis and theories
are little better than guesswork. No one can really know the multiple >>>> processes and procedures evolution had to have taken, to have created >>>> such complex machines. To think, it just happen through aimless,
mindless processes takes great faith. If there is a mind beyond ours. >>>> The best explanation is deliberate purposeful design. And who can state,
for an absolute fact there isn't a greater mind. This, places the >>>> burden, upon those who disagreed, to falsify the existence of this mind..
Nobody is under any obligation to convince you of anything.
One thing that is very convenient about your view is that you provide no specific characteristics of the designer and even allow that the designer might not exist any more - that makes your view immune to testing, much less disproof.
You cannot answer my question so, you avoid it by introducing a another subject. But in response to your issue.For heaven's sake that nonsense does not get better by repeating it. There are instructions on how to use it written on it, in a known language, Of course
Design is frequently self-evident. When divers first observed the antikythera device in an ancient shipwreck, at the bottom of the Mediterranean sea. The device was recognized as designed, although its purpose was totally unknown.
it was easy to identify it as designed. And with known designers, that is humans form that period of time, using materials and techniques typical for that time.
If you find in our DNA anywhere a copyright notice in Old English, then
and only then your analogy would make any sense.
Design is frequently self-evident. When divers first observed the antikythera device in an ancient shipwreck, at the bottom of the Mediterranean sea. The device was recognized as designed, although its purpose was totally unknown.
Furthermore, the design was far more
complex than any other device known 2000 years ago. Here was a case
where design was self-evident, and without knowing anything about the designer. A child observes a bicycle; the child recognizes design
without knowing anything about the designer. To insist on knowing the designer before admitting a design is just a face-saving strategy. The 6 highly complex DNA proofreading and repair machines are self-evident design. This would be obvious to the person who is unbiased and uncommitted to naturalism and the prison it forces then into. They
cannot consider anything outside this prison.
Here an example from genetic diseases: Klinefelter syndrome was >>>>>>> identified as a genetic disease in 1959. Yet recently, it was shown in a
1000 year old skeleton:
https://www.sciencealert.com/rare-genetic-syndrome-in-1000-year-old-skeleton-is-oldest-case-ever-found
As our diagnostic tools get better and better, of course we should >>>>>>> expect more and more diseases to be identified, that's why we >>>>>>> constantly improve on our methods and equipment.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind --
requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it
can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:51:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:11:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:26:26 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
...
I repeat that you have shown no evidence in anything you've posted that you understand
what the theory of evolution claims and what evidence biologists use to support it. I highly
doubt you could write a coherent paragraph or two summarizing the main lines of evidence
for evolution in such a way that a biologist would say "Yes, that's what we are saying."
If you do not understand a position, you will not be able to critique it effectively.
The concept of evolution is quite simple random mutations and natural
selection. Through mutations (errors, omissions mismatched bases etc)
the majority of mutations are neutral, many are deleterious and natural
selection supposedly weeds them out, but there are a few that are
beneficial, which is explained as "survival of the fittest" (a phrase
not attributed to Darwin) But this, it's claimed, means that the fittest
are those that produce the most offspring. But fittest has (another
meaning). As evidence, intermediates which have characteristics of
ancestral organisms and
descendant organisms. Genetics which supposedly relates to close
relatives and evolutionary distant relatives originating from a common
ancestor. In fact, all living organisms both extinct and extant
supposedly are decedent from a common ancestor that lived prior to 3.8
billion years ago. The
fossil record from oldest rocks to younger strata you see increasing
levels of complexity from
lifeless chemical molecules to single cell organisms to modern highly
complex organisms.
If a student handed that in I would hand it back and tell them they need to learn
to write proper sentences, There are fragments of ideas about evolution in there but they are not expressed in an intelligible manner. It's a mishmash of
sentence fragments and run-ons. How did you ever graduate from college without being able to construct proper sentences? If one cannot write clearly,
one cannot demonstrate an ability to think clearly, or clearly express an understanding of a topic.
On 02/11/2023 03:39, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:51:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:11:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:26:26 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
...
I repeat that you have shown no evidence in anything you've posted that you understand
what the theory of evolution claims and what evidence biologists use to support it. I highly
doubt you could write a coherent paragraph or two summarizing the main lines of evidence
for evolution in such a way that a biologist would say "Yes, that's what we are saying."
If you do not understand a position, you will not be able to critique it effectively.
The concept of evolution is quite simple random mutations and natural
selection. Through mutations (errors, omissions mismatched bases etc)
the majority of mutations are neutral, many are deleterious and natural >> selection supposedly weeds them out, but there are a few that are
beneficial, which is explained as "survival of the fittest" (a phrase
not attributed to Darwin) But this, it's claimed, means that the fittest >> are those that produce the most offspring. But fittest has (another
meaning). As evidence, intermediates which have characteristics of
ancestral organisms and
descendant organisms. Genetics which supposedly relates to close
relatives and evolutionary distant relatives originating from a common
ancestor. In fact, all living organisms both extinct and extant
supposedly are decedent from a common ancestor that lived prior to 3.8
billion years ago. The
fossil record from oldest rocks to younger strata you see increasing
levels of complexity from
lifeless chemical molecules to single cell organisms to modern highly
complex organisms.
If a student handed that in I would hand it back and tell them they need to learn
to write proper sentences, There are fragments of ideas about evolution in there but they are not expressed in an intelligible manner. It's a mishmash of
sentence fragments and run-ons. How did you ever graduate from college without being able to construct proper sentences? If one cannot write clearly,
one cannot demonstrate an ability to think clearly, or clearly express an understanding of a topic.
I don't think Bing Copilot's attempt is particularly good - in
particular it seems to have fallen for the false fact-theory dichtomy
(in science a fact is, fide Gould, something which is supported to such
a degree that it would be foolhardy to withhold provisional acceptance)
- but I think it's better than RD's (at least it has some comprehension
of the scope of the evidence). Bing Copilot's summary follows
"The theory of evolution is a scientific explanation that has not been proven as fact. It is a shortened form of the term “theory of evolution
by natural selection,” which was proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in the nineteenth century. Darwin defined evolution as a process of “descent with modification.” He believed that some organisms within a species have trait variants that make them fitter and more
likely to reproduce. Over time, inherited modified traits become
dominant in the population, and a new species may emerge.
The theory of evolution is supported by evidence from various scientific disciplines, including genetics, paleontology, geology, developmental biology, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, biogeography, and
observations of evolution in the wild. Here are some key points of evidence:
Anatomy: Species may share similar physical features because the feature
was present in a common ancestor (homologous structures).
Molecular Biology: DNA and the genetic code reflect the shared ancestry
of life. DNA comparisons can show how related species are.
Biogeography: The global distribution of organisms and the unique
features of island species reflect evolution and geological change.
Fossils: Fossils document the existence of now-extinct past species that
are related to present-day species.
Direct Observation: We can directly observe small-scale evolution in organisms with short lifecycles (e.g., pesticide-resistant insects).
In summary, the theory of evolution posits that species change over
time, with new species arising from pre-existing ones, and all species sharing a common ancestor. This process is driven by natural selection, where individuals with traits that enhance their survival and
reproduction are more likely to pass on these traits to the next
generation. The evidence supporting this theory comes from a wide range
of scientific fields, providing a comprehensive and robust understanding
of life’s diversity and interconnectedness."
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major wrote:
On 01/11/2023 22:51, Ron Dean wrote:
The concept of evolution is quite simple random mutations and natural
selection.
Mutation and natural selection are not the only evolutionary processes.
I did not say this was the only evolutionary processes. There is sexual selection, and another is transferring information from one organism to
the DNA of another, an example of this transfer, is virus DNA.
If you want to restrict them to two, then they would be introduction
of novel variation to a population (mutation and gene flow) and
differential reproductive success within a population (natural
selection and drift), but common practice is to recognise 4 or more,
depending how finely you want to slice them - for example one might
not want to include interdemic gene flow, interspecific introgression,
foreign DNA uptake (the intimate connection with their hosts result in
parasitic plants acquiring genes from the hosts) and bacterial and
viral mediated horizontal gene transfer as a single process. One might
also not want to include point mutation, gene duplication and
allopolyploidy as a single process.
I could have written a bit more, but I did not think it necessary to go
into such detail as you did. I did know about most of this, but a
paragraph was the challenge.
Darwin may have only identified novel variation (but he knew he didn't
have a worked out theory of variation - only the observation that it
occurred) and natural (and sexual) selection, but he remained open to
the possibility that other mechanisms existed.
That evolution consists solely of random mutation and natural
selection is a common creationist strawman.
Are you claiming this phrase is strictly a creationist expression? Are
you insisting this phrase is not found in evolutionist articles and books?
Through mutations (errors, omissions mismatched bases etc) the
majority of mutations are neutral, many are deleterious and natural
selection supposedly weeds them out, but there are a few that are
beneficial, which is explained as "survival of the fittest" (a phrase
not attributed to Darwin) But this, it's claimed, means that the
fittest are those that produce the most offspring. But fittest has
(another meaning).
"natural selection" (Darwin) and "survival of the fittest" (Spencer)
are both attempts to explain "different reproductive success
correlated with hereditary features" by analogy.
Quibbling that "fitness" as a term of art in evolutionary biology is
not an exact synonym of vernacular usage is a creationist tactic.
Are you pretending that Herbert Spencer was a creationist? Or is it,
that you're claiming that survival of the fittest, was a
misrepresentation of the natural selection? What is you obsession with creationism? I personally, have no interest in creationism! In fact, I completely reject creationism.
As evidence, intermediates which have characteristics of ancestral
organisms and
descendant organisms. Genetics which supposedly relates to close
relatives and evolutionary distant relatives originating from a
common ancestor.
The fossil record has never been the major part of the evidence for
common descent with modification through the agency of natural
selection and other processes. In Darwin's day that role was played by
morphological homologies, biogeography, and the contemporary
observation of evolutionary processes.
Are you claiming that Darwin was not concerned about the rarity of transitional fossils in the record?
Nowadays genetic homologies (a nested
hierarchy) and their correlation with morphological homologies (the
twin nested hierarchy) takes pride of place.
Of course, the fossil record has to be placed on the back seat. I think
The late Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge nailed the coffin shut on
the fossil record, even though, it was not their intent.
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 9:51:28 AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/11/2023 03:39, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:51:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:I don't think Bing Copilot's attempt is particularly good - in
broger...@gmail.com wrote:...
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:11:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:26:26 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>
I repeat that you have shown no evidence in anything you've posted that you understand
what the theory of evolution claims and what evidence biologists use to support it. I highly
doubt you could write a coherent paragraph or two summarizing the main lines of evidence
for evolution in such a way that a biologist would say "Yes, that's what we are saying."
If you do not understand a position, you will not be able to critique it effectively.
The concept of evolution is quite simple random mutations and natural
selection. Through mutations (errors, omissions mismatched bases etc)
the majority of mutations are neutral, many are deleterious and natural >>>> selection supposedly weeds them out, but there are a few that are
beneficial, which is explained as "survival of the fittest" (a phrase
not attributed to Darwin) But this, it's claimed, means that the fittest >>>> are those that produce the most offspring. But fittest has (another
meaning). As evidence, intermediates which have characteristics of
ancestral organisms and
descendant organisms. Genetics which supposedly relates to close
relatives and evolutionary distant relatives originating from a common >>>> ancestor. In fact, all living organisms both extinct and extant
supposedly are decedent from a common ancestor that lived prior to 3.8 >>>> billion years ago. The
fossil record from oldest rocks to younger strata you see increasing
levels of complexity from
lifeless chemical molecules to single cell organisms to modern highly
complex organisms.
If a student handed that in I would hand it back and tell them they need to learn
to write proper sentences, There are fragments of ideas about evolution in >>> there but they are not expressed in an intelligible manner. It's a mishmash of
sentence fragments and run-ons. How did you ever graduate from college
without being able to construct proper sentences? If one cannot write clearly,
one cannot demonstrate an ability to think clearly, or clearly express an >>> understanding of a topic.
particular it seems to have fallen for the false fact-theory dichtomy
(in science a fact is, fide Gould, something which is supported to such
a degree that it would be foolhardy to withhold provisional acceptance)
- but I think it's better than RD's (at least it has some comprehension
of the scope of the evidence). Bing Copilot's summary follows
"The theory of evolution is a scientific explanation that has not been
proven as fact. It is a shortened form of the term “theory of evolution
by natural selection,” which was proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred
Russel Wallace in the nineteenth century. Darwin defined evolution as a
process of “descent with modification.” He believed that some organisms >> within a species have trait variants that make them fitter and more
likely to reproduce. Over time, inherited modified traits become
dominant in the population, and a new species may emerge.
The theory of evolution is supported by evidence from various scientific
disciplines, including genetics, paleontology, geology, developmental
biology, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, biogeography, and
observations of evolution in the wild. Here are some key points of evidence: >>
Anatomy: Species may share similar physical features because the feature
was present in a common ancestor (homologous structures).
Molecular Biology: DNA and the genetic code reflect the shared ancestry
of life. DNA comparisons can show how related species are.
Biogeography: The global distribution of organisms and the unique
features of island species reflect evolution and geological change.
Fossils: Fossils document the existence of now-extinct past species that
are related to present-day species.
Direct Observation: We can directly observe small-scale evolution in
organisms with short lifecycles (e.g., pesticide-resistant insects).
In summary, the theory of evolution posits that species change over
time, with new species arising from pre-existing ones, and all species
sharing a common ancestor. This process is driven by natural selection,
where individuals with traits that enhance their survival and
reproduction are more likely to pass on these traits to the next
generation. The evidence supporting this theory comes from a wide range
of scientific fields, providing a comprehensive and robust understanding
of life’s diversity and interconnectedness."
--
alias Ernest Major
That's a painful read. I understand it as a plausible result of Artificial Intelligence tools, but mostly because of my very negative opinion of AI. These tools craft some unthinking, unknowing regurgitation of near cliches mined from prose that itself is either poorly curated or uncurated slop.
An analogy springs forth about "copilot" harkening to Feynman's essay
on Cargo Cult Science. He invoked the image of Pacific Islanders who
had for a brief time enjoyed the benefits of Cargo planes landing with
lots of goodies. To get the planes to return people would go to the runways with signaling paddles such as had been used to guide the landing of
planes when they used to frequent their islands as if the paddles were a
part of the magic that attracted the planes.
Only here "copilot" sits in a derelict old plane aping motions and gestures without comprehension but in some sense evocative of some witnessed
but not understood ritual.
The truly scary part is not so much that algorithms can be used to produce these semi-coherent seeming bits of nonsense (they at least tend to get
most of the grammar and spelling correct). The scary part is how many supposed academics don't do much better. There, I reference the sort of things Larry Moran fights against with people failing to understand
The Central Dogma or Junk DNA. Perhaps rather than Artificial Intelligence, it should be relabeled as poseur intelligence.
On 03/11/2023 14:58, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 9:51:28 AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/11/2023 03:39, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:51:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:I don't think Bing Copilot's attempt is particularly good - in
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 3:11:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:26:26 AM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:
...
I repeat that you have shown no evidence in anything you've posted that you understand
what the theory of evolution claims and what evidence biologists use to support it. I highly
doubt you could write a coherent paragraph or two summarizing the main lines of evidence
for evolution in such a way that a biologist would say "Yes, that's what we are saying."
If you do not understand a position, you will not be able to critique it effectively.
The concept of evolution is quite simple random mutations and natural >>>> selection. Through mutations (errors, omissions mismatched bases etc) >>>> the majority of mutations are neutral, many are deleterious and natural >>>> selection supposedly weeds them out, but there are a few that are
beneficial, which is explained as "survival of the fittest" (a phrase >>>> not attributed to Darwin) But this, it's claimed, means that the fittest
are those that produce the most offspring. But fittest has (another >>>> meaning). As evidence, intermediates which have characteristics of
ancestral organisms and
descendant organisms. Genetics which supposedly relates to close
relatives and evolutionary distant relatives originating from a common >>>> ancestor. In fact, all living organisms both extinct and extant
supposedly are decedent from a common ancestor that lived prior to 3.8 >>>> billion years ago. The
fossil record from oldest rocks to younger strata you see increasing >>>> levels of complexity from
lifeless chemical molecules to single cell organisms to modern highly >>>> complex organisms.
If a student handed that in I would hand it back and tell them they need to learn
to write proper sentences, There are fragments of ideas about evolution in
there but they are not expressed in an intelligible manner. It's a mishmash of
sentence fragments and run-ons. How did you ever graduate from college >>> without being able to construct proper sentences? If one cannot write clearly,
one cannot demonstrate an ability to think clearly, or clearly express an
understanding of a topic.
particular it seems to have fallen for the false fact-theory dichtomy
(in science a fact is, fide Gould, something which is supported to such >> a degree that it would be foolhardy to withhold provisional acceptance) >> - but I think it's better than RD's (at least it has some comprehension >> of the scope of the evidence). Bing Copilot's summary follows
"The theory of evolution is a scientific explanation that has not been
proven as fact. It is a shortened form of the term “theory of evolution >> by natural selection,” which was proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred >> Russel Wallace in the nineteenth century. Darwin defined evolution as a >> process of “descent with modification.” He believed that some organisms
within a species have trait variants that make them fitter and more
likely to reproduce. Over time, inherited modified traits become
dominant in the population, and a new species may emerge.
The theory of evolution is supported by evidence from various scientific >> disciplines, including genetics, paleontology, geology, developmental
biology, biochemistry, comparative anatomy, biogeography, and
observations of evolution in the wild. Here are some key points of evidence:
Anatomy: Species may share similar physical features because the feature >> was present in a common ancestor (homologous structures).
Molecular Biology: DNA and the genetic code reflect the shared ancestry >> of life. DNA comparisons can show how related species are.
Biogeography: The global distribution of organisms and the unique
features of island species reflect evolution and geological change.
Fossils: Fossils document the existence of now-extinct past species that >> are related to present-day species.
Direct Observation: We can directly observe small-scale evolution in
organisms with short lifecycles (e.g., pesticide-resistant insects).
In summary, the theory of evolution posits that species change over
time, with new species arising from pre-existing ones, and all species
sharing a common ancestor. This process is driven by natural selection, >> where individuals with traits that enhance their survival and
reproduction are more likely to pass on these traits to the next
generation. The evidence supporting this theory comes from a wide range >> of scientific fields, providing a comprehensive and robust understanding >> of life’s diversity and interconnectedness."
--
alias Ernest Major
That's a painful read. I understand it as a plausible result of Artificial Intelligence tools, but mostly because of my very negative opinion of AI. These tools craft some unthinking, unknowing regurgitation of near cliches mined from prose that itself is either poorly curated or uncurated slop. An analogy springs forth about "copilot" harkening to Feynman's essay
on Cargo Cult Science. He invoked the image of Pacific Islanders who
had for a brief time enjoyed the benefits of Cargo planes landing with lots of goodies. To get the planes to return people would go to the runways
with signaling paddles such as had been used to guide the landing of planes when they used to frequent their islands as if the paddles were a part of the magic that attracted the planes.
Only here "copilot" sits in a derelict old plane aping motions and gestures
without comprehension but in some sense evocative of some witnessed
but not understood ritual.
The truly scary part is not so much that algorithms can be used to produce these semi-coherent seeming bits of nonsense (they at least tend to get most of the grammar and spelling correct). The scary part is how many supposed academics don't do much better. There, I reference the sort of things Larry Moran fights against with people failing to understand
The Central Dogma or Junk DNA. Perhaps rather than Artificial Intelligence,
it should be relabeled as poseur intelligence.
I find that "stochastic parrot" serves as a short summary of the ability
of LLMs. Some people claim that they are useful, but I've not been
impressed with the capabilities. (It would be nice if one could replace
a couple or more hours with Google Scholar by a Bing Copilot query, but
one can't.) I've heard that checking and fixing their output takes as
long as doing the job oneself.
On the other hand large scale pattern matching has had some substantial achievements, such as AlphaZero and AlphaFold. AI in drug research
hasn't been all that successful, but yesterday I saw a report that pLMs (protein language models) were effective in suggesting optimisations to antibody based drugs.
(A thought crosses my mind - given composition, pressure and temperature could a domain specific AI predict which chemical phases (composition, state, and for solids crystallography) would exist.)
One of the issues may be the quality of the data sets - that might help explain why drug discovery systems, as well as general purpose LLMs,
perform poorly.)
--
alias Ernest Major
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:26:27 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 7:01:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:You cannot answer my question so, you avoid it by introducing a another
broger...@gmail.com wrote:One thing that is very convenient about your view is that you provide no specific characteristics of the designer and even allow that the designer might not exist any more - that makes your view immune to testing, much less disproof.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:06:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> Burkhard wrote:Of course not, where have I made any such claim? All I did was state an >>>> observation which neither I nor you or nor anyone else can possibly know. >>>
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 8:16:26 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> Burkhard wrote:That's how proofreading and repair comes across. So far, all that been >>>>>> posted as an explanation as to how and why a random, aimless, mindless >>>>>> natural process was able, via hit and miss methods, to evolved the six >>>>>> DNA proofreading and repair machines. Supposition, hypothesis and theories
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:So, you're claiming that things have always been the same. They were >>>>>>>> just discovered. Prove it!
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said:There are over 6,000 known genetic disorders known, and you think these
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer
Martin Harran wrote:There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:I know.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:It's certainly not my opinion.
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of
evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully
designed with planning and forethought. There is strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>> circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive
mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both >>>>>>>>>>>>>> physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). >>>>>>>>>>>>>
for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise,
and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant
past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better
than today.
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do >>>>>>>>>>> evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy.
6000+disorders were around 1000 years ago even 10000 years ago. And you
think what I wrote is complete fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders
There are new genetic diseases being discovered even more often than >>>>>>>>>> expected.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230125/newly-discovered-genetic-disease-more-common-than-expected.
It's you, that's living in a fantasy world.
So you think things only start to exist when we discover them? >>>>>>>>>
I gave you the proof for genetic illnesses in the two citations that >>>>>>> you, as aways, failed to address.
This is riodiculous
That is indeed a fantasy world. In the real world, we discover e.g. new
islands all the time - do yo think that means that new islands are >>>>>>>>> created constantly too?
It is indeed - so why do you keep posting such
nonsense?
are little better than guesswork. No one can really know the multiple >>>>>> processes and procedures evolution had to have taken, to have created >>>>>> such complex machines. To think, it just happen through aimless,
mindless processes takes great faith. If there is a mind beyond ours. >>>>>> The best explanation is deliberate purposeful design. And who can state, >>>>>> for an absolute fact there isn't a greater mind. This, places the
burden, upon those who disagreed, to falsify the existence of this mind..
Nobody is under any obligation to convince you of anything.
subject. But in response to your issue.
Design is frequently self-evident. When divers first observed the
antikythera device in an ancient shipwreck, at the bottom of the
Mediterranean sea. The device was recognized as designed, although its
purpose was totally unknown.
For heaven's sake that nonsense does not get better by repeating it. There are instructions on how to use it written on it, in a known language,
it was easy to identify it as designed. And with known designers, that is humans form that period of time, using materials and techniques typical for that time. geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the ancient world or indeed until >medieval cathedral clocks were built a millennium later.
If you find in our DNA anywhere a copyright notice in Old English, than
and only than your analogy would make any sense.
Furthermore, the design was far more
complex than any other device known 2000 years ago. Here was a case
where design was self-evident, and without knowing anything about the
designer. A child observes a bicycle; the child recognizes design
without knowing anything about the designer. To insist on knowing the
designer before admitting a design is just a face-saving strategy. The 6
highly complex DNA proofreading and repair machines are self-evident
design. This would be obvious to the person who is unbiased and
uncommitted to naturalism and the prison it forces then into. They
cannot consider anything outside this prison.
Here an example from genetic diseases: Klinefelter syndrome was >>>>>>>>> identified as a genetic disease in 1959. Yet recently, it was shown in a
1000 year old skeleton:
https://www.sciencealert.com/rare-genetic-syndrome-in-1000-year-old-skeleton-is-oldest-case-ever-found
As our diagnostic tools get better and better, of course we should >>>>>>>>> expect more and more diseases to be identified, that's why we >>>>>>>>> constantly improve on our methods and equipment.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind --
requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it
can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
On 11/2/23 7:30 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 01/11/2023 22:51, Ron Dean wrote:I did not say this was the only evolutionary processes. There is
The concept of evolution is quite simple random mutations and
natural selection.
Mutation and natural selection are not the only evolutionary processes.
;
sexual selection, and another is transferring information from one
organism to the DNA of another, an example of this transfer, is virus
DNA.
;I could have written a bit more, but I did not think it necessary to
If you want to restrict them to two, then they would be introduction
of novel variation to a population (mutation and gene flow) and
differential reproductive success within a population (natural
selection and drift), but common practice is to recognise 4 or more,
depending how finely you want to slice them - for example one might
not want to include interdemic gene flow, interspecific
introgression, foreign DNA uptake (the intimate connection with their
hosts result in parasitic plants acquiring genes from the hosts) and
bacterial and viral mediated horizontal gene transfer as a single
process. One might also not want to include point mutation, gene
duplication and allopolyploidy as a single process.
;
go into such detail as you did. I did know about most of this, but a
paragraph was the challenge.
I have not commented yet on your summary of evolution. I thought your description of the theory was okay; I would give it passing marks on a
high school assignment. Your understanding of the evidence for
evolution, however, is appalling.
Darwin may have only identified novel variation (but he knew heAre you claiming this phrase is strictly a creationist expression? Are
didn't have a worked out theory of variation - only the observation
that it occurred) and natural (and sexual) selection, but he remained
open to the possibility that other mechanisms existed.
That evolution consists solely of random mutation and natural
selection is a common creationist strawman.
;
you insisting this phrase is not found in evolutionist articles and
books?
Are you pretending that Herbert Spencer was a creationist? Or is it,
Through mutations (errors, omissions mismatched bases etc) the
majority of mutations are neutral, many are deleterious and natural
selection supposedly weeds them out, but there are a few that are
beneficial, which is explained as "survival of the fittest" (a
phrase not attributed to Darwin) But this, it's claimed, means that
the fittest are those that produce the most offspring. But fittest
has (another meaning).
"natural selection" (Darwin) and "survival of the fittest" (Spencer)
are both attempts to explain "different reproductive success
correlated with hereditary features" by analogy.
Quibbling that "fitness" as a term of art in evolutionary biology is
not an exact synonym of vernacular usage is a creationist tactic.
;
that you're claiming that survival of the fittest, was a
misrepresentation of the natural selection? What is you obsession with
creationism? I personally, have no interest in creationism! In fact,
I completely reject creationism.
Are you claiming that Darwin was not concerned about the rarity of
As evidence, intermediates which have characteristics of ancestral
organisms and
descendant organisms. Genetics which supposedly relates to close
relatives and evolutionary distant relatives originating from a
common ancestor.
The fossil record has never been the major part of the evidence for
common descent with modification through the agency of natural
selection and other processes. In Darwin's day that role was played
by morphological homologies, biogeography, and the contemporary
observation of evolutionary processes.
;
transitional fossils in the record?
Nowadays genetic homologies (a nested
hierarchy) and their correlation with morphological homologies (theOf course, the fossil record has to be placed on the back seat. I
twin nested hierarchy) takes pride of place.
;
think The late Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge nailed the coffin
shut on the fossil record, even though, it was not their intent.
Like I say: your understanding is appallingly poor. If I could find a harsher word than "appalling", I would use it, because you show again
and again that you do not *want* to know the evidence for evolution.
The main evidence for evolution is the nested hierarchy of traits, both morphological and genetic. Nothing creates that pattern except common descent; design does not, unless the designer is trying to make it
*look* like common descent instead of design.
The other strong evidence is observations of evolution, including both
in the field and in artificial situations, both biological
(domestication) and cybernetic. Anyone who doubts evolution must, if he wishes to be convincing, first explain how it could be possible that evolution is not inevitable.
The fossil record, as evidence, comes in well behind those two. Its
main strengths as argument are, first, that it utterly disproves sudden creation; second, that it is at least consistent with evolution and not
with design (except, again, design by a faker), and third, that it
provides pretty pictures.
You, of course, will ignore all that I have written and stay firmly
attached to your evil designer hypothesis, and continue your lies that
the fossil record is somehow a problem for evolution, not design. I
hope this paragraph is wrong, but I doubt it.
Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:26:27 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 7:01:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:You cannot answer my question so, you avoid it by introducing a another >> subject. But in response to your issue.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:06:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> Burkhard wrote:Of course not, where have I made any such claim? All I did was state an >>>> observation which neither I nor you or nor anyone else can possibly know.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 8:16:26 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:That's how proofreading and repair comes across. So far, all that been
Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:So, you're claiming that things have always been the same. They were
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said:There are over 6,000 known genetic disorders known, and you think these
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer
Martin Harran wrote:There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:I know.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:It's certainly not my opinion.
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of
evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of
most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is
biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully
designed with planning and forethought. There is strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>> circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive
mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both
physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). >>>>>>>>>>>>>
for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise,
and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant
past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better
than today.
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do
evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy. >>>>>>>>>>>
6000+disorders were around 1000 years ago even 10000 years ago. And you
think what I wrote is complete fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders >>>>>>>>>>>
There are new genetic diseases being discovered even more often than
expected.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230125/newly-discovered-genetic-disease-more-common-than-expected.
It's you, that's living in a fantasy world.
So you think things only start to exist when we discover them? >>>>>>>>>
just discovered. Prove it!
I gave you the proof for genetic illnesses in the two citations that >>>>>>> you, as aways, failed to address.
This is riodiculous
That is indeed a fantasy world. In the real world, we discover e.g. new
islands all the time - do yo think that means that new islands are >>>>>>>>> created constantly too?
It is indeed - so why do you keep posting such
nonsense?
posted as an explanation as to how and why a random, aimless, mindless
natural process was able, via hit and miss methods, to evolved the six
DNA proofreading and repair machines. Supposition, hypothesis and theories
are little better than guesswork. No one can really know the multiple >>>>>> processes and procedures evolution had to have taken, to have created >>>>>> such complex machines. To think, it just happen through aimless, >>>>>> mindless processes takes great faith. If there is a mind beyond ours. >>>>>> The best explanation is deliberate purposeful design. And who can state,
for an absolute fact there isn't a greater mind. This, places the >>>>>> burden, upon those who disagreed, to falsify the existence of this mind..
Nobody is under any obligation to convince you of anything.
One thing that is very convenient about your view is that you provide no specific characteristics of the designer and even allow that the designer might not exist any more - that makes your view immune to testing, much less disproof.
Design is frequently self-evident. When divers first observed the
antikythera device in an ancient shipwreck, at the bottom of the
Mediterranean sea. The device was recognized as designed, although its
purpose was totally unknown.
For heaven's sake that nonsense does not get better by repeating it. There are instructions on how to use it written on it, in a known language,
That's besides the point, at the time of discovery, it was recognized as
a design, a design that was self evident, even though, no one knew its purpose nor its designer. Regarding the instructions: in the device,
it's certain that when this object was brought up after 2000 years on
the sea floor, the
language was unreadable, because of the debris that would be caked all. Later scholars, translated the instructions, discovered its purpose, but
not it's designer. So, in many case the design can be determined without knowing a anything about the designer.
Of course
it was easy to identify it as designed. And with known designers, that is humans form that period of time, using materials and techniques typical for that time. geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the ancient world or indeed until >medieval cathedral clocks were built a millennium later.
Greeks knew about brass 2000 years ago, however as far as techniques: it wasn't until clock makers 1000 years later designed and built cathedral clock that any equally complex geared device was made.
(quote) "No other geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the ancient world or indeed until medieval cathedral clocks were built a millennium later."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Antikythera-mechanism
Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]
Like I say: your understanding is appallingly poor. If I could find a
harsher word than "appalling", I would use it, because you show again
and again that you do not *want* to know the evidence for evolution.
Almost without exception the evidence that's claimed to support
evolution, could just as well be seen as evidence for design.
The main evidence for evolution is the nested hierarchy of traits,
both morphological and genetic. Nothing creates that pattern except
common descent; design does not, unless the designer is trying to make
it *look* like common descent instead of design.
This could just as well be seen as support for a common designer. >
A common designer would use the same principles and devices when they
served the purpose.
Common design is a good engineering principle, it's unnecessary to
reinvent the wheel every time a wheels are needed.
The other strong evidence is observations of evolution, including both
in the field and in artificial situations, both biological
(domestication) and cybernetic. Anyone who doubts evolution must, if
he wishes to be convincing, first explain how it could be possible
that evolution is not inevitable.
You don't have a goddamn clue about cybernetics. You're trying to
bullshit me! https://reporter.anu.edu.au/all-stories/what-is-cybernetics-a-crash-course-in-cybernetics-and-why-its-important
The fossil record, as evidence, comes in well behind those two. Its
main strengths as argument are, first, that it utterly disproves
sudden creation; second, that it is at least consistent with evolution
and not with design (except, again, design by a faker), and third,
that it provides pretty pictures.
This is not clear.
You, of course, will ignore all that I have written and stay firmly
attached to your evil designer hypothesis, and continue your lies that
the fossil record is somehow a problem for evolution, not design. I
hope this paragraph is wrong, but I doubt it.
Burkhard wrote:<Large snip>
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:26:27?AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
One thing that is very convenient about your view is that you provide no specific characteristics of the designer and even allow that the designer might not exist any more - that makes your view immune to testing, much less disproof.You cannot answer my question so, you avoid it by introducing a another
subject. But in response to your issue.
Design is frequently self-evident. When divers first observed the
antikythera device in an ancient shipwreck, at the bottom of the
Mediterranean sea. The device was recognized as designed, although its
purpose was totally unknown.
For heaven's sake that nonsense does not get better by repeating it. There >> are instructions on how to use it written on it, in a known language,
That's besides the point, at the time of discovery, it was recognized as
a design, a design that was self evident, even though, no one knew its >purpose nor its designer. Regarding the instructions: in the device,
it's certain that when this object was brought up after 2000 years on
the sea floor, the
language was unreadable, because of the debris that would be caked all.
Later scholars, translated the instructions, discovered its purpose, but
not it's designer. So, in many case the design can be determined without >knowing a anything about the designer.
Of course
it was easy to identify it as designed. And with known designers, that is
humans form that period of time, using materials and techniques typical for >> that time. geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the ancient world or indeed until >medieval cathedral clocks were built a millennium later.
Greeks knew about brass 2000 years ago, however as far as techniques: it >wasn't until clock makers 1000 years later designed and built cathedral
clock that any equally complex geared device was made.
(quote) "No other geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the >ancient world or indeed until medieval cathedral clocks were built a >millennium later."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Antikythera-mechanism
On 11/3/23 6:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]Almost without exception the evidence that's claimed to support
Like I say: your understanding is appallingly poor. If I could find
a harsher word than "appalling", I would use it, because you show
again and again that you do not *want* to know the evidence for
evolution.
;
evolution, could just as well be seen as evidence for design.
Duh. That, in fact, is the fatal weakness of design.
seen as evidence for it, because a superintelligent creator can create anything. The animal has two legs? Design! The animal has four legs? Design! The animal has eight legs? zero? five? 17 and a half? Design!
The animal has ears on the side of its head? on the top of its head? on
its legs? on its torso? in its mouth? Design!
Unless, of course, you want to talk about actual design, the kind of
design that we have experience with from conception to realization. But
no intelligent design proponent wants to get anywhere near real design.
The main evidence for evolution is the nested hierarchy of traits,This could just as well be seen as support for a common designer. >
both morphological and genetic. Nothing creates that pattern except
common descent; design does not, unless the designer is trying to
make it *look* like common descent instead of design.
;
A common designer would use the same principles and devices when they
served the purpose.
Common design is a good engineering principle, it's unnecessary to
reinvent the wheel every time a wheels are needed.
No, it could *not* just as well be seen as support for a common
designer. Quite the opposite. Common descent is a very *bad*
engineering principle.
of automobiles, you do not want air bags limited to that one model of
cars in one car company. You want beneficial innovations to spread
widely and quickly, which is what happens when real designers are
involved, and which does not happen in biology.
The other strong evidence is observations of evolution, includingYou don't have a goddamn clue about cybernetics. You're trying to
both in the field and in artificial situations, both biological
(domestication) and cybernetic. Anyone who doubts evolution must, if
he wishes to be convincing, first explain how it could be possible
that evolution is not inevitable.
;
bullshit me!
https://reporter.anu.edu.au/all-stories/what-is-cybernetics-a-crash-course-in-cybernetics-and-why-its-important
Okay, "cybernetics" was the wrong word. I meant just "cyber".
The fossil record, as evidence, comes in well behind those two. ItsThis is not clear.
main strengths as argument are, first, that it utterly disproves
sudden creation; second, that it is at least consistent with
evolution and not with design (except, again, design by a faker), and
third, that it provides pretty pictures.
;
Evolution predicts relatively gradual change, albeit at uneven rates, in different lineages over time. The fossil record is consistent with
that. Design predicts, if anything, major universal redesigns. We
don't see that.
I do not lie, I believe whatever I write. I will not continueYou, of course, will ignore all that I have written and stay firmly
attached to your evil designer hypothesis, and continue your lies
that the fossil record is somehow a problem for evolution, not
design. I hope this paragraph is wrong, but I doubt it.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/3/23 6:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]Almost without exception the evidence that's claimed to support
Like I say: your understanding is appallingly poor. If I could find
a harsher word than "appalling", I would use it, because you show
again and again that you do not *want* to know the evidence for
evolution.
;
evolution, could just as well be seen as evidence for design.
Duh. That, in fact, is the fatal weakness of design.
That describes evolution. For this reason evolution is non-falsifiable.
It's so elastic that it can be stretched to a degree that it can "wrap around" any discovery.
*Anything* can be
seen as evidence for it, because a superintelligent creator can create
anything. The animal has two legs? Design! The animal has four
legs? Design! The animal has eight legs? zero? five? 17 and a half?
Design! The animal has ears on the side of its head? on the top of its
head? on its legs? on its torso? in its mouth? Design!
It's the same with evolution. You certainly think that there were
ancestral fish without legs, that evolved into fish with legs. There are several animals of different different classes, orders, families and
species that evolved 4 legs. No animal has 8 legs, however, insects
have 6 legs. caterpillars evolved 100 legs. Wherever ears, noses etc
were placed evolved in their locations or were designed where they best served the animal within its environment. Then there is the whale: how
was the birth of newborns accomplished in water without drowning? How
was the newborn able to suckle during evolution without drowning at some stage during evolutionary development?
Unless, of course, you want to talk about actual design, the kind of
design that we have experience with from conception to realization.
But no intelligent design proponent wants to get anywhere near real
design.
The notion of some naturalist, who insist that it's necessary to know everything about the designer and if you do not, this absence
disqualifies design. This is a face saving strategy, akin to begging
off. Evidence is rarely objective and thus it's subject to
interpretation within an over-arching paradigm. Furthermore, design can
be self-evident.
The main evidence for evolution is the nested hierarchy of traits,This could just as well be seen as support for a common designer. >
both morphological and genetic. Nothing creates that pattern except
common descent; design does not, unless the designer is trying to
make it *look* like common descent instead of design.
;
A common designer would use the same principles and devices when they
served the purpose.
Common design is a good engineering principle, it's unnecessary to
reinvent the wheel every time a wheels are needed.
No, it could *not* just as well be seen as support for a common
designer. Quite the opposite. Common descent is a very *bad*
engineering principle.
Common design can be seen as evidence of a common designer. My uncle
was a house builder. In my youth, I worked about three years for him.
He designed and used his own house plans over and over and over in
different locations. It was to his advantage to use the same plans,
rather than design new plans for different locations.
Common descent is an evolutionary principle where a gradual linkage
between species is unobserved. The absence of linkage between species
was a problem that was confronted by Darwin.
He was well aware if it. Then over time, this absence of evidence was virtually ignore. That is, until the late S.J. Gould and N. Eldredge attempted to wed this flaw in theory to the real evidence as observed in
the fossil record, in what the called punctuated equilibrium (PE).
According to PE _most_ observed new species appear abruptly in the
earth's strata, then they remain in a state of _stasis_ during their
tenure on the planet, followed by a sudden disappearance from the
record. I suspect G&E were hedging their bet by the word "most". There
had to be species that had linkages back to earlier ancestors, according
to theory, _but_ these links are theoretical and unobserved.
There are the so called transitional fossils such as archaeopteryx
which, in reality are isolated animals with no linkages to ancestor or descendants.
The problem is they these "transitional" could fit into PE as abrupt appearance, stasis then just disappearance leaving no descendants. How
can one know that once a theory is accepted, that what is found is the
result of strong desires to find supporting evidence. And under such
pressure what is found just might be just the "best in the field". An example: for years there was the search for whale
ancestors, first one form then another was offered and finally they
settled on Pakicetids Anbulocelus. Here we have what currently is the
best in the field.
If someone implements, say, air bags in one line
of automobiles, you do not want air bags limited to that one model of
cars in one car company. You want beneficial innovations to spread
widely and quickly, which is what happens when real designers are
involved, and which does not happen in biology.
The other strong evidence is observations of evolution, includingYou don't have a goddamn clue about cybernetics. You're trying to
both in the field and in artificial situations, both biological
(domestication) and cybernetic. Anyone who doubts evolution must, if
he wishes to be convincing, first explain how it could be possible
that evolution is not inevitable.
;
bullshit me!
https://reporter.anu.edu.au/all-stories/what-is-cybernetics-a-crash-course-in-cybernetics-and-why-its-important
Okay, "cybernetics" was the wrong word. I meant just "cyber".
The fossil record, as evidence, comes in well behind those two. ItsThis is not clear.
main strengths as argument are, first, that it utterly disproves
sudden creation; second, that it is at least consistent with
evolution and not with design (except, again, design by a faker),
and third, that it provides pretty pictures.
;
Evolution predicts relatively gradual change, albeit at uneven rates,
in different lineages over time. The fossil record is consistent with
that. Design predicts, if anything, major universal redesigns. We
don't see that.
It was theorized that vision arose gradually and independently about 40
times over millions of years. However, several trilobites species had
fully formed compound eyes almost identical to the eyes of modern dragon flies and bees.. Furthermore, scientist took the eye genes from a mouse
and transplanted the genes in different body parts on a fruit fly. The
mouse eye genes controlled the formation of fruit fly eyes on the fruit
fly. None of this was predicted by the theory of evolution,
but somehow this plastic theory can find a way to hobble this discovery
into it.
Another issue is the fact that there were thousands and thousands of trilobites divided into
10 groups orders or families that just appeared in the Cambrian with no common ancestors.
And this bring us back the the why and how DNA proofreading and repair machines came about by chance , random aimless natural processes in a mindless universe. .
I do not lie, I believe whatever I write. I will not continue
You, of course, will ignore all that I have written and stay firmly
attached to your evil designer hypothesis, and continue your lies
that the fossil record is somehow a problem for evolution, not
design. I hope this paragraph is wrong, but I doubt it.
corresponding with a person, when there are personal attacks on my
character.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/3/23 6:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]Almost without exception the evidence that's claimed to support
Like I say: your understanding is appallingly poor. If I could find
a harsher word than "appalling", I would use it, because you show
again and again that you do not *want* to know the evidence for
evolution.
;
evolution, could just as well be seen as evidence for design.
Duh. That, in fact, is the fatal weakness of design.
That describes evolution. For this reason evolution is non-falsifiable.
It's so elastic that it can be stretched to a degree that it can "wrap around" any discovery.
*Anything* can be
seen as evidence for it, because a superintelligent creator can create
anything. The animal has two legs? Design! The animal has four
legs? Design! The animal has eight legs? zero? five? 17 and a half?
Design! The animal has ears on the side of its head? on the top of its
head? on its legs? on its torso? in its mouth? Design!
It's the same with evolution. You certainly think that there were
ancestral fish without legs, that evolved into fish with legs. There are several animals of different different classes, orders, families and
species that evolved 4 legs. No animal has 8 legs, however, insects
have 6 legs. caterpillars evolved 100 legs. Wherever ears, noses etc
were placed evolved in their locations or were designed where they best served the animal within its environment. Then there is the whale: how
was the birth of newborns accomplished in water without drowning? How
was the newborn able to suckle during evolution without drowning at some stage during evolutionary development?
Unless, of course, you want to talk about actual design, the kind of
design that we have experience with from conception to realization.
But no intelligent design proponent wants to get anywhere near real
design.
The notion of some naturalist, who insist that it's necessary to know everything about the designer and if you do not, this absence
disqualifies design. This is a face saving strategy, akin to begging
off. Evidence is rarely objective and thus it's subject to
interpretation within an over-arching paradigm. Furthermore, design can
be self-evident.
The main evidence for evolution is the nested hierarchy of traits,This could just as well be seen as support for a common designer. >
both morphological and genetic. Nothing creates that pattern except
common descent; design does not, unless the designer is trying to
make it *look* like common descent instead of design.
;
A common designer would use the same principles and devices when they
served the purpose.
Common design is a good engineering principle, it's unnecessary to
reinvent the wheel every time a wheels are needed.
No, it could *not* just as well be seen as support for a common
designer. Quite the opposite. Common descent is a very *bad*
engineering principle.
Common design can be seen as evidence of a common designer. My uncle
was a house builder. In my youth, I worked about three years for him.
He designed and used his own house plans over and over and over in
different locations. It was to his advantage to use the same plans,
rather than design new plans for different locations.
Common descent is an evolutionary principle where a gradual linkage
between species is unobserved. The absence of linkage between species
was a problem that was confronted by Darwin.
He was well aware if it.
Another issue is the fact that there were thousands and thousands of trilobites divided into
10 groups orders or families that just appeared in the Cambrian with no common ancestors.
And this bring us back the the why and how DNA proofreading and repair machines came about by chance , random aimless natural processes in a mindless universe. .
I do not lie, I believe whatever I write. I will not continue
You, of course, will ignore all that I have written and stay firmly
attached to your evil designer hypothesis, and continue your lies
that the fossil record is somehow a problem for evolution, not
design. I hope this paragraph is wrong, but I doubt it.
corresponding with a person, when there are personal attacks on my
character.
On 11/4/23 8:08 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/3/23 6:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:That describes evolution. For this reason evolution is non-falsifiable.
Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]Almost without exception the evidence that's claimed to support
Like I say: your understanding is appallingly poor. If I could find a >>>>> harsher word than "appalling", I would use it, because you show again >>>>> and again that you do not *want* to know the evidence for evolution.
evolution, could just as well be seen as evidence for design.
Duh. That, in fact, is the fatal weakness of design.
It's so elastic that it can be stretched to a degree that it can "wrap
around" any discovery.
Not true. You confuse not-falsifiable with unfalsified. Evolution
could be falsified by any number of conceivable observations. For
example: Many examples of true chimeras, e.g. lion/goat/serpent
mash-ups; Darwin's original idea of blended inheritance being reality;
a fossil record showing a long period with no life followed by a period
up to the present day showing life in its present form; a
communication, accompanied by convincing demonstrations, from aliens
telling how they created life.
You might argue that evolution is unfalsifiable because none of those
could reasonably be expected to be found. But that's not what
falsifiability is all about. FalsifIABLE means falsifying tests are conceivable; falsifIED means those tests occurred and are fact.
Evolution is falsifiable but not falsified.
I am glad, however, that you at least recognize that the issue of falsiability makes you own design idea worthless.
*Anything* can be
seen as evidence for it, because a superintelligent creator can createIt's the same with evolution. You certainly think that there were
anything. The animal has two legs? Design! The animal has four legs?
Design! The animal has eight legs? zero? five? 17 and a half? Design!
The animal has ears on the side of its head? on the top of its head? on
its legs? on its torso? in its mouth? Design!
ancestral fish without legs, that evolved into fish with legs. There
are several animals of different different classes, orders, families
and species that evolved 4 legs. No animal has 8 legs, however,
insects have 6 legs. caterpillars evolved 100 legs. Wherever ears,
noses etc were placed evolved in their locations or were designed where
they best served the animal within its environment. Then there is the
whale: how was the birth of newborns accomplished in water without
drowning? How was the newborn able to suckle during evolution without
drowning at some stage during evolutionary development?
Spiders and some other arthropods (and some starfish) have eight legs. Caterpillars have six legs and some number of prolegs (I forget how
many, but much less than 100). There is at least one species of
centipede with more than 100 legs, and probably some millipedes too,
but I don't know if any species have exactly 100 legs.
Features that serve the animal within its environment is exactly what
you expect from evolution. *Exceptions* to that would better indicate design. If, for example, I saw a zebra with bright red stripes that
spelled "Eat at Joe's", I would conclude designed was involved.
Unless, of course, you want to talk about actual design, the kind ofThe notion of some naturalist, who insist that it's necessary to know
design that we have experience with from conception to realization. But
no intelligent design proponent wants to get anywhere near real design.
everything about the designer and if you do not, this absence
disqualifies design. This is a face saving strategy, akin to begging
off. Evidence is rarely objective and thus it's subject to
interpretation within an over-arching paradigm. Furthermore, design can
be self-evident.
You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true. Without knowing *anything* about the designer (which you don't), you can not know
design. If you hypothesize design anyway, that design tells you
something about the designer. In the case of your hypothesis, it tells
us that at least some aspect of the designer is malicious.
Common design can be seen as evidence of a common designer. My uncleThe main evidence for evolution is the nested hierarchy of traits, both >>>>> morphological and genetic. Nothing creates that pattern except common >>>>> descent; design does not, unless the designer is trying to make itThis could just as well be seen as support for a common designer. >
*look* like common descent instead of design.
A common designer would use the same principles and devices when they
served the purpose.
Common design is a good engineering principle, it's unnecessary to
reinvent the wheel every time a wheels are needed.
No, it could *not* just as well be seen as support for a common
designer. Quite the opposite. Common descent is a very *bad*
engineering principle.
was a house builder. In my youth, I worked about three years for him.
He designed and used his own house plans over and over and over in
different locations. It was to his advantage to use the same plans,
rather than design new plans for different locations.
Common descent is an evolutionary principle where a gradual linkage
between species is unobserved. The absence of linkage between species
was a problem that was confronted by Darwin.
He was well aware if it.
This is why you get called a liar. Your claim has been disproven over
and over and over and over and over, and you deliberately ignore those disproofs. You need only read Eldredge and Gould's original paper on punctuated equilibrium for documentation of one of those linkages you
claim do not exist.
[big snip of more such lies]
Another issue is the fact that there were thousands and thousands of
trilobites divided into
10 groups orders or families that just appeared in the Cambrian with no
common ancestors.
Trilobites have a long history, which shows evolution.
And this bring us back the the why and how DNA proofreading and repair
machines came about by chance , random aimless natural processes in a
mindless universe. .
I do not lie, I believe whatever I write. I will not continue
You, of course, will ignore all that I have written and stay firmly
attached to your evil designer hypothesis, and continue your lies that >>>>> the fossil record is somehow a problem for evolution, not design. I >>>>> hope this paragraph is wrong, but I doubt it.
corresponding with a person, when there are personal attacks on my
character.
You lie to yourself, which is arguably worse. Your persistent mischaracterizations of punctuated equilibrium and the Antikythera
mechanism especially show that you refuse to let ideas contrary to your beliefs into your consciousness. You have decided that, on evaluating information, you outrank God.
Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:26:27 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 7:01:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:You cannot answer my question so, you avoid it by introducing a another >> subject. But in response to your issue.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:06:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> Burkhard wrote:Of course not, where have I made any such claim? All I did was state an >>>> observation which neither I nor you or nor anyone else can possibly know.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 8:16:26 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:That's how proofreading and repair comes across. So far, all that been
Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:So, you're claiming that things have always been the same. They were
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said:There are over 6,000 known genetic disorders known, and you think these
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer
Martin Harran wrote:There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron DeanPeople who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is
<rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:I know.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:It's certainly not my opinion.
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of
evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of
most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is
biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully
designed with planning and forethought. There is strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>> circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive
mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both
physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). >>>>>>>>>>>>>
for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise,
and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant
past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better
than today.
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do
evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy. >>>>>>>>>>>
6000+disorders were around 1000 years ago even 10000 years ago. And you
think what I wrote is complete fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders >>>>>>>>>>>
There are new genetic diseases being discovered even more often than
expected.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230125/newly-discovered-genetic-disease-more-common-than-expected.
It's you, that's living in a fantasy world.
So you think things only start to exist when we discover them? >>>>>>>>>
just discovered. Prove it!
I gave you the proof for genetic illnesses in the two citations that >>>>>>> you, as aways, failed to address.
This is riodiculous
That is indeed a fantasy world. In the real world, we discover e.g. new
islands all the time - do yo think that means that new islands are >>>>>>>>> created constantly too?
It is indeed - so why do you keep posting such
nonsense?
posted as an explanation as to how and why a random, aimless, mindless
natural process was able, via hit and miss methods, to evolved the six
DNA proofreading and repair machines. Supposition, hypothesis and theories
are little better than guesswork. No one can really know the multiple >>>>>> processes and procedures evolution had to have taken, to have created >>>>>> such complex machines. To think, it just happen through aimless, >>>>>> mindless processes takes great faith. If there is a mind beyond ours. >>>>>> The best explanation is deliberate purposeful design. And who can state,
for an absolute fact there isn't a greater mind. This, places the >>>>>> burden, upon those who disagreed, to falsify the existence of this mind..
Nobody is under any obligation to convince you of anything.
One thing that is very convenient about your view is that you provide no specific characteristics of the designer and even allow that the designer might not exist any more - that makes your view immune to testing, much less disproof.
Design is frequently self-evident. When divers first observed the
antikythera device in an ancient shipwreck, at the bottom of the
Mediterranean sea. The device was recognized as designed, although its
purpose was totally unknown.
For heaven's sake that nonsense does not get better by repeating it. There are instructions on how to use it written on it, in a known language,
That's besides the point, at the time of discovery, it was recognized as
a design, a design that was self evident, even though, no one knew its purpose nor its designer.
it's certain that when this object was brought up after 2000 years on
the sea floor, the
language was unreadable, because of the debris that would be caked all. Later scholars, translated the instructions, discovered its purpose, but
not it's designer. So, in many case the design can be determined without knowing a anything about the designer.
Of course
it was easy to identify it as designed. And with known designers, that is humans form that period of time, using materials and techniques typical for that time. geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the ancient world or indeed until >medieval cathedral clocks were built a millennium later.
Greeks knew about brass 2000 years ago, however as far as techniques: it wasn't until clock makers 1000 years later designed and built cathedral clock that any equally complex geared device was made.
(quote) "No other geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the ancient world or indeed until medieval cathedral clocks were built a millennium later."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Antikythera-mechanism
If you find in our DNA anywhere a copyright notice in Old English, than and only than your analogy would make any sense.
Furthermore, the design was far more
complex than any other device known 2000 years ago. Here was a case
where design was self-evident, and without knowing anything about the
designer. A child observes a bicycle; the child recognizes design
without knowing anything about the designer. To insist on knowing the
designer before admitting a design is just a face-saving strategy. The 6 >> highly complex DNA proofreading and repair machines are self-evident
design. This would be obvious to the person who is unbiased and
uncommitted to naturalism and the prison it forces then into. They
cannot consider anything outside this prison.
Here an example from genetic diseases: Klinefelter syndrome was >>>>>>>>> identified as a genetic disease in 1959. Yet recently, it was shown in a
1000 year old skeleton:
https://www.sciencealert.com/rare-genetic-syndrome-in-1000-year-old-skeleton-is-oldest-case-ever-found
As our diagnostic tools get better and better, of course we should >>>>>>>>> expect more and more diseases to be identified, that's why we >>>>>>>>> constantly improve on our methods and equipment.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind --
requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it
can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
Spiders and some other arthropods (and some starfish) have eight legs. Caterpillars have six legs and some number of prolegs (I forget how
many, but much less than 100). There is at least one species of
centipede with more than 100 legs, and probably some millipedes too, but
I don't know if any species have exactly 100 legs.
Features that serve the animal within its environment is exactly what
you expect from evolution. *Exceptions* to that would better indicate design. If, for example, I saw a zebra with bright red stripes that
spelled "Eat at Joe's", I would conclude designed was involved.
On 11/4/23 8:08 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/3/23 6:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:That describes evolution. For this reason evolution is
Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]Almost without exception the evidence that's claimed to support
Like I say: your understanding is appallingly poor. If I could
find a harsher word than "appalling", I would use it, because you
show again and again that you do not *want* to know the evidence
for evolution.
;
evolution, could just as well be seen as evidence for design.
Duh. That, in fact, is the fatal weakness of design.
;
non-falsifiable. It's so elastic that it can be stretched to a degree
that it can "wrap around" any discovery.
Not true. You confuse not-falsifiable with unfalsified. Evolution
could be falsified by any number of conceivable observations. For example: Many examples of true chimeras, e.g. lion/goat/serpent
mash-ups; Darwin's original idea of blended inheritance being reality; a fossil record showing a long period with no life followed by a period up
to the present day showing life in its present form; a communication, accompanied by convincing demonstrations, from aliens telling how they created life.
You might argue that evolution is unfalsifiable because none of those
could reasonably be expected to be found. But that's not what falsifiability is all about. FalsifIABLE means falsifying tests are conceivable; falsifIED means those tests occurred and are fact.
Evolution is falsifiable but not falsified.
I am glad, however, that you at least recognize that the issue of falsiability makes you own design idea worthless.
*Anything* can be
seen as evidence for it, because a superintelligent creator canIt's the same with evolution. You certainly think that there were
create anything. The animal has two legs? Design! The animal has
four legs? Design! The animal has eight legs? zero? five? 17 and a
half? Design! The animal has ears on the side of its head? on the top
of its head? on its legs? on its torso? in its mouth? Design!
;
ancestral fish without legs, that evolved into fish with legs. There
are several animals of different different classes, orders, families
and species that evolved 4 legs. No animal has 8 legs, however,
insects have 6 legs. caterpillars evolved 100 legs. Wherever ears,
noses etc were placed evolved in their locations or were designed
where they best served the animal within its environment. Then there
is the whale: how was the birth of newborns accomplished in water
without drowning? How was the newborn able to suckle during evolution
without drowning at some stage during evolutionary development?
Spiders and some other arthropods (and some starfish) have eight legs. Caterpillars have six legs and some number of prolegs (I forget how
many, but much less than 100).
There is at least one species of
centipede with more than 100 legs, and probably some millipedes too, but
I don't know if any species have exactly 100 legs.
Features that serve the animal within its environment is exactly what
you expect from evolution. *Exceptions* to that would better indicate design. If, for example, I saw a zebra with bright red stripes that
spelled "Eat at Joe's", I would conclude designed was involved.
Unless, of course, you want to talk about actual design, the kind ofThe notion of some naturalist, who insist that it's necessary to know
design that we have experience with from conception to realization.
But no intelligent design proponent wants to get anywhere near real
design.
;
everything about the designer and if you do not, this absence
disqualifies design. This is a face saving strategy, akin to begging
off. Evidence is rarely objective and thus it's subject to
interpretation within an over-arching paradigm. Furthermore, design
can be self-evident.
You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true. Without knowing *anything* about the designer (which you don't), you can not know
design. If you hypothesize design anyway, that design tells you
something about the designer. In the case of your hypothesis, it tells
us that at least some aspect of the designer is malicious.
Common design can be seen as evidence of a common designer. My uncleThe main evidence for evolution is the nested hierarchy of traits,This could just as well be seen as support for a common designer. >
both morphological and genetic. Nothing creates that pattern
except common descent; design does not, unless the designer is
trying to make it *look* like common descent instead of design.
;
A common designer would use the same principles and devices when
they served the purpose.
Common design is a good engineering principle, it's unnecessary to
reinvent the wheel every time a wheels are needed.
No, it could *not* just as well be seen as support for a common
designer. Quite the opposite. Common descent is a very *bad*
engineering principle.
;
was a house builder. In my youth, I worked about three years for him.
He designed and used his own house plans over and over and over in
different locations. It was to his advantage to use the same plans,
rather than design new plans for different locations.
Common descent is an evolutionary principle where a gradual linkage
between species is unobserved. The absence of linkage between species
was a problem that was confronted by Darwin.
He was well aware if it.
This is why you get called a liar. Your claim has been disproven over
and over and over and over and over, and you deliberately ignore those disproofs. You need only read Eldredge and Gould's original paper on punctuated equilibrium for documentation of one of those linkages you
claim do not exist.
[big snip of more such lies]
Another issue is the fact that there were thousands and thousands of
trilobites divided into
10 groups orders or families that just appeared in the Cambrian with
no common ancestors.
Trilobites have a long history, which shows evolution.
And this bring us back the the why and how DNA proofreading and
repair machines came about by chance , random aimless natural
processes in a mindless universe. .
I do not lie, I believe whatever I write. I will not continue
You, of course, will ignore all that I have written and stay firmly
attached to your evil designer hypothesis, and continue your lies
that the fossil record is somehow a problem for evolution, not
design. I hope this paragraph is wrong, but I doubt it.
corresponding with a person, when there are personal attacks on my
character.
You lie to yourself, which is arguably worse. Your persistent mischaracterizations of punctuated equilibrium and the Antikythera
mechanism especially show that you refuse to let ideas contrary to your beliefs into your consciousness. You have decided that, on evaluating information, you outrank God.
On 11/5/23 7:55 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
There is at least one species of centipede with more than 100 legs,
and probably some millipedes too, but I don't know if any species have
exactly 100 legs.
In some species of millipedes the number of legs is variable, so there probably are individuals with exactly 100.
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:46:28 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:26:27 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:That's besides the point, at the time of discovery, it was recognized as
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 7:01:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:You cannot answer my question so, you avoid it by introducing a another >>>> subject. But in response to your issue.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:06:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> Burkhard wrote:Of course not, where have I made any such claim? All I did was state an >>>>>> observation which neither I nor you or nor anyone else can possibly know.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 8:16:26 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Burkhard wrote:That's how proofreading and repair comes across. So far, all that been >>>>>>>> posted as an explanation as to how and why a random, aimless, mindless >>>>>>>> natural process was able, via hit and miss methods, to evolved the six >>>>>>>> DNA proofreading and repair machines. Supposition, hypothesis and theories
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:So, you're claiming that things have always been the same. They were >>>>>>>>>> just discovered. Prove it!
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said:There are over 6,000 known genetic disorders known, and you think these
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer
Martin Harran wrote:There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:People who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:I know.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:It's certainly not my opinion.
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of
evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of
most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is
biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully
designed with planning and forethought. There is strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive
mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both
physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise,
and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant
past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better
than today.
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do
evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
6000+disorders were around 1000 years ago even 10000 years ago. And you
think what I wrote is complete fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders >>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are new genetic diseases being discovered even more often than
expected.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230125/newly-discovered-genetic-disease-more-common-than-expected.
It's you, that's living in a fantasy world.
So you think things only start to exist when we discover them? >>>>>>>>>>>
I gave you the proof for genetic illnesses in the two citations that >>>>>>>>> you, as aways, failed to address.
This is riodiculous
That is indeed a fantasy world. In the real world, we discover e.g. new
islands all the time - do yo think that means that new islands are >>>>>>>>>>> created constantly too?
It is indeed - so why do you keep posting such
nonsense?
are little better than guesswork. No one can really know the multiple >>>>>>>> processes and procedures evolution had to have taken, to have created >>>>>>>> such complex machines. To think, it just happen through aimless, >>>>>>>> mindless processes takes great faith. If there is a mind beyond ours. >>>>>>>> The best explanation is deliberate purposeful design. And who can state,
for an absolute fact there isn't a greater mind. This, places the >>>>>>>> burden, upon those who disagreed, to falsify the existence of this mind..
Nobody is under any obligation to convince you of anything.
One thing that is very convenient about your view is that you provide no specific characteristics of the designer and even allow that the designer might not exist any more - that makes your view immune to testing, much less disproof.
Design is frequently self-evident. When divers first observed the
antikythera device in an ancient shipwreck, at the bottom of the
Mediterranean sea. The device was recognized as designed, although its >>>> purpose was totally unknown.
For heaven's sake that nonsense does not get better by repeating it. There >>> are instructions on how to use it written on it, in a known language,
a design, a design that was self evident, even though, no one knew its
purpose nor its designer.
Does not really help you at all. At the time of the discovery, the age of
the machine was also unknown. So the design inference was even more straightforward: this looks just like the sort of thing we make:
it's a well known mechanism (gears) from a well known material that
we humans have been using for ages, (bronze) and you find things
like this in every gift shop in the Black Forest. For all they knew
at this point it was dropped from a passing holiday cruise ship and
got accidentally intermingled with older debris.
in any way special only became an issue after the first theories about
the designer were made and tested
it's certain that when this object was brought up after 2000 years on
the sea floor, the
language was unreadable, because of the debris that would be caked all.
Later scholars, translated the instructions, discovered its purpose, but
not it's designer. So, in many case the design can be determined without
knowing a anything about the designer.
A hypothesis about design can be made- which is then tested. This then tells us something about the designer, provided the design hypothesis is confirmed That no "ID theorists" even attempts this makes clear they have no interest in
science
Of course
it was easy to identify it as designed. And with known designers, that is >>> humans form that period of time, using materials and techniques typical for >>> that time. geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the ancient world or indeed until >medieval cathedral clocks were built a millennium later.Greeks knew about brass 2000 years ago, however as far as techniques: it
wasn't until clock makers 1000 years later designed and built cathedral
clock that any equally complex geared device was made.
(quote) "No other geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the
ancient world or indeed until medieval cathedral clocks were built a
millennium later."
But that is only a question of degree - and also questionable. I gave you examples from oder mechanisms of a similar complexity,
and also links to bronze work of equal complexity (but without
function) . For every type of artefact, someone will always be
the first, and one will always be the most complex, nothing
particularly interesting follows from it.
And that we don't find closely similar artefacts tells you something
too - it was probably a bad idea to build it. Hugely expansive, and not very durable (too many movable parts, with the wrong sort of material for them)
My guess would be it was an exhibition piece, not meant for real use, that allowed the maker to demonstrate their skills and range of products, with
the customers then buying much less sophisticated but more reliable
models. Something we observe as design strategy through the ages
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Antikythera-mechanism
If you find in our DNA anywhere a copyright notice in Old English, than
and only than your analogy would make any sense.
Furthermore, the design was far more
complex than any other device known 2000 years ago. Here was a case
where design was self-evident, and without knowing anything about the
designer. A child observes a bicycle; the child recognizes design
without knowing anything about the designer. To insist on knowing the
designer before admitting a design is just a face-saving strategy. The 6 >>>> highly complex DNA proofreading and repair machines are self-evident
design. This would be obvious to the person who is unbiased and
uncommitted to naturalism and the prison it forces then into. They
cannot consider anything outside this prison.
Here an example from genetic diseases: Klinefelter syndrome was >>>>>>>>>>> identified as a genetic disease in 1959. Yet recently, it was shown in a
1000 year old skeleton:
https://www.sciencealert.com/rare-genetic-syndrome-in-1000-year-old-skeleton-is-oldest-case-ever-found
As our diagnostic tools get better and better, of course we should >>>>>>>>>>> expect more and more diseases to be identified, that's why we >>>>>>>>>>> constantly improve on our methods and equipment.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind --
requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it
can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 20:46:04 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Burkhard wrote:<Large snip>
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:26:27?AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
That's besides the point, at the time of discovery, it was recognized asOne thing that is very convenient about your view is that you provide no specific characteristics of the designer and even allow that the designer might not exist any more - that makes your view immune to testing, much less disproof.You cannot answer my question so, you avoid it by introducing a another >>>> subject. But in response to your issue.
Design is frequently self-evident. When divers first observed the
antikythera device in an ancient shipwreck, at the bottom of the
Mediterranean sea. The device was recognized as designed, although its >>>> purpose was totally unknown.
For heaven's sake that nonsense does not get better by repeating it. There >>> are instructions on how to use it written on it, in a known language,
a design, a design that was self evident, even though, no one knew its
purpose nor its designer. Regarding the instructions: in the device,
it's certain that when this object was brought up after 2000 years on
the sea floor, the
language was unreadable, because of the debris that would be caked all.
Later scholars, translated the instructions, discovered its purpose, but
not it's designer. So, in many case the design can be determined without
knowing a anything about the designer.
Of course
it was easy to identify it as designed. And with known designers, that is >>> humans form that period of time, using materials and techniques typical for >>> that time. geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the ancient world or indeed until >medieval cathedral clocks were built a millennium later.Greeks knew about brass 2000 years ago, however as far as techniques: it
wasn't until clock makers 1000 years later designed and built cathedral
clock that any equally complex geared device was made.
(quote)
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Antikythera-mechanism
Your reference (linked above) also says this:
"The Antikythera mechanism is the only known physical survivor of a long tradition of mechanical astronomical displays. The widespread existence of such devices can be inferred from references in Greco-Roman literature, particularly in the descriptions left by Marcus Tullius Cicero (1st century bce), that stretch from Archimedes (3rd century bce) to a poetic reference
in the late 4th or early 5th century ce. "
That is what other posters have pointed out to you more than once regarding the device and you apparently ignored or forgot it.
Its the only known
extant example of a complex geared device from that time period but there
is clear evidence that other similar devices existed in that time frame.
This kind of behavior on your part is irritating and results in the rude responses from folks like Lawyer Daggett that you find unacceptable.I believe what I write.
Anyone can disagree with anything I write or say. But I do not lie and
Burkhard wrote:....
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:46:28 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:26:27 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:That's besides the point, at the time of discovery, it was recognized as >> a design, a design that was self evident, even though, no one knew its
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 7:01:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:You cannot answer my question so, you avoid it by introducing a another >>>> subject. But in response to your issue.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:06:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Of course not, where have I made any such claim? All I did was state an
Burkhard wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 8:16:26 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:That's how proofreading and repair comes across. So far, all that been
Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:So, you're claiming that things have always been the same. They were
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said:There are over 6,000 known genetic disorders known, and you think these
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer
Martin Harran wrote:There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:People who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R)
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:I know.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:It's certainly not my opinion.
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of
evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I
personally believe the process
is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of
most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is
biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is
too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully
designed with planning and forethought. There is strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive
mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both
physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise,
and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant
past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better
than today.
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do
evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
6000+disorders were around 1000 years ago even 10000 years ago. And you
think what I wrote is complete fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders >>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are new genetic diseases being discovered even more often than
expected.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230125/newly-discovered-genetic-disease-more-common-than-expected.
It's you, that's living in a fantasy world.
So you think things only start to exist when we discover them? >>>>>>>>>>>
just discovered. Prove it!
I gave you the proof for genetic illnesses in the two citations that
you, as aways, failed to address.
This is riodiculous
That is indeed a fantasy world. In the real world, we discover e.g. new
islands all the time - do yo think that means that new islands are
created constantly too?
It is indeed - so why do you keep posting such
nonsense?
posted as an explanation as to how and why a random, aimless, mindless
natural process was able, via hit and miss methods, to evolved the six
DNA proofreading and repair machines. Supposition, hypothesis and theories
are little better than guesswork. No one can really know the multiple
processes and procedures evolution had to have taken, to have created
such complex machines. To think, it just happen through aimless, >>>>>>>> mindless processes takes great faith. If there is a mind beyond ours.
The best explanation is deliberate purposeful design. And who can state,
for an absolute fact there isn't a greater mind. This, places the >>>>>>>> burden, upon those who disagreed, to falsify the existence of this mind..
Nobody is under any obligation to convince you of anything.
observation which neither I nor you or nor anyone else can possibly know.
One thing that is very convenient about your view is that you provide no specific characteristics of the designer and even allow that the designer might not exist any more - that makes your view immune to testing, much less disproof.
Design is frequently self-evident. When divers first observed the
antikythera device in an ancient shipwreck, at the bottom of the
Mediterranean sea. The device was recognized as designed, although its >>>> purpose was totally unknown.
For heaven's sake that nonsense does not get better by repeating it. There
are instructions on how to use it written on it, in a known language, >>>
purpose nor its designer.
Does not really help you at all. At the time of the discovery, the age of the machine was also unknown. So the design inference was even more straightforward: this looks just like the sort of thing we make:
This device was found in an ancient shipwreck, there is little doubt
that the first people 1n the year 1901 knew what the device was or it purpose or who designed and built it. Later when experts examined it
they drew the conclusions you mentioned.
it's a well known mechanism (gears) from a well known material that
we humans have been using for ages, (bronze) and you find things
like this in every gift shop in the Black Forest. For all they knew
at this point it was dropped from a passing holiday cruise ship and
got accidentally intermingled with older debris.
That's just a supposition on your part and it's pretty far fetched.
That the mechanism is
in any way special only became an issue after the first theories about
the designer were made and tested
rding the instructions: in the device,
it's certain that when this object was brought up after 2000 years on
the sea floor, the
language was unreadable, because of the debris that would be caked all. >> Later scholars, translated the instructions, discovered its purpose, but >> not it's designer. So, in many case the design can be determined without >> knowing a anything about the designer.
A hypothesis about design can be made- which is then tested. This then tells
us something about the designer, provided the design hypothesis is confirmed
That no "ID theorists" even attempts this makes clear they have no interest in
science
This simply is not true, I'm definitely interested in science. But
scientist are people with their biases and mistakes. Also there are
cases where certain scientist fudged their results. I lost my
grandmother, my mother and recently a sister from cancer. What I find so unbelievable, they treated my sister and my mother with the exact same treatments, radiation and chemotherapy
over a period of 50+ years. It's amazing that with decades of fund
raising, testing nothing is changed. At one time polio was a fearful and deadly disease. But in the 1950's the Salk vaccine
was created. This brought new polio cases almost to a halt. I know I'm
being sarcastic, but who knows, maybe a lesson was learned with the Salk vaccine.
Of course
it was easy to identify it as designed. And with known designers, that isGreeks knew about brass 2000 years ago, however as far as techniques: it >> wasn't until clock makers 1000 years later designed and built cathedral >> clock that any equally complex geared device was made.
humans form that period of time, using materials and techniques typical for
that time. geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the ancient world or indeed until >medieval cathedral clocks were built a millennium later.
(quote) "No other geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the >> ancient world or indeed until medieval cathedral clocks were built a
millennium later."
But that is only a question of degree - and also questionable. I gave you examples from oder mechanisms of a similar complexity,
I don't mean to be offensive, but I think encyclopedia Britannica is a higher authority. And that is not what the encyclopedia says.
and also links to bronze work of equal complexity (but without
function) . For every type of artefact, someone will always be
the first, and one will always be the most complex, nothing
particularly interesting follows from it.
And that we don't find closely similar artefacts tells you something
too - it was probably a bad idea to build it. Hugely expansive, and not very
durable (too many movable parts, with the wrong sort of material for them) My guess would be it was an exhibition piece, not meant for real use, that allowed the maker to demonstrate their skills and range of products, with the customers then buying much less sophisticated but more reliable models. Something we observe as design strategy through the ages
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Antikythera-mechanism
If you find in our DNA anywhere a copyright notice in Old English, than >>> and only than your analogy would make any sense.
Furthermore, the design was far more
complex than any other device known 2000 years ago. Here was a case >>>> where design was self-evident, and without knowing anything about the >>>> designer. A child observes a bicycle; the child recognizes design
without knowing anything about the designer. To insist on knowing the >>>> designer before admitting a design is just a face-saving strategy. The 6
highly complex DNA proofreading and repair machines are self-evident >>>> design. This would be obvious to the person who is unbiased and
uncommitted to naturalism and the prison it forces then into. They
cannot consider anything outside this prison.
Here an example from genetic diseases: Klinefelter syndrome was >>>>>>>>>>> identified as a genetic disease in 1959. Yet recently, it was shown in a
1000 year old skeleton:
https://www.sciencealert.com/rare-genetic-syndrome-in-1000-year-old-skeleton-is-oldest-case-ever-found
As our diagnostic tools get better and better, of course we should
expect more and more diseases to be identified, that's why we >>>>>>>>>>> constantly improve on our methods and equipment.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind --
requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it
can be called that) I have ever seen you make.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:41:30 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:indicate clearly much of the device’s astronomical, or calendrical, purpose."
Burkhard wrote:....
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:46:28 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:This device was found in an ancient shipwreck, there is little doubt
Burkhard wrote:
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:26:27 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:That's besides the point, at the time of discovery, it was recognized as >>>> a design, a design that was self evident, even though, no one knew its >>>> purpose nor its designer.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 7:01:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:You cannot answer my question so, you avoid it by introducing a another >>>>>> subject. But in response to your issue.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:06:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Burkhard wrote:Of course not, where have I made any such claim? All I did was state an
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 8:16:26 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:That's how proofreading and repair comes across. So far, all that been
Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:So, you're claiming that things have always been the same. They were
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said:There are over 6,000 known genetic disorders known, and you think these
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer
Martin Harran wrote:There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:People who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:I know.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:It's certainly not my opinion.
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of
evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personally believe the process >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of
most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is
biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully
designed with planning and forethought. There is strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive
mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both
physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise,
and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant
past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better
than today.
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do
evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
6000+disorders were around 1000 years ago even 10000 years ago. And you
think what I wrote is complete fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are new genetic diseases being discovered even more often than
expected.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230125/newly-discovered-genetic-disease-more-common-than-expected.
It's you, that's living in a fantasy world.
So you think things only start to exist when we discover them? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
just discovered. Prove it!
I gave you the proof for genetic illnesses in the two citations that
you, as aways, failed to address.
This is riodiculous
That is indeed a fantasy world. In the real world, we discover e.g. new
islands all the time - do yo think that means that new islands are
created constantly too?
It is indeed - so why do you keep posting such
nonsense?
posted as an explanation as to how and why a random, aimless, mindless
natural process was able, via hit and miss methods, to evolved the six
DNA proofreading and repair machines. Supposition, hypothesis and theories
are little better than guesswork. No one can really know the multiple
processes and procedures evolution had to have taken, to have created
such complex machines. To think, it just happen through aimless, >>>>>>>>>> mindless processes takes great faith. If there is a mind beyond ours.
The best explanation is deliberate purposeful design. And who can state,
for an absolute fact there isn't a greater mind. This, places the >>>>>>>>>> burden, upon those who disagreed, to falsify the existence of this mind..
Nobody is under any obligation to convince you of anything.
observation which neither I nor you or nor anyone else can possibly know.
One thing that is very convenient about your view is that you provide no specific characteristics of the designer and even allow that the designer might not exist any more - that makes your view immune to testing, much less disproof.
Design is frequently self-evident. When divers first observed the
antikythera device in an ancient shipwreck, at the bottom of the
Mediterranean sea. The device was recognized as designed, although its >>>>>> purpose was totally unknown.
For heaven's sake that nonsense does not get better by repeating it. There
are instructions on how to use it written on it, in a known language, >>>>>
Does not really help you at all. At the time of the discovery, the age of >>> the machine was also unknown. So the design inference was even more
straightforward: this looks just like the sort of thing we make:
that the first people 1n the year 1901 knew what the device was or it
purpose or who designed and built it. Later when experts examined it
they drew the conclusions you mentioned.
That's just a supposition on your part and it's pretty far fetched.
it's a well known mechanism (gears) from a well known material that
we humans have been using for ages, (bronze) and you find things
like this in every gift shop in the Black Forest. For all they knew
at this point it was dropped from a passing holiday cruise ship and
got accidentally intermingled with older debris.
That the mechanism is
in any way special only became an issue after the first theories aboutrding the instructions: in the device,
the designer were made and tested
This simply is not true, I'm definitely interested in science. Butit's certain that when this object was brought up after 2000 years on
the sea floor, the
language was unreadable, because of the debris that would be caked all. >>>> Later scholars, translated the instructions, discovered its purpose, but >>>> not it's designer. So, in many case the design can be determined without >>>> knowing a anything about the designer.
A hypothesis about design can be made- which is then tested. This then tells
us something about the designer, provided the design hypothesis is confirmed
That no "ID theorists" even attempts this makes clear they have no interest in
science
scientist are people with their biases and mistakes. Also there are
cases where certain scientist fudged their results. I lost my
grandmother, my mother and recently a sister from cancer. What I find so
unbelievable, they treated my sister and my mother with the exact same
treatments, radiation and chemotherapy
over a period of 50+ years. It's amazing that with decades of fund
raising, testing nothing is changed. At one time polio was a fearful and
deadly disease. But in the 1950's the Salk vaccine
was created. This brought new polio cases almost to a halt. I know I'm
being sarcastic, but who knows, maybe a lesson was learned with the Salk
vaccine.
Of course
it was easy to identify it as designed. And with known designers, that is >>>>> humans form that period of time, using materials and techniques typical forGreeks knew about brass 2000 years ago, however as far as techniques: it >>>> wasn't until clock makers 1000 years later designed and built cathedral >>>> clock that any equally complex geared device was made.
that time. geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the ancient world or indeed until >medieval cathedral clocks were built a millennium later.
(quote) "No other geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the >>>> ancient world or indeed until medieval cathedral clocks were built a
millennium later."
But that is only a question of degree - and also questionable. I gave you >>> examples from oder mechanisms of a similar complexity,
I don't mean to be offensive, but I think encyclopedia Britannica is a
higher authority. And that is not what the encyclopedia says.
It's lovely that you accept the authority of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Here are a couple of additional quotations from Britannica's article on the Antikythera mechanism...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Antikythera-mechanism
"The Antikythera mechanism was fabricated out of bronze sheet, and originally it would have been in a case about the size of a shoebox. The doors of the case and the faces of the mechanism are covered with Greek inscriptions, enough of which survive to
As other posters already told you, the device was inscribed with Greek text indicating its purpose. No doubt about the human design.
"The Antikythera mechanism is the only known physical survivor of a long tradition of mechanical astronomical displays. The widespread existence of such devices can be inferred from references in Greco-Roman literature, particularly in the descriptionsleft by Marcus Tullius Cicero (1st century bce), that stretch from Archimedes (3rd century bce) to a poetic reference in the late 4th or early 5th century ce. The exact purpose of the Antikythera mechanism remains speculative, however. Nor is it known if
As other posters have repeatedly told you, there are multiple references to such devices in the ancient world, and indeed your Britannica article suggests that they were "widespread."
and also links to bronze work of equal complexity (but without
function) . For every type of artefact, someone will always be
the first, and one will always be the most complex, nothing
particularly interesting follows from it.
And that we don't find closely similar artefacts tells you something
too - it was probably a bad idea to build it. Hugely expansive, and not very
durable (too many movable parts, with the wrong sort of material for them) >>> My guess would be it was an exhibition piece, not meant for real use, that >>> allowed the maker to demonstrate their skills and range of products, with >>> the customers then buying much less sophisticated but more reliable
models. Something we observe as design strategy through the ages
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Antikythera-mechanism
If you find in our DNA anywhere a copyright notice in Old English, than >>>>> and only than your analogy would make any sense.
Furthermore, the design was far more
complex than any other device known 2000 years ago. Here was a case >>>>>> where design was self-evident, and without knowing anything about the >>>>>> designer. A child observes a bicycle; the child recognizes design
without knowing anything about the designer. To insist on knowing the >>>>>> designer before admitting a design is just a face-saving strategy. The 6 >>>>>> highly complex DNA proofreading and repair machines are self-evident >>>>>> design. This would be obvious to the person who is unbiased and
uncommitted to naturalism and the prison it forces then into. They >>>>>> cannot consider anything outside this prison.
Here an example from genetic diseases: Klinefelter syndrome was >>>>>>>>>>>>> identified as a genetic disease in 1959. Yet recently, it was shown in a
1000 year old skeleton:
https://www.sciencealert.com/rare-genetic-syndrome-in-1000-year-old-skeleton-is-oldest-case-ever-found
As our diagnostic tools get better and better, of course we should
expect more and more diseases to be identified, that's why we >>>>>>>>>>>>> constantly improve on our methods and equipment.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind --
requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it
can be called that) I have ever seen you make. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ralph Page wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 20:46:04 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Burkhard wrote:<Large snip>
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:26:27?AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
That's besides the point, at the time of discovery, it was recognized as >> a design, a design that was self evident, even though, no one knew itsOne thing that is very convenient about your view is that you provide no specific characteristics of the designer and even allow that the designer might not exist any more - that makes your view immune to testing, much less disproof.You cannot answer my question so, you avoid it by introducing a another >>>> subject. But in response to your issue.
Design is frequently self-evident. When divers first observed the
antikythera device in an ancient shipwreck, at the bottom of the
Mediterranean sea. The device was recognized as designed, although its >>>> purpose was totally unknown.
For heaven's sake that nonsense does not get better by repeating it. There
are instructions on how to use it written on it, in a known language, >>>
purpose nor its designer. Regarding the instructions: in the device,
it's certain that when this object was brought up after 2000 years on
the sea floor, the
language was unreadable, because of the debris that would be caked all. >> Later scholars, translated the instructions, discovered its purpose, but >> not it's designer. So, in many case the design can be determined without >> knowing a anything about the designer.
Of course
it was easy to identify it as designed. And with known designers, that isGreeks knew about brass 2000 years ago, however as far as techniques: it >> wasn't until clock makers 1000 years later designed and built cathedral >> clock that any equally complex geared device was made.
humans form that period of time, using materials and techniques typical for
that time. geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the ancient world or indeed until >medieval cathedral clocks were built a millennium later.
(quote)
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Antikythera-mechanism
Your reference (linked above) also says this:
"The Antikythera mechanism is the only known physical survivor of a long tradition of mechanical astronomical displays. The widespread existence of such devices can be inferred from references in Greco-Roman literature, particularly in the descriptions left by Marcus Tullius Cicero (1st century
bce), that stretch from Archimedes (3rd century bce) to a poetic reference in the late 4th or early 5th century ce. "
Such devices with the same complexity? The article doesn't say that. If
it did, then it would mean that the comment from Britannica is
contradicting itself when it stated that: "No other geared mechanism of
such complexity is known from the
ancient world or indeed until medieval cathedral clocks were built a millennium later."
That is what other posters have pointed out to you more than once regarding
the device and you apparently ignored or forgot it.
So, what you're saying that Encyclopedia Britannica contradicted itself.
I don't agree.
This suggest that the other described artifacts of the period while
similar, but were less complex than the antikythera device.
..
Its the only known
extant example of a complex geared device from that time period but there is clear evidence that other similar devices existed in that time frame.
So, what's implied is the same as clear evidence? I don't think so!
This kind of behavior on your part is irritating and results in the rude responses from folks like Lawyer Daggett that you find unacceptable.I believe what I write.
Anyone can disagree with anything I write or say. But I do not lie and
But anyone who attacks my character, that person is dead to me. I will
never read or respond to him/her again. You don't kill the messenge by shooting the messenger.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:to indicate clearly much of the device’s astronomical, or calendrical, purpose."
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:41:30 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:....
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:46:28 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>> Burkhard wrote:This device was found in an ancient shipwreck, there is little doubt
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:26:27 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:That's besides the point, at the time of discovery, it was recognized as
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 7:01:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:You cannot answer my question so, you avoid it by introducing a another
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:06:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Of course not, where have I made any such claim? All I did was state an
Burkhard wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 8:16:26 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:That's how proofreading and repair comes across. So far, all that been
Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:So, you're claiming that things have always been the same. They were
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said:There are over 6,000 known genetic disorders known, and you think these
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer
Martin Harran wrote:There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:People who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R)
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:I know.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's certainly not my opinion.
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of
evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personally believe the process >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of
most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is
biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is
too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully
designed with planning and forethought. There is strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive
mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both
physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise,
and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant
past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better
than today.
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do
evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
6000+disorders were around 1000 years ago even 10000 years ago. And you
think what I wrote is complete fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are new genetic diseases being discovered even more often than
expected.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230125/newly-discovered-genetic-disease-more-common-than-expected.
It's you, that's living in a fantasy world.
So you think things only start to exist when we discover them? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
just discovered. Prove it!
I gave you the proof for genetic illnesses in the two citations that
you, as aways, failed to address.
This is riodiculous
That is indeed a fantasy world. In the real world, we discover e.g. new
islands all the time - do yo think that means that new islands are
created constantly too?
It is indeed - so why do you keep posting such
nonsense?
posted as an explanation as to how and why a random, aimless, mindless
natural process was able, via hit and miss methods, to evolved the six
DNA proofreading and repair machines. Supposition, hypothesis and theories
are little better than guesswork. No one can really know the multiple
processes and procedures evolution had to have taken, to have created
such complex machines. To think, it just happen through aimless, >>>>>>>>>> mindless processes takes great faith. If there is a mind beyond ours.
The best explanation is deliberate purposeful design. And who can state,
for an absolute fact there isn't a greater mind. This, places the >>>>>>>>>> burden, upon those who disagreed, to falsify the existence of this mind..
Nobody is under any obligation to convince you of anything. >>>>>>>>>
observation which neither I nor you or nor anyone else can possibly know.
One thing that is very convenient about your view is that you provide no specific characteristics of the designer and even allow that the designer might not exist any more - that makes your view immune to testing, much less disproof.
subject. But in response to your issue.
Design is frequently self-evident. When divers first observed the >>>>>> antikythera device in an ancient shipwreck, at the bottom of the >>>>>> Mediterranean sea. The device was recognized as designed, although its
purpose was totally unknown.
For heaven's sake that nonsense does not get better by repeating it. There
are instructions on how to use it written on it, in a known language, >>>>>
a design, a design that was self evident, even though, no one knew its >>>> purpose nor its designer.
Does not really help you at all. At the time of the discovery, the age of
the machine was also unknown. So the design inference was even more
straightforward: this looks just like the sort of thing we make:
that the first people 1n the year 1901 knew what the device was or it
purpose or who designed and built it. Later when experts examined it
they drew the conclusions you mentioned.
That's just a supposition on your part and it's pretty far fetched.
it's a well known mechanism (gears) from a well known material that
we humans have been using for ages, (bronze) and you find things
like this in every gift shop in the Black Forest. For all they knew
at this point it was dropped from a passing holiday cruise ship and
got accidentally intermingled with older debris.
That the mechanism is
in any way special only became an issue after the first theories about >>> the designer were made and testedrding the instructions: in the device,
This simply is not true, I'm definitely interested in science. Butit's certain that when this object was brought up after 2000 years on >>>> the sea floor, the
language was unreadable, because of the debris that would be caked all. >>>> Later scholars, translated the instructions, discovered its purpose, but
not it's designer. So, in many case the design can be determined without
knowing a anything about the designer.
A hypothesis about design can be made- which is then tested. This then tells
us something about the designer, provided the design hypothesis is confirmed
That no "ID theorists" even attempts this makes clear they have no interest in
science
scientist are people with their biases and mistakes. Also there are
cases where certain scientist fudged their results. I lost my
grandmother, my mother and recently a sister from cancer. What I find so >> unbelievable, they treated my sister and my mother with the exact same
treatments, radiation and chemotherapy
over a period of 50+ years. It's amazing that with decades of fund
raising, testing nothing is changed. At one time polio was a fearful and >> deadly disease. But in the 1950's the Salk vaccine
was created. This brought new polio cases almost to a halt. I know I'm
being sarcastic, but who knows, maybe a lesson was learned with the Salk >> vaccine.
Of course
it was easy to identify it as designed. And with known designers, that isGreeks knew about brass 2000 years ago, however as far as techniques: it
humans form that period of time, using materials and techniques typical for
that time. geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the ancient world or indeed until >medieval cathedral clocks were built a millennium later.
wasn't until clock makers 1000 years later designed and built cathedral >>>> clock that any equally complex geared device was made.
(quote) "No other geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the >>>> ancient world or indeed until medieval cathedral clocks were built a >>>> millennium later."
But that is only a question of degree - and also questionable. I gave you
examples from oder mechanisms of a similar complexity,
I don't mean to be offensive, but I think encyclopedia Britannica is a
higher authority. And that is not what the encyclopedia says.
It's lovely that you accept the authority of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Here are a couple of additional quotations from Britannica's article on the Antikythera mechanism...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Antikythera-mechanism
"The Antikythera mechanism was fabricated out of bronze sheet, and originally it would have been in a case about the size of a shoebox. The doors of the case and the faces of the mechanism are covered with Greek inscriptions, enough of which survive
As other posters already told you, the device was inscribed with Greek text indicating its purpose. No doubt about the human design.
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this antikythera
device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I suspect they would
have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 years + on the sea floor,
how likely was it that divers could even see the Greek inscriptions,
could read the language or determined what it was its purpose or who designed it. But nevertheless, they recognized it as a design.
descriptions left by Marcus Tullius Cicero (1st century bce), that stretch from Archimedes (3rd century bce) to a poetic reference in the late 4th or early 5th century ce. The exact purpose of the Antikythera mechanism remains speculative, however. Nor"The Antikythera mechanism is the only known physical survivor of a long tradition of mechanical astronomical displays. The widespread existence of such devices can be inferred from references in Greco-Roman literature, particularly in the
As other posters have repeatedly told you, there are multiple references to such devices in the ancient world, and indeed your Britannica article suggests that they were "widespread."
and also links to bronze work of equal complexity (but without
function) . For every type of artefact, someone will always be
the first, and one will always be the most complex, nothing
particularly interesting follows from it.
And that we don't find closely similar artefacts tells you something
too - it was probably a bad idea to build it. Hugely expansive, and not very
durable (too many movable parts, with the wrong sort of material for them)
My guess would be it was an exhibition piece, not meant for real use, that
allowed the maker to demonstrate their skills and range of products, with
the customers then buying much less sophisticated but more reliable
models. Something we observe as design strategy through the ages
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Antikythera-mechanism
If you find in our DNA anywhere a copyright notice in Old English, than
and only than your analogy would make any sense.
Furthermore, the design was far more
complex than any other device known 2000 years ago. Here was a case >>>>>> where design was self-evident, and without knowing anything about the >>>>>> designer. A child observes a bicycle; the child recognizes design >>>>>> without knowing anything about the designer. To insist on knowing the >>>>>> designer before admitting a design is just a face-saving strategy. The 6
highly complex DNA proofreading and repair machines are self-evident >>>>>> design. This would be obvious to the person who is unbiased and >>>>>> uncommitted to naturalism and the prison it forces then into. They >>>>>> cannot consider anything outside this prison.
Here an example from genetic diseases: Klinefelter syndrome was
identified as a genetic disease in 1959. Yet recently, it was shown in a
1000 year old skeleton:
https://www.sciencealert.com/rare-genetic-syndrome-in-1000-year-old-skeleton-is-oldest-case-ever-found
As our diagnostic tools get better and better, of course we should
expect more and more diseases to be identified, that's why we >>>>>>>>>>>>> constantly improve on our methods and equipment.
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind --
requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it
can be called that) I have ever seen you make. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 2:46:30 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Ralph Page wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 20:46:04 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com>Such devices with the same complexity? The article doesn't say that. If
wrote:
Burkhard wrote:<Large snip>
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:26:27?AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
That's besides the point, at the time of discovery, it was recognized as >>>> a design, a design that was self evident, even though, no one knew its >>>> purpose nor its designer. Regarding the instructions: in the device,One thing that is very convenient about your view is that you provide no specific characteristics of the designer and even allow that the designer might not exist any more - that makes your view immune to testing, much less disproof.You cannot answer my question so, you avoid it by introducing a another >>>>>> subject. But in response to your issue.
Design is frequently self-evident. When divers first observed the
antikythera device in an ancient shipwreck, at the bottom of the
Mediterranean sea. The device was recognized as designed, although its >>>>>> purpose was totally unknown.
For heaven's sake that nonsense does not get better by repeating it. There
are instructions on how to use it written on it, in a known language, >>>>>
it's certain that when this object was brought up after 2000 years on
the sea floor, the
language was unreadable, because of the debris that would be caked all. >>>> Later scholars, translated the instructions, discovered its purpose, but >>>> not it's designer. So, in many case the design can be determined without >>>> knowing a anything about the designer.
Of course
it was easy to identify it as designed. And with known designers, that is >>>>> humans form that period of time, using materials and techniques typical forGreeks knew about brass 2000 years ago, however as far as techniques: it >>>> wasn't until clock makers 1000 years later designed and built cathedral >>>> clock that any equally complex geared device was made.
that time. geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the ancient world or indeed until >medieval cathedral clocks were built a millennium later.
(quote)
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Antikythera-mechanism
Your reference (linked above) also says this:
"The Antikythera mechanism is the only known physical survivor of a long >>> tradition of mechanical astronomical displays. The widespread existence of >>> such devices can be inferred from references in Greco-Roman literature,
particularly in the descriptions left by Marcus Tullius Cicero (1st century >>> bce), that stretch from Archimedes (3rd century bce) to a poetic reference >>> in the late 4th or early 5th century ce. "
it did, then it would mean that the comment from Britannica is
contradicting itself when it stated that: "No other geared mechanism of
such complexity is known from the
ancient world or indeed until medieval cathedral clocks were built a
millennium later."
That is what other posters have pointed out to you more than once regarding >>> the device and you apparently ignored or forgot it.So, what you're saying that Encyclopedia Britannica contradicted itself.
I don't agree.
This suggest that the other described artifacts of the period while
similar, but were less complex than the antikythera device.
I believe you misread the Britannica article. There is indeed no other surviving physical artifact of similar > >complexity. There are, however, written descriptions of similar artifacts. Britannica and I are perfectly >consistent.
..
Its the only knownSo, what's implied is the same as clear evidence? I don't think so!
extant example of a complex geared device from that time period but there >>> is clear evidence that other similar devices existed in that time frame. >>>
I believe what I write.
This kind of behavior on your part is irritating and results in the rude >>> responses from folks like Lawyer Daggett that you find unacceptable.
Anyone can disagree with anything I write or say. But I do not lie and
But anyone who attacks my character, that person is dead to me. I will
never read or respond to him/her again. You don't kill the messenge by
shooting the messenger.
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 3:46:30 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:to indicate clearly much of the device’s astronomical, or calendrical, purpose."
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:41:30 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:....
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:46:28 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> Burkhard wrote:This device was found in an ancient shipwreck, there is little doubt
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:26:27 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:That's besides the point, at the time of discovery, it was recognized as >>>>>> a design, a design that was self evident, even though, no one knew its >>>>>> purpose nor its designer.
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 7:01:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:You cannot answer my question so, you avoid it by introducing a another
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:06:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Of course not, where have I made any such claim? All I did was state an
Burkhard wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 8:16:26 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:That's how proofreading and repair comes across. So far, all that been
Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:So, you're claiming that things have always been the same. They were
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There are over 6,000 known genetic disorders known, and you think these
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer
Martin Harran wrote:There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:People who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R)
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:I know.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's certainly not my opinion.
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates of
evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personally believe the process >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of
most modern
phyla during the Cambrian.
On what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is
biased and
your own isn't?
When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is
too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully
designed with planning and forethought. There is strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive
mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both
physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise,
and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant
past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better
than today.
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do
evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
6000+disorders were around 1000 years ago even 10000 years ago. And you
think what I wrote is complete fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are new genetic diseases being discovered even more often than
expected.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230125/newly-discovered-genetic-disease-more-common-than-expected.
It's you, that's living in a fantasy world.
So you think things only start to exist when we discover them? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
just discovered. Prove it!
I gave you the proof for genetic illnesses in the two citations that
you, as aways, failed to address.
This is riodiculous
That is indeed a fantasy world. In the real world, we discover e.g. new
islands all the time - do yo think that means that new islands are
created constantly too?
It is indeed - so why do you keep posting such
nonsense?
posted as an explanation as to how and why a random, aimless, mindless
natural process was able, via hit and miss methods, to evolved the six
DNA proofreading and repair machines. Supposition, hypothesis and theories
are little better than guesswork. No one can really know the multiple
processes and procedures evolution had to have taken, to have created
such complex machines. To think, it just happen through aimless, >>>>>>>>>>>> mindless processes takes great faith. If there is a mind beyond ours.
The best explanation is deliberate purposeful design. And who can state,
for an absolute fact there isn't a greater mind. This, places the >>>>>>>>>>>> burden, upon those who disagreed, to falsify the existence of this mind..
Nobody is under any obligation to convince you of anything. >>>>>>>>>>>
observation which neither I nor you or nor anyone else can possibly know.
One thing that is very convenient about your view is that you provide no specific characteristics of the designer and even allow that the designer might not exist any more - that makes your view immune to testing, much less disproof.
subject. But in response to your issue.
Design is frequently self-evident. When divers first observed the >>>>>>>> antikythera device in an ancient shipwreck, at the bottom of the >>>>>>>> Mediterranean sea. The device was recognized as designed, although its >>>>>>>> purpose was totally unknown.
For heaven's sake that nonsense does not get better by repeating it. There
are instructions on how to use it written on it, in a known language, >>>>>>>
Does not really help you at all. At the time of the discovery, the age of >>>>> the machine was also unknown. So the design inference was even more
straightforward: this looks just like the sort of thing we make:
that the first people 1n the year 1901 knew what the device was or it
purpose or who designed and built it. Later when experts examined it
they drew the conclusions you mentioned.
That's just a supposition on your part and it's pretty far fetched.
it's a well known mechanism (gears) from a well known material that
we humans have been using for ages, (bronze) and you find things
like this in every gift shop in the Black Forest. For all they knew
at this point it was dropped from a passing holiday cruise ship and
got accidentally intermingled with older debris.
That the mechanism is
in any way special only became an issue after the first theories about >>>>> the designer were made and testedrding the instructions: in the device,
This simply is not true, I'm definitely interested in science. Butit's certain that when this object was brought up after 2000 years on >>>>>> the sea floor, the
language was unreadable, because of the debris that would be caked all. >>>>>> Later scholars, translated the instructions, discovered its purpose, but >>>>>> not it's designer. So, in many case the design can be determined without >>>>>> knowing a anything about the designer.
A hypothesis about design can be made- which is then tested. This then tells
us something about the designer, provided the design hypothesis is confirmed
That no "ID theorists" even attempts this makes clear they have no interest in
science
scientist are people with their biases and mistakes. Also there are
cases where certain scientist fudged their results. I lost my
grandmother, my mother and recently a sister from cancer. What I find so >>>> unbelievable, they treated my sister and my mother with the exact same >>>> treatments, radiation and chemotherapy
over a period of 50+ years. It's amazing that with decades of fund
raising, testing nothing is changed. At one time polio was a fearful and >>>> deadly disease. But in the 1950's the Salk vaccine
was created. This brought new polio cases almost to a halt. I know I'm >>>> being sarcastic, but who knows, maybe a lesson was learned with the Salk >>>> vaccine.
Of course
it was easy to identify it as designed. And with known designers, that isGreeks knew about brass 2000 years ago, however as far as techniques: it >>>>>> wasn't until clock makers 1000 years later designed and built cathedral >>>>>> clock that any equally complex geared device was made.
humans form that period of time, using materials and techniques typical for
that time. geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the ancient world or indeed until >medieval cathedral clocks were built a millennium later.
(quote) "No other geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the >>>>>> ancient world or indeed until medieval cathedral clocks were built a >>>>>> millennium later."
But that is only a question of degree - and also questionable. I gave you >>>>> examples from oder mechanisms of a similar complexity,
I don't mean to be offensive, but I think encyclopedia Britannica is a >>>> higher authority. And that is not what the encyclopedia says.
It's lovely that you accept the authority of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Here are a couple of additional quotations from Britannica's article on the Antikythera mechanism...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Antikythera-mechanism
"The Antikythera mechanism was fabricated out of bronze sheet, and originally it would have been in a case about the size of a shoebox. The doors of the case and the faces of the mechanism are covered with Greek inscriptions, enough of which survive
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this antikythera
As other posters already told you, the device was inscribed with Greek text indicating its purpose. No doubt about the human design.
device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I suspect they would
have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 years + on the sea floor,
how likely was it that divers could even see the Greek inscriptions,
could read the language or determined what it was its purpose or who
designed it. But nevertheless, they recognized it as a design.
They recognized it as something man-made.
descriptions left by Marcus Tullius Cicero (1st century bce), that stretch from Archimedes (3rd century bce) to a poetic reference in the late 4th or early 5th century ce. The exact purpose of the Antikythera mechanism remains speculative, however. Nor
"The Antikythera mechanism is the only known physical survivor of a long tradition of mechanical astronomical displays. The widespread existence of such devices can be inferred from references in Greco-Roman literature, particularly in the
As other posters have repeatedly told you, there are multiple references to such devices in the ancient world, and indeed your Britannica article suggests that they were "widespread."
and also links to bronze work of equal complexity (but without
function) . For every type of artefact, someone will always be
the first, and one will always be the most complex, nothing
particularly interesting follows from it.
And that we don't find closely similar artefacts tells you something >>>>> too - it was probably a bad idea to build it. Hugely expansive, and not very
durable (too many movable parts, with the wrong sort of material for them)
My guess would be it was an exhibition piece, not meant for real use, that
allowed the maker to demonstrate their skills and range of products, with >>>>> the customers then buying much less sophisticated but more reliable
models. Something we observe as design strategy through the ages
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Antikythera-mechanism
If you find in our DNA anywhere a copyright notice in Old English, than >>>>>>> and only than your analogy would make any sense.
Furthermore, the design was far more
complex than any other device known 2000 years ago. Here was a case >>>>>>>> where design was self-evident, and without knowing anything about the >>>>>>>> designer. A child observes a bicycle; the child recognizes design >>>>>>>> without knowing anything about the designer. To insist on knowing the >>>>>>>> designer before admitting a design is just a face-saving strategy. The 6
highly complex DNA proofreading and repair machines are self-evident >>>>>>>> design. This would be obvious to the person who is unbiased and >>>>>>>> uncommitted to naturalism and the prison it forces then into. They >>>>>>>> cannot consider anything outside this prison.
Here an example from genetic diseases: Klinefelter syndrome was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identified as a genetic disease in 1959. Yet recently, it was shown in a
1000 year old skeleton:
https://www.sciencealert.com/rare-genetic-syndrome-in-1000-year-old-skeleton-is-oldest-case-ever-found
As our diagnostic tools get better and better, of course we should
expect more and more diseases to be identified, that's why we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constantly improve on our methods and equipment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind --
requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it
can be called that) I have ever seen you make. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
broger...@gmail.com wrote:survive to indicate clearly much of the device’s astronomical, or calendrical, purpose."
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 3:46:30 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:41:30 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:....
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 1:46:28 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> Burkhard wrote:This device was found in an ancient shipwreck, there is little doubt >>>> that the first people 1n the year 1901 knew what the device was or it >>>> purpose or who designed and built it. Later when experts examined it >>>> they drew the conclusions you mentioned.
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:26:27 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:That's besides the point, at the time of discovery, it was recognized as
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 7:01:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:You cannot answer my question so, you avoid it by introducing a another
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:06:26 PM UTC-4, Ron Dean wrote:Of course not, where have I made any such claim? All I did was state an
Burkhard wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 8:16:26 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:That's how proofreading and repair comes across. So far, all that been
Burkhard wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 7:01:25 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:So, you're claiming that things have always been the same. They were
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-10-30 23:59:02 +0000, Ron Dean said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There are over 6,000 known genetic disorders known, and you think these
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 10/29/23 9:56 AM, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin Harran wrote:As time passes genetic diseases and disorders are increasing, cancer
There are also multiple lines of strong *direct* evidence *against*On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 15:25:18 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:People who simply say that DNA proofreading and repair (P&R)
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2023 00:14:54 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I know.
Martin Harran wrote:When you start a sentence with "I personally believe ...", you are
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 01:22:52 -0400, Ron Dean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's certainly not my opinion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[...]
Okay, what I've learned is from the cites that advocates ofOn what basis do you decide that someone else's opinion is
evolution
established. The view, is of course, they evolved. That's too
easy. It's a biased opinion. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personally believe the process >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is as inexplicable as the origin or life, or the origin of
most modern
phyla during the Cambrian. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
biased and
your own isn't?
expressing an opinion.
So why don't you answer my original question - nn what basis do you
decide that someone else's opinion is biased and your own isn't?
evolved? Without solid empirical evidence, to say they evolved is
too easy. This is an opinion. My opinion that P&R was purposefully
designed with planning and forethought. There is strong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> circumstantial evidence for design based on the reality of excessive
mutations is unacceptable due to the horrific diseases and both
physical and mental. To recognize this, requires mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
design. You even touch on some of it above (horrific diseases which,
per the design hypothesis, were deliberately created). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
for example. As time passes genetic diseases will continue to rise,
and new disorders are discovered. I would suggest that in the distant
past DNA proofreading and repair was more efficient and much better
than today.
And your evidence for that is...? No, wait, I forgot, you don't do
evidence. Your statement seems to be complete fantasy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
6000+disorders were around 1000 years ago even 10000 years ago. And you
think what I wrote is complete fantasy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are new genetic diseases being discovered even more often than
expected.
https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/news/20230125/newly-discovered-genetic-disease-more-common-than-expected.
It's you, that's living in a fantasy world.
So you think things only start to exist when we discover them?
just discovered. Prove it!
I gave you the proof for genetic illnesses in the two citations that
you, as aways, failed to address.
This is riodiculous
That is indeed a fantasy world. In the real world, we discover e.g. new
islands all the time - do yo think that means that new islands are
created constantly too?
It is indeed - so why do you keep posting such
nonsense?
posted as an explanation as to how and why a random, aimless, mindless
natural process was able, via hit and miss methods, to evolved the six
DNA proofreading and repair machines. Supposition, hypothesis and theories
are little better than guesswork. No one can really know the multiple
processes and procedures evolution had to have taken, to have created
such complex machines. To think, it just happen through aimless,
mindless processes takes great faith. If there is a mind beyond ours.
The best explanation is deliberate purposeful design. And who can state,
for an absolute fact there isn't a greater mind. This, places the
burden, upon those who disagreed, to falsify the existence of this mind..
Nobody is under any obligation to convince you of anything. >>>>>>>>>>>
observation which neither I nor you or nor anyone else can possibly know.
One thing that is very convenient about your view is that you provide no specific characteristics of the designer and even allow that the designer might not exist any more - that makes your view immune to testing, much less disproof.
subject. But in response to your issue.
Design is frequently self-evident. When divers first observed the >>>>>>>> antikythera device in an ancient shipwreck, at the bottom of the >>>>>>>> Mediterranean sea. The device was recognized as designed, although its
purpose was totally unknown.
For heaven's sake that nonsense does not get better by repeating it. There
are instructions on how to use it written on it, in a known language,
a design, a design that was self evident, even though, no one knew its
purpose nor its designer.
Does not really help you at all. At the time of the discovery, the age of
the machine was also unknown. So the design inference was even more >>>>> straightforward: this looks just like the sort of thing we make:
That's just a supposition on your part and it's pretty far fetched. >>>>>
it's a well known mechanism (gears) from a well known material that >>>>> we humans have been using for ages, (bronze) and you find things
like this in every gift shop in the Black Forest. For all they knew >>>>> at this point it was dropped from a passing holiday cruise ship and >>>>> got accidentally intermingled with older debris.
That the mechanism is
in any way special only became an issue after the first theories about >>>>> the designer were made and testedrding the instructions: in the device,
This simply is not true, I'm definitely interested in science. Butit's certain that when this object was brought up after 2000 years on >>>>>> the sea floor, the
language was unreadable, because of the debris that would be caked all.
Later scholars, translated the instructions, discovered its purpose, but
not it's designer. So, in many case the design can be determined without
knowing a anything about the designer.
A hypothesis about design can be made- which is then tested. This then tells
us something about the designer, provided the design hypothesis is confirmed
That no "ID theorists" even attempts this makes clear they have no interest in
science
scientist are people with their biases and mistakes. Also there are >>>> cases where certain scientist fudged their results. I lost my
grandmother, my mother and recently a sister from cancer. What I find so
unbelievable, they treated my sister and my mother with the exact same >>>> treatments, radiation and chemotherapy
over a period of 50+ years. It's amazing that with decades of fund
raising, testing nothing is changed. At one time polio was a fearful and
deadly disease. But in the 1950's the Salk vaccine
was created. This brought new polio cases almost to a halt. I know I'm >>>> being sarcastic, but who knows, maybe a lesson was learned with the Salk
vaccine.
Of course
it was easy to identify it as designed. And with known designers, that isGreeks knew about brass 2000 years ago, however as far as techniques: it
humans form that period of time, using materials and techniques typical for
that time. geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the ancient world or indeed until >medieval cathedral clocks were built a millennium later.
wasn't until clock makers 1000 years later designed and built cathedral
clock that any equally complex geared device was made.
(quote) "No other geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the
ancient world or indeed until medieval cathedral clocks were built a >>>>>> millennium later."
But that is only a question of degree - and also questionable. I gave you
examples from oder mechanisms of a similar complexity,
I don't mean to be offensive, but I think encyclopedia Britannica is a >>>> higher authority. And that is not what the encyclopedia says.
It's lovely that you accept the authority of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Here are a couple of additional quotations from Britannica's article on the Antikythera mechanism...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Antikythera-mechanism
"The Antikythera mechanism was fabricated out of bronze sheet, and originally it would have been in a case about the size of a shoebox. The doors of the case and the faces of the mechanism are covered with Greek inscriptions, enough of which
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this antikythera
As other posters already told you, the device was inscribed with Greek text indicating its purpose. No doubt about the human design.
device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I suspect they would
have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 years + on the sea floor,
how likely was it that divers could even see the Greek inscriptions,
could read the language or determined what it was its purpose or who
designed it. But nevertheless, they recognized it as a design.
They recognized it as something man-made.
I'm sure they did, as for the divers they knew of no other alternative designers.
descriptions left by Marcus Tullius Cicero (1st century bce), that stretch from Archimedes (3rd century bce) to a poetic reference in the late 4th or early 5th century ce. The exact purpose of the Antikythera mechanism remains speculative, however. Nor
"The Antikythera mechanism is the only known physical survivor of a long tradition of mechanical astronomical displays. The widespread existence of such devices can be inferred from references in Greco-Roman literature, particularly in the
As other posters have repeatedly told you, there are multiple references to such devices in the ancient world, and indeed your Britannica article suggests that they were "widespread."
and also links to bronze work of equal complexity (but without
function) . For every type of artefact, someone will always be
the first, and one will always be the most complex, nothing
particularly interesting follows from it.
And that we don't find closely similar artefacts tells you something >>>>> too - it was probably a bad idea to build it. Hugely expansive, and not very
durable (too many movable parts, with the wrong sort of material for them)
My guess would be it was an exhibition piece, not meant for real use, that
allowed the maker to demonstrate their skills and range of products, with
the customers then buying much less sophisticated but more reliable >>>>> models. Something we observe as design strategy through the ages
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Antikythera-mechanism
If you find in our DNA anywhere a copyright notice in Old English, than
and only than your analogy would make any sense.
Furthermore, the design was far more
complex than any other device known 2000 years ago. Here was a case >>>>>>>> where design was self-evident, and without knowing anything about the
designer. A child observes a bicycle; the child recognizes design >>>>>>>> without knowing anything about the designer. To insist on knowing the
designer before admitting a design is just a face-saving strategy. The 6
highly complex DNA proofreading and repair machines are self-evident
design. This would be obvious to the person who is unbiased and >>>>>>>> uncommitted to naturalism and the prison it forces then into. They >>>>>>>> cannot consider anything outside this prison.
Here an example from genetic diseases: Klinefelter syndrome was
identified as a genetic disease in 1959. Yet recently, it was shown in a
1000 year old skeleton:
https://www.sciencealert.com/rare-genetic-syndrome-in-1000-year-old-skeleton-is-oldest-case-ever-found
As our diagnostic tools get better and better, of course we should
expect more and more diseases to be identified, that's why we
constantly improve on our methods and equipment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To not recognize
that evidence -- to act as though it has never entered your mind --
requires bias. Indeed, I think your bias is the only argument (if it
can be called that) I have ever seen you make. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 2:46:30 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Ralph Page wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 20:46:04 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com>Such devices with the same complexity? The article doesn't say that. If >> it did, then it would mean that the comment from Britannica is
wrote:
Burkhard wrote:<Large snip>
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:26:27?AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
That's besides the point, at the time of discovery, it was recognized asOne thing that is very convenient about your view is that you provide no specific characteristics of the designer and even allow that the designer might not exist any more - that makes your view immune to testing, much less disproof.You cannot answer my question so, you avoid it by introducing a another
subject. But in response to your issue.
Design is frequently self-evident. When divers first observed the >>>>>> antikythera device in an ancient shipwreck, at the bottom of the >>>>>> Mediterranean sea. The device was recognized as designed, although its
purpose was totally unknown.
For heaven's sake that nonsense does not get better by repeating it. There
are instructions on how to use it written on it, in a known language, >>>>>
a design, a design that was self evident, even though, no one knew its >>>> purpose nor its designer. Regarding the instructions: in the device, >>>> it's certain that when this object was brought up after 2000 years on >>>> the sea floor, the
language was unreadable, because of the debris that would be caked all. >>>> Later scholars, translated the instructions, discovered its purpose, but
not it's designer. So, in many case the design can be determined without
knowing a anything about the designer.
Of course
it was easy to identify it as designed. And with known designers, that isGreeks knew about brass 2000 years ago, however as far as techniques: it
humans form that period of time, using materials and techniques typical for
that time. geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the ancient world or indeed until >medieval cathedral clocks were built a millennium later.
wasn't until clock makers 1000 years later designed and built cathedral >>>> clock that any equally complex geared device was made.
(quote)
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Antikythera-mechanism
Your reference (linked above) also says this:
"The Antikythera mechanism is the only known physical survivor of a long >>> tradition of mechanical astronomical displays. The widespread existence of
such devices can be inferred from references in Greco-Roman literature, >>> particularly in the descriptions left by Marcus Tullius Cicero (1st century
bce), that stretch from Archimedes (3rd century bce) to a poetic reference
in the late 4th or early 5th century ce. "
contradicting itself when it stated that: "No other geared mechanism of >> such complexity is known from the
ancient world or indeed until medieval cathedral clocks were built a
millennium later."
That is what other posters have pointed out to you more than once regardingSo, what you're saying that Encyclopedia Britannica contradicted itself. >> I don't agree.
the device and you apparently ignored or forgot it.
This suggest that the other described artifacts of the period while
similar, but were less complex than the antikythera device.
I believe you misread the Britannica article. There is indeed no other surviving physical artifact of similar > >complexity. There are, however, written descriptions of similar artifacts. Britannica and I are perfectly >consistent.
And there is this, lower in the same Britannica article:
"The exact purpose of the Antikythera mechanism remains speculative, however. Nor is it known if the bronze-geared technology and the
advanced mechanical design skills involved in its construction were exploited for other applications within the Greco-Roman world."
..
Its the only knownSo, what's implied is the same as clear evidence? I don't think so!
extant example of a complex geared device from that time period but there
is clear evidence that other similar devices existed in that time frame. >>>
But anyone who attacks my character, that person is dead to me. I will
This kind of behavior on your part is irritating and results in the rude >>> responses from folks like Lawyer Daggett that you find unacceptable.
Anyone can disagree with anything I write or say. But I do not lie and >> I believe what I write.
never read or respond to him/her again. You don't kill the messenge by
shooting the messenger.
Ron Dean wrote:....
And there is this, lower in the same Britannica article:
"The exact purpose of the Antikythera mechanism remains speculative, however. Nor is it known if the bronze-geared technology and the
advanced mechanical design skills involved in its construction were exploited for other applications within the Greco-Roman world."
Yes, and so.....?
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this antikythera[...]
device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I suspect they would
have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 years + on the sea floor,
how likely was it that divers could even see the Greek inscriptions,
could read the language or determined what it was its purpose or who
designed it. But nevertheless, they recognized it as a design.
Ralph Page wrote:
On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 20:46:04 -0400, Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
wrote:
Burkhard wrote:<Large snip>
On Friday, November 3, 2023 at 1:26:27?AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
That's besides the point, at the time of discovery, it was recognized as >>> a design, a design that was self evident, even though, no one knew itsOne thing that is very convenient about your view is that you provide no specific characteristics of the designer and even allow that the designer might not exist any more - that makes your view immune to testing, much less disproof.You cannot answer my question so, you avoid it by introducing a another >>>>> subject. But in response to your issue.
Design is frequently self-evident. When divers first observed the
antikythera device in an ancient shipwreck, at the bottom of the
Mediterranean sea. The device was recognized as designed, although its >>>>> purpose was totally unknown.
For heaven's sake that nonsense does not get better by repeating it. There >>>> are instructions on how to use it written on it, in a known language,
purpose nor its designer. Regarding the instructions: in the device,
it's certain that when this object was brought up after 2000 years on
the sea floor, the
language was unreadable, because of the debris that would be caked all.
Later scholars, translated the instructions, discovered its purpose, but >>> not it's designer. So, in many case the design can be determined without >>> knowing a anything about the designer.
Of course
it was easy to identify it as designed. And with known designers, that is >>>> humans form that period of time, using materials and techniques typical forGreeks knew about brass 2000 years ago, however as far as techniques: it >>> wasn't until clock makers 1000 years later designed and built cathedral
that time. geared mechanism of such complexity is known from the ancient world or indeed until >medieval cathedral clocks were built a millennium later.
clock that any equally complex geared device was made.
(quote)
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Antikythera-mechanism
Your reference (linked above) also says this:
"The Antikythera mechanism is the only known physical survivor of a long
tradition of mechanical astronomical displays. The widespread existence of >> such devices can be inferred from references in Greco-Roman literature,
particularly in the descriptions left by Marcus Tullius Cicero (1st century >> bce), that stretch from Archimedes (3rd century bce) to a poetic reference >> in the late 4th or early 5th century ce. "
Such devices with the same complexity? The article doesn't say that. If
it did, then it would mean that the comment from Britannica is
contradicting itself when it stated that: "No other geared mechanism of >such complexity is known from the
ancient world or indeed until medieval cathedral clocks were built a
millennium later."
That is what other posters have pointed out to you more than once regarding >> the device and you apparently ignored or forgot it.
So, what you're saying that Encyclopedia Britannica contradicted itself.
I don't agree.
This suggest that the other described artifacts of the period while
similar, but were less complex than the antikythera device.
..
Its the only known
extant example of a complex geared device from that time period but there
is clear evidence that other similar devices existed in that time frame.
So, what's implied is the same as clear evidence? I don't think so!
I believe what I write.
This kind of behavior on your part is irritating and results in the rude
responses from folks like Lawyer Daggett that you find unacceptable.
Anyone can disagree with anything I write or say. But I do not lie and
But anyone who attacks my character, that person is dead to me. I will
never read or respond to him/her again. You don't kill the messenge by >shooting the messenger.
On 2023-11-05 15:55:18 +0000, Mark Isaak said:
On 11/4/23 8:08 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/3/23 6:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:That describes evolution. For this reason evolution is non-falsifiable. >>> It's so elastic that it can be stretched to a degree that it can "wrap
Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]Almost without exception the evidence that's claimed to support
Like I say: your understanding is appallingly poor. If I could find a >>>>>> harsher word than "appalling", I would use it, because you show again >>>>>> and again that you do not *want* to know the evidence for evolution. >>>>> >
evolution, could just as well be seen as evidence for design.
Duh. That, in fact, is the fatal weakness of design.
around" any discovery.
Not true. You confuse not-falsifiable with unfalsified. Evolution
could be falsified by any number of conceivable observations. For
example: Many examples of true chimeras, e.g. lion/goat/serpent
mash-ups; Darwin's original idea of blended inheritance being reality;
a fossil record showing a long period with no life followed by a period
up to the present day showing life in its present form; a
communication, accompanied by convincing demonstrations, from aliens
telling how they created life.
You might argue that evolution is unfalsifiable because none of those
could reasonably be expected to be found. But that's not what
falsifiability is all about. FalsifIABLE means falsifying tests are
conceivable; falsifIED means those tests occurred and are fact.
Evolution is falsifiable but not falsified.
I am glad, however, that you at least recognize that the issue of
falsiability makes you own design idea worthless.
*Anything* can be
seen as evidence for it, because a superintelligent creator can create >>>> anything. The animal has two legs? Design! The animal has four legs?It's the same with evolution. You certainly think that there were
Design! The animal has eight legs? zero? five? 17 and a half? Design! >>>> The animal has ears on the side of its head? on the top of its head? on >>>> its legs? on its torso? in its mouth? Design!
ancestral fish without legs, that evolved into fish with legs. There
are several animals of different different classes, orders, families
and species that evolved 4 legs. No animal has 8 legs, however,
insects have 6 legs. caterpillars evolved 100 legs. Wherever ears,
noses etc were placed evolved in their locations or were designed where >>> they best served the animal within its environment. Then there is the >>> whale: how was the birth of newborns accomplished in water without
drowning? How was the newborn able to suckle during evolution without
drowning at some stage during evolutionary development?
Spiders and some other arthropods (and some starfish) have eight legs.
Caterpillars have six legs and some number of prolegs (I forget how
many, but much less than 100). There is at least one species of
centipede with more than 100 legs, and probably some millipedes too,
but I don't know if any species have exactly 100 legs.
Features that serve the animal within its environment is exactly what
you expect from evolution. *Exceptions* to that would better indicate
design. If, for example, I saw a zebra with bright red stripes that
spelled "Eat at Joe's", I would conclude designed was involved.
Unless, of course, you want to talk about actual design, the kind ofThe notion of some naturalist, who insist that it's necessary to know
design that we have experience with from conception to realization. But >>>> no intelligent design proponent wants to get anywhere near real design. >>>>
everything about the designer and if you do not, this absence
disqualifies design. This is a face saving strategy, akin to begging
off. Evidence is rarely objective and thus it's subject to
interpretation within an over-arching paradigm. Furthermore, design can >>> be self-evident.
You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true. Without knowing
*anything* about the designer (which you don't), you can not know
design. If you hypothesize design anyway, that design tells you
something about the designer. In the case of your hypothesis, it tells
us that at least some aspect of the designer is malicious.
Common design can be seen as evidence of a common designer. My uncleThe main evidence for evolution is the nested hierarchy of traits, both >>>>>> morphological and genetic. Nothing creates that pattern except common >>>>>> descent; design does not, unless the designer is trying to make it >>>>>> *look* like common descent instead of design.This could just as well be seen as support for a common designer. >
;
A common designer would use the same principles and devices when they >>>>> served the purpose.
Common design is a good engineering principle, it's unnecessary to
reinvent the wheel every time a wheels are needed.
No, it could *not* just as well be seen as support for a common
designer. Quite the opposite. Common descent is a very *bad*
engineering principle.
was a house builder. In my youth, I worked about three years for him. >>> He designed and used his own house plans over and over and over in
different locations. It was to his advantage to use the same plans,
rather than design new plans for different locations.
Common descent is an evolutionary principle where a gradual linkage
between species is unobserved. The absence of linkage between species
was a problem that was confronted by Darwin.
He was well aware if it.
This is why you get called a liar. Your claim has been disproven over
and over and over and over and over, and you deliberately ignore those
disproofs. You need only read Eldredge and Gould's original paper on
punctuated equilibrium for documentation of one of those linkages you
claim do not exist.
Ron Dean loves to give the impression that Gould and Eldredge would be
on his side. They wouldn't. In one of his books -- I forget which one;
it was one of the ones from the late 1990s or early 2000s that I didn't
much like -- Richard Dawkins reported a correspondence he had had with
Gould about the way the creationists like Ron Dean were distorting his
views to suggest that punctuated equilibrium somehow undermined the
theory of evolution. Gould apparently agreed that punctuated
equilibrium did no such thing and that it was a lie to claim that it
did. They agreed to write a joint letter, probably to Nature,
emphasizing their agreement on this point, but I don't know what became
of that. (Recall that Gould and Dawkins were not close buddies, and had >strong disagreements about some things, but not about that.)
[big snip of more such lies]
I think the time has come to stop being polite and to describe lies as
lies. They may be due to ignorance and stupidity rather than an
intention to deceive, but they're still lies.
Another issue is the fact that there were thousands and thousands of
trilobites divided into
10 groups orders or families that just appeared in the Cambrian with no >>> common ancestors.
Trilobites have a long history, which shows evolution.
And this bring us back the the why and how DNA proofreading and repair >>> machines came about by chance , random aimless natural processes in a
mindless universe. .
I do not lie, I believe whatever I write. I will not continue
You, of course, will ignore all that I have written and stay firmly >>>>>> attached to your evil designer hypothesis, and continue your lies that >>>>>> the fossil record is somehow a problem for evolution, not design. I >>>>>> hope this paragraph is wrong, but I doubt it.
corresponding with a person, when there are personal attacks on my
character.
You lie to yourself, which is arguably worse. Your persistent
mischaracterizations of punctuated equilibrium and the Antikythera
mechanism especially show that you refuse to let ideas contrary to your
beliefs into your consciousness. You have decided that, on evaluating
information, you outrank God.
This kind of behavior on your part is irritating and results in the rude responses from folks like Lawyer Daggett that you find unacceptable.
That describes evolution. For this reason evolution is non-falsifiable.
It's so elastic that it can be stretched to a degree that it can "wrap around" any discovery.
Evolution is non-falsifiable, therefore a philosophy.
No one has ever conceived a positive Pasteur type test.
Evolution maybe wrong, but absolutely no positive way to test it.
Consequently, it cannot be proven valid.
It's only a matter of faith.
On 05/11/2023 03:08, Ron Dean wrote:
That describes evolution. For this reason evolution is non-falsifiable.
It's so elastic that it can be stretched to a degree that it can "wrap
around" any discovery.
On a previous occasion when you claimed that evolution was
unfalsifiable, I responded as below.
On 07/03/2018 00:00, R. Dean wrote:
Evolution is non-falsifiable, therefore a philosophy.
As the term falsifiable is used in philosophy of science evolution is falsifiable. There are conceivable observations that would falsify
evolution. For example if there was no faunal succession in the fossil record. For example if there was no correlation between successive
faunas in the fossil record. For example if there was no correlation
between the nested hierarchies inferred from genetic and morphological
data. For example if species had individual genetic codes (please
remember the distinction between genome and genetic code) uncorrelated
with their position in the nested hierarchy.
As the term falsifiable is used in other contexts true statements are unfalsifiable. In this sense evolution might be unfalsifiable. But so
would be the second law of thermodynamics, or conservation of energy, or E=mc^2, or a several billion year old earth, or the existence of
fossils, or the composition of water as a compound of two gases. You
wouldn't call the second law of thermodynamics, or any of the others, a philosophy, so why do that for evolution?
No one has ever conceived a positive Pasteur type test.
The equivalent of a positive Pasteur type test for evolution would be
the Lenski experiment, or the Kishony experiment. Are you confusing abiogenesis and evolution again? The theory of evolution doesn't depend
on how life originated; life on earth could have originated by
spontaneous abiogenesis, or directed abiogenesis, or supernatural abiogenesis, or spontaneous (Hoylean) panspermia, or local panspermia (transfer from Mars), or accidental panspermia, or directed panspermia,
or interuniversal tranfer, or some possibility that has escaped my
attention or imagination - the theory of evolution works in any of those cases.
Evolution maybe wrong, but absolutely no positive way to test it.
Per Popper there's no positive way (verificationism) to test for
anything - you can always come up with another hypothesis, even if you
have to resort to omphalism, or simulationism, or solipism, or pop postmodernism, to explain away the evidence. That applies to everything,
not just evolution.
But if one takes a more nuanced view of evolution people test it all the time. Everytime someone sequences DNA from another species, or DNA from
a previously unsequenced locus in a previous studied species, they're
testing evolution. Everytime someone studies a new fossil they're
testing evolution.
Consequently, it cannot be proven valid.
Again per Popper nothing can be proven valid. Why are you singling out evolution?
It's only a matter of faith.
The only faith that is involved is that empirical observation is a
source of knowledge - that neither omphalism, simulationism, solipism or
pop postmodernism is true, and that the universe displays at least statistical regularities. Evolution requires no more additional faith
that the second law of thermodynamics, or special relativity, or quantum mechanics. By dismissing all of these as faith positions you are tacitly adopting a position of epistemological nihilism.
I suppose it's an advance of sorts when creationists recognise that
evolution is so well supported that they have to attack the idea of
empirical knowledge in order to support their position.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 21/10/2023 22:38, Ron Dean wrote:None of what I wrote above came from Bethe, Denton or Tour.
DNA Proofreading and repair is something that I very recently discovered. >>> However, I recently posted this topic on TO, but it received almost no
interest. After years of participating this newsgroup, I do not recall
ever seeing anything regarding this subject - which is not only
surprising,
but very curious.
I do not think the public a large is aware of this subject.
Furthermore, I doubt that any ID or creationist are aware of this info.
But this is an
amazing feature of DNA. I have noted that there are multiple sites
describing the functions of the five different mechanisms each dedicated >>> to particular a part of the DNA.
That's a rather low opinion of the ID community you have. If you think
Behe, Denton and Tour are so ignorant why do you place so much weight
on their opinions.
But rather from sites on the net. The sites go into great detail on how the
5 DNA proofreading and repair mechanisms function and how they accomplish this goal, but virtually nothing regarding how these detect and repair mechanisms originated.
However, the reality of these 5 proofreading and repair machines have all
the earmarks of design. It takes no faith to recognize design in
this. I strongly
suspect that a person completely unbiased and unfamiliar with modern scientific confinement and restrictions would recognize this as design from need, purpose, forethought and mind.
On 05/11/2023 03:08, Ron Dean wrote:
That describes evolution. For this reason evolution is non-falsifiable.
It's so elastic that it can be stretched to a degree that it can "wrap
around" any discovery.
On a previous occasion when you claimed that evolution was
unfalsifiable, I responded as below.
On 07/03/2018 00:00, R. Dean wrote:
Evolution is non-falsifiable, therefore a philosophy.
As the term falsifiable is used in philosophy of science evolution is falsifiable. There are conceivable observations that would falsify
evolution. For example if there was no faunal succession in the fossil record. For example if there was no correlation between successive
faunas in the fossil record. For example if there was no correlation
between the nested hierarchies inferred from genetic and morphological
data. For example if species had individual genetic codes (please
remember the distinction between genome and genetic code) uncorrelated
with their position in the nested hierarchy.
As the term falsifiable is used in other contexts true statements are unfalsifiable. In this sense evolution might be unfalsifiable. But so
would be the second law of thermodynamics, or conservation of energy, or E=mc^2, or a several billion year old earth, or the existence of
fossils, or the composition of water as a compound of two gases. You
wouldn't call the second law of thermodynamics, or any of the others, a philosophy, so why do that for evolution?
No one has ever conceived a positive Pasteur type test.
The equivalent of a positive Pasteur type test for evolution would be
the Lenski experiment, or the Kishony experiment. Are you confusing abiogenesis and evolution again? The theory of evolution doesn't depend
on how life originated; life on earth could have originated by
spontaneous abiogenesis, or directed abiogenesis, or supernatural abiogenesis, or spontaneous (Hoylean) panspermia, or local panspermia (transfer from Mars), or accidental panspermia, or directed panspermia,
or interuniversal tranfer, or some possibility that has escaped my
attention or imagination - the theory of evolution works in any of those cases.
Evolution maybe wrong, but absolutely no positive way to test it.
Per Popper there's no positive way (verificationism) to test for
anything - you can always come up with another hypothesis, even if you
have to resort to omphalism, or simulationism, or solipism, or pop postmodernism, to explain away the evidence. That applies to everything,
not just evolution.
But if one takes a more nuanced view of evolution people test it all the time. Everytime someone sequences DNA from another species, or DNA from
a previously unsequenced locus in a previous studied species, they're
testing evolution. Everytime someone studies a new fossil they're
testing evolution.
Consequently, it cannot be proven valid.
Again per Popper nothing can be proven valid. Why are you singling out evolution?
It's only a matter of faith.
The only faith that is involved is that empirical observation is a
source of knowledge - that neither omphalism, simulationism, solipism or
pop postmodernism is true, and that the universe displays at least statistical regularities. Evolution requires no more additional faith
that the second law of thermodynamics, or special relativity, or quantum mechanics. By dismissing all of these as faith positions you are tacitly adopting a position of epistemological nihilism.
I suppose it's an advance of sorts when creationists recognise that
evolution is so well supported that they have to attack the idea of
empirical knowledge in order to support their position.
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this antikythera[...]
device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I suspect they would
have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 years + on the sea
floor, how likely was it that divers could even see the Greek
inscriptions, could read the language or determined what it was its
purpose or who designed it. But nevertheless, they recognized it as a
design.
What's your point? You seem to be making a great deal out the fact that bronze gears found in a sunken ship can be recognized as man-made. So what? That is an utterly trivial observation.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:....
And there is this, lower in the same Britannica article:
"The exact purpose of the Antikythera mechanism remains speculative,
however. Nor is it known if the bronze-geared technology and the
advanced mechanical design skills involved in its construction were
exploited for other applications within the Greco-Roman world."
Yes, and so.....?
And So, indeed. The whole Antikithera subplot is
irrelevant to ID v. evolution. No one is going to
mistake something evolved for something designed that
does not reproduce.
The genetic proofreading debate has run its course
without anyone having seen support for ID.
Ron, you have similarly overbeaten the dead horses of
fine tuning and homeobox genes.
Do you have anything
new? Prebiotic chemistry, perhaps, or explain how the
nameless Designer implemented His design,
creation was by magic or natural means, or why we never
see radically new genomes with no apparent ancestors, or
how ID could potentially be falsified?
No one has ever conceived a positive Pasteur type test.
I've been trying without success to find the post where he wrote this,
so I'm in the dark as to what a Pasteur-type test is. Was he referring
to the fact that Pasteur injected a nine-year boy with a rabies vaccine,
and the boy recovered from being bitten by a rapid dog? Did that prove
that the vaccine cured the boy? Of course not: he could have recovered
anyway without treatment (not likely, from what we know of rabies, but
not impossible); aybe something in the food he was eating had an effect
on rabies; maybe it was the wish of the Great Designer in the Sky that
he should recover; maybe his parents prayed for recovery and God
answered their prayers. You may object that the last two possibilities
are the same, but remember that Ron Dean refuses to admit that his
Designer is God.
No one has ever conceived a positive Pasteur type test.
I've been trying without success to find the post where he wrote this,
so I'm in the dark as to what a Pasteur-type test is. Was he referring
to the fact that Pasteur injected a nine-year boy with a rabies vaccine,
and the boy recovered from being bitten by a rapid dog? Did that prove
that the vaccine cured the boy? Of course not: he could have recovered
anyway without treatment (not likely, from what we know of rabies, but
not impossible); aybe something in the food he was eating had an effect
on rabies; maybe it was the wish of the Great Designer in the Sky that
he should recover; maybe his parents prayed for recovery and God
answered their prayers. You may object that the last two possibilities
are the same, but remember that Ron Dean refuses to admit that his
Designer is God.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of who or
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this antikythera[...]
device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I suspect they
would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 years + on the
sea floor, how likely was it that divers could even see the Greek
inscriptions, could read the language or determined what it was its
purpose or who designed it. But nevertheless, they recognized it as a
design.
What's your point? You seem to be making a great deal out the fact
that bronze gears found in a sunken ship can be recognized as
man-made. So what? That is an utterly trivial observation.
what made it, because design was self-evident!
Mark Isaak wrote:What was self-evident was that it was man-made. They did not think "Ah, this must have been designed, therefore it must be man-made." They looked at it and recognized it as something people had constructed.
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this antikythera[...]
device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I suspect they would
have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 years + on the sea
floor, how likely was it that divers could even see the Greek
inscriptions, could read the language or determined what it was its
purpose or who designed it. But nevertheless, they recognized it as a
design.
What's your point? You seem to be making a great deal out the fact that bronze gears found in a sunken ship can be recognized as man-made. So what? That is an utterly trivial observation.
My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of who or
what made it, because design was self-evident!
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:Except that's not entirely true. They recognized it as man-made,
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of who or what made it, because design was self-evident!
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this antikythera[...]
device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I suspect they
would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 years + on the
sea floor, how likely was it that divers could even see the Greek
inscriptions, could read the language or determined what it was its
purpose or who designed it. But nevertheless, they recognized it as a >>> design.
What's your point? You seem to be making a great deal out the fact
that bronze gears found in a sunken ship can be recognized as
man-made. So what? That is an utterly trivial observation.
because its being man-made was self-evident. The "regardless of who or
what made it" is entirely your addition. I doubt anyone, even you,
would look at the device and say, "yup, there's a good chance it was manufactured by supernatural alien visitors."
--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
On 2023-11-06 14:59:07 +0000, Ernest Major said:
On 05/11/2023 03:08, Ron Dean wrote:
That describes evolution. For this reason evolution is non-falsifiable. >> It's so elastic that it can be stretched to a degree that it can "wrap
around" any discovery.
On a previous occasion when you claimed that evolution was
unfalsifiable, I responded as below.
On 07/03/2018 00:00, R. Dean wrote:
Evolution is non-falsifiable, therefore a philosophy.
As the term falsifiable is used in philosophy of science evolution is falsifiable. There are conceivable observations that would falsify evolution. For example if there was no faunal succession in the fossil record. For example if there was no correlation between successive
faunas in the fossil record. For example if there was no correlation between the nested hierarchies inferred from genetic and morphological data. For example if species had individual genetic codes (please
remember the distinction between genome and genetic code) uncorrelated with their position in the nested hierarchy.
As the term falsifiable is used in other contexts true statements are unfalsifiable. In this sense evolution might be unfalsifiable. But so would be the second law of thermodynamics, or conservation of energy, or E=mc^2, or a several billion year old earth, or the existence of
fossils, or the composition of water as a compound of two gases. You wouldn't call the second law of thermodynamics, or any of the others, a philosophy, so why do that for evolution?
I've been trying without success to find the post where he wrote this,No one has ever conceived a positive Pasteur type test.
so I'm in the dark as to what a Pasteur-type test is. Was he referring
to the fact that Pasteur injected a nine-year boy with a rabies
vaccine, and the boy recovered from being bitten by a rapid dog? Did
that prove that the vaccine cured the boy? Of course not: he could have recovered anyway without treatment (not likely, from what we know of
rabies, but not impossible); aybe something in the food he was eating
had an effect on rabies; maybe it was the wish of the Great Designer in
the Sky that he should recover; maybe his parents prayed for recovery
and God answered their prayers. You may object that the last two possibilities are the same, but remember that Ron Dean refuses to admit
that his Designer is God.
The equivalent of a positive Pasteur type test for evolution would be
the Lenski experiment, or the Kishony experiment. Are you confusing abiogenesis and evolution again? The theory of evolution doesn't depend
on how life originated; life on earth could have originated by
spontaneous abiogenesis, or directed abiogenesis, or supernatural abiogenesis, or spontaneous (Hoylean) panspermia, or local panspermia (transfer from Mars), or accidental panspermia, or directed panspermia,
or interuniversal tranfer, or some possibility that has escaped my attention or imagination - the theory of evolution works in any of those cases.
Evolution maybe wrong, but absolutely no positive way to test it.
Per Popper there's no positive way (verificationism) to test for
anything - you can always come up with another hypothesis, even if you have to resort to omphalism, or simulationism, or solipism, or pop postmodernism, to explain away the evidence. That applies to everything, not just evolution.
But if one takes a more nuanced view of evolution people test it all the time. Everytime someone sequences DNA from another species, or DNA from
a previously unsequenced locus in a previous studied species, they're testing evolution. Everytime someone studies a new fossil they're
testing evolution.
Consequently, it cannot be proven valid.
Again per Popper nothing can be proven valid. Why are you singling out evolution?
It's only a matter of faith.
The only faith that is involved is that empirical observation is a
source of knowledge - that neither omphalism, simulationism, solipism or pop postmodernism is true, and that the universe displays at least statistical regularities. Evolution requires no more additional faith
that the second law of thermodynamics, or special relativity, or quantum mechanics. By dismissing all of these as faith positions you are tacitly adopting a position of epistemological nihilism.
I suppose it's an advance of sorts when creationists recognise that evolution is so well supported that they have to attack the idea of empirical knowledge in order to support their position.
--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of who
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this antikythera[...]
device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I suspect they
would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 years + on the
sea floor, how likely was it that divers could even see the Greek
inscriptions, could read the language or determined what it was its
purpose or who designed it. But nevertheless, they recognized it as
a design.
What's your point? You seem to be making a great deal out the fact
that bronze gears found in a sunken ship can be recognized as
man-made. So what? That is an utterly trivial observation.
or what made it, because design was self-evident!
Except that's not entirely true. They recognized it as man-made,
because its being man-made was self-evident. The "regardless of who or
what made it" is entirely your addition. I doubt anyone, even you,
would look at the device and say, "yup, there's a good chance it was manufactured by supernatural alien visitors."
On 06/11/2023 17:17, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
No one has ever conceived a positive Pasteur type test.
I've been trying without success to find the post where he wrote this,
so I'm in the dark as to what a Pasteur-type test is. Was he referring
to the fact that Pasteur injected a nine-year boy with a rabies vaccine, and the boy recovered from being bitten by a rapid dog? Did that prove that the vaccine cured the boy? Of course not: he could have recovered anyway without treatment (not likely, from what we know of rabies, but
not impossible); aybe something in the food he was eating had an effect
on rabies; maybe it was the wish of the Great Designer in the Sky that
he should recover; maybe his parents prayed for recovery and God
answered their prayers. You may object that the last two possibilities
are the same, but remember that Ron Dean refuses to admit that his Designer is God.
Ron Dean recently asserted that he absolutely rejects creationism.
Unless he has a self-serving definition of creationism, that implies
that he unreservedly denied that his Designer is God.
El Kabong wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:....
And there is this, lower in the same Britannica article:
"The exact purpose of the Antikythera mechanism remains speculative,
however. Nor is it known if the bronze-geared technology and the
advanced mechanical design skills involved in its construction were
exploited for other applications within the Greco-Roman world."
Yes, and so.....?
And So, indeed. The whole Antikithera subplot is
irrelevant to ID v. evolution. No one is going to
mistake something evolved for something designed that
does not reproduce.
The genetic proofreading debate has run its course
without anyone having seen support for ID.
There is no rational natural cause for the rise of DNA proofreading and repair,
given the mindless, unguided and aimlessness of the universe. To
the open mind, that's totally unbiased, a purposeful design would come
across as the better explanation. This would have certainly been the
case before Darwin.
As to the issue of an unknown designer... there are
whole cadres of astronomers searching for intelligent signals from
distant locations in the cosmos. If they find what appears to be an intelligent designed signal, will they automatically discount it because
the designer would be unknown? I don't think so.
Ron, you have similarly overbeaten the dead horses of
fine tuning and homeobox genes.
I don't think so. The were thousand of species of trilobites in 10
groups, orders and families that appeared in the Cambrian without any evidence of a common ancestor. Some of these trilobites
had compound eyes virtually identical to modern dragon flies and bees.
There is no empirical evidence demonstrating the rise of these compound
eyes, which supposedly took millions of years to evolve.
Furthermore,
the eyes are common and ancient. Mouse eye genes were substituted
Do you have anything
new? Prebiotic chemistry, perhaps, or explain how the
nameless Designer implemented His design,
Don't know. The origin of life via natural systems is unknown. And as
far as we have been able to demonstrate life comes _only_ from
pre-existing life. There are no known exceptions.
I know the Christians
say that the living God breathed the breath of life into his creation
and man became a living being. Do you have a better explanation?
whether Its
creation was by magic or natural means, or why we never
see radically new genomes with no apparent ancestors, or
how ID could potentially be falsified?
As a agnostic,
one of things that started me questioning,
was the fact
that the universe, time, and space had a beginning so,
there had to be a
cause.
The cause could _not_ have come from within the universe, the
cause had to be peripheral or eternal to the universe.
The cause could
not be natural, since there was no nature at the beginning.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of who
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this antikythera >>>> device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I suspect they[...]
would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 years + on the
sea floor, how likely was it that divers could even see the Greek
inscriptions, could read the language or determined what it was its >>>> purpose or who designed it. But nevertheless, they recognized it as >>>> a design.
What's your point? You seem to be making a great deal out the fact
that bronze gears found in a sunken ship can be recognized as
man-made. So what? That is an utterly trivial observation.
or what made it, because design was self-evident!
Except that's not entirely true. They recognized it as man-made,
because its being man-made was self-evident. The "regardless of who or what made it" is entirely your addition. I doubt anyone, even you,
would look at the device and say, "yup, there's a good chance it was manufactured by supernatural alien visitors."
It seems to be a common conviction that in no case can design be
recognized without knowing about the designer and exactly how it accomplished its task. I suspect this is simply an easy way out. If
anyone has ever tried and justified this requirement. I don't remember it.
I believe there are instances where design would be recognized without knowing about the designer, such as organized signals from the stars,
(the WOW signal, had it repeated) the point is searchers thought, they
had found an intelligence out there somewhere, without knowing anything about a potential sender. There are astronomers searching for such
signals. Is this not a waste?
Archeologist dig up long burred cites, how
can they distinguish between a naturally fashioned ediface and a purposefully designed object, where there's decay and ruins throughout
the cite?
Someday, man will go to one of the moons of Jupiter or the Planet Mars
where there no evidence of living entities remain; will they discount
every structure as designed because the builders are unknown assuming
the presence of buildings? The Chinese claimed to have found structures
on the dark side of the moon. If this is true, and unless the designers
are identified, would structure be automatically discounted. In many professions there is a waste of talent and funds in their searches.
Someday, man will go to one of the moons of Jupiter or the Planet Mars
where there no evidence of living entities remain; will they discount
every structure as designed because the builders are unknown assuming
the presence of buildings?
The Chinese claimed to have found structures
on the dark side of the moon.
If this is true, and unless the designers
are identified, would structure be automatically discounted. In many professions there is a waste of talent and funds in their searches.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:It seems to be a common conviction that in no case can design be
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of who
[...]
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this antikythera
device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I suspect they
would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 years + on the
sea floor, how likely was it that divers could even see the Greek
inscriptions, could read the language or determined what it was its
purpose or who designed it. But nevertheless, they recognized it as
a design.
What's your point? You seem to be making a great deal out the fact
that bronze gears found in a sunken ship can be recognized as
man-made. So what? That is an utterly trivial observation.
or what made it, because design was self-evident!
Except that's not entirely true. They recognized it as man-made,
because its being man-made was self-evident. The "regardless of who
or what made it" is entirely your addition. I doubt anyone, even you,
would look at the device and say, "yup, there's a good chance it was
manufactured by supernatural alien visitors."
recognized without knowing about the designer and exactly how it
accomplished its task. I suspect this is simply an easy way out. If
anyone has ever tried and justified this requirement. I don't remember it.
I believe there are instances where design would be recognized without knowing about the designer, such as organized signals from the stars,
(the WOW signal, had it repeated) the point is searchers thought, they
had found an intelligence out there somewhere, without knowing anything
about a potential sender. There are astronomers searching for such
signals. Is this not a waste? Archeologist dig up long burred cites, how
can they distinguish between a naturally fashioned ediface and a
purposefully designed object, where there's decay and ruins throughout
the cite?
Someday, man will go to one of the moons of Jupiter or the Planet Mars
where there no evidence of living entities remain; will they discount
every structure as designed because the builders are unknown assuming
the presence of buildings? The Chinese claimed to have found structures
on the dark side of the moon. If this is true, and unless the designers
are identified, would structure be automatically discounted. In many professions there is a waste of talent and funds in their searches.
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:26:31?PM UTC-5, Ernest Major wrote:
On 06/11/2023 17:17, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
No one has ever conceived a positive Pasteur type test.
I've been trying without success to find the post where he wrote this,
so I'm in the dark as to what a Pasteur-type test is. Was he referring
to the fact that Pasteur injected a nine-year boy with a rabies vaccine, and the boy recovered from being bitten by a rapid dog? Did that prove that the vaccine cured the boy? Of course not: he could have recovered anyway without treatment (not likely, from what we know of rabies, but not impossible); aybe something in the food he was eating had an effect on rabies; maybe it was the wish of the Great Designer in the Sky that
he should recover; maybe his parents prayed for recovery and God
answered their prayers. You may object that the last two possibilities are the same, but remember that Ron Dean refuses to admit that his Designer is God.
"refuses to admit" is the fallacy of Begging the Question. You are
not much less fallacious in what you write, Ernest:
Ron Dean recently asserted that he absolutely rejects creationism.
Unless he has a self-serving definition of creationism, that implies
that he unreservedly denied that his Designer is God.
There are several definitions of "creationism," and the most self-serving one that
I have seen was the one Ron Okimoto clung to for several months: "belief in a creator".
That makes creationists of deists and theists and hence believers in most religions.
Yet Ron O was handled with kid gloves for it by all except the long-gone species immutabilist Ray Martinez, and myself.
So I think all talk of Ron Dean's definition being "self-serving" is a red herring,
and the only thing that could possibly change that is an unequivocal statement of what his (apparently unknown to others) definition is.
But now, on to the heart of the matter. The usual definition on talk.origins is that of believing God "poofed" all kinds [Hebrew: *min*] into existence.
The Bible thus seems to attribute separate creation of the cud-chewing cloven-hoofed cattle
and, e.g. horses, which have neither character.
But design does not entail any such drastic intervention. I often cite the words
of the agnostic Loren Eiseley, which speak of design without any such creation:
``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
had appeared.''
--Loren Eiseley, _The Immense Journey_, Vintage Books,
Alfred A. Knopf, inc. and Random House, inc., 1957, p. 52
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS What with my departmental duties and unexpected events on
the home front, it looks like I will only be doing one talk.origins post
per day (as happened last week, too) this week. This is the one for today.
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 7:06:31 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:It seems to be a common conviction that in no case can design be
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of who
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this antikythera >>>>>> device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I suspect they[...]
would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 years + on the >>>>>> sea floor, how likely was it that divers could even see the Greek
inscriptions, could read the language or determined what it was its >>>>>> purpose or who designed it. But nevertheless, they recognized it as >>>>>> a design.
What's your point? You seem to be making a great deal out the fact
that bronze gears found in a sunken ship can be recognized as
man-made. So what? That is an utterly trivial observation.
or what made it, because design was self-evident!
Except that's not entirely true. They recognized it as man-made,
because its being man-made was self-evident. The "regardless of who or
what made it" is entirely your addition. I doubt anyone, even you,
would look at the device and say, "yup, there's a good chance it was
manufactured by supernatural alien visitors."
recognized without knowing about the designer and exactly how it
accomplished its task. I suspect this is simply an easy way out. If
anyone has ever tried and justified this requirement. I don't remember it.
Ron, these point have been addressed by many posters many times. You seem to ignore everything you don't like.
No, nobody here claims that design cannot be recognized unless you know exactly how the designer accomplished its task and who the designer was.
I believe there are instances where design would be recognized without
knowing about the designer, such as organized signals from the stars,
(the WOW signal, had it repeated) the point is searchers thought, they
had found an intelligence out there somewhere, without knowing anything
about a potential sender. There are astronomers searching for such
signals. Is this not a waste?
Astronomers search for signals that would be devised by designers with similar thought processes to humans - they make a (sometimes implicit) hypothesis about the nature of potential alien designers and then base their search on that hypothesis.
even recognize the thing as having been designed.Archeologist dig up long burred cites, how
can they distinguish between a naturally fashioned ediface and a
purposefully designed object, where there's decay and ruins throughout
the cite?
They do it by comparing what they find to degraded remains of known human artifacts.
Someday, man will go to one of the moons of Jupiter or the Planet Mars
where there no evidence of living entities remain; will they discount
every structure as designed because the builders are unknown assuming
the presence of buildings? The Chinese claimed to have found structures
on the dark side of the moon. If this is true, and unless the designers
are identified, would structure be automatically discounted. In many
professions there is a waste of talent and funds in their searches.
If someone discovered something that looked like a structure that humans might build, they would perhaps conclude it was built by aliens with behavior and technology similar to humans. If the alien was sufficiently different from humans, we might not
The WOW signal is a good case to consider. Is it designed? It does
have some analogy to man-made signals: specifically, narrow bandwidth.
One occurrence is not enough to build a case on; it is possible that the signal was a reflected man-made signal. And one characteristic is not
enough to build a case on; it is possible that a natural process that we don't know about can produce such a signal. So its origin is best
described as unknown. It is still plenty interesting.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 7:06:31?PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:Ron, these point have been addressed by many posters many times. You seem to ignore everything you don't like.
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:It seems to be a common conviction that in no case can design be
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of who >>>>> or what made it, because design was self-evident!
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this antikythera >>>>>>> device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I suspect they >>>>>>> would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 years + on the >>>>>>> sea floor, how likely was it that divers could even see the Greek >>>>>>> inscriptions, could read the language or determined what it was its >>>>>>> purpose or who designed it. But nevertheless, they recognized it as >>>>>>> a design.[...]
What's your point? You seem to be making a great deal out the fact >>>>>> that bronze gears found in a sunken ship can be recognized as
man-made. So what? That is an utterly trivial observation.
Except that's not entirely true. They recognized it as man-made,
because its being man-made was self-evident. The "regardless of who or >>>> what made it" is entirely your addition. I doubt anyone, even you,
would look at the device and say, "yup, there's a good chance it was
manufactured by supernatural alien visitors."
recognized without knowing about the designer and exactly how it
accomplished its task. I suspect this is simply an easy way out. If
anyone has ever tried and justified this requirement. I don't remember it. >>
It's not that, if it's not rational, I reject it and as a rule, I
explain why I disagree. I do not know of anyone who has attempted to
explain why a designer must be known before design can be recognized as >purposeful design.
I realize that several people have "explained" how and why the six DNA >proofreading and repair mechanism came about, in a universe where
mindless, aimless unguided evolutionary processes accomplished the task.
But it seems to me that here, naturalist are resorting to faith.
I've
seen no evidence that demonstrates how and why DNA proofreading and
repair mechanics occurred through natural processes.
No, nobody here claims that design cannot be recognized unless you know exactly how the designer accomplished its task and who the designer was.
That's the impression I get!
It suffices to know some basic things about the designer - e.g. it used >technology available to other humans to build things that other humans
have built in roughly the ways other humans have built them.
This is unknown, but millions of people use devises and gadgets that
were products of technologies and methods totally unknown to them. All
they know is that these items were built by people. You can have a cell >phone and you can recognize it as a design in and of itself. I agree,
it's good to know that it was designed by man, but it was not necessary
to know anything about the designer because design is self- evident. It >could not just have happened.
I believe there are instances where design would be recognized without
knowing about the designer, such as organized signals from the stars,
(the WOW signal, had it repeated) the point is searchers thought, they
had found an intelligence out there somewhere, without knowing anything
about a potential sender. There are astronomers searching for such
signals. Is this not a waste?
Astronomers search for signals that would be devised by designers with similar thought processes to humans - they make a (sometimes implicit) hypothesis about the nature of potential alien designers and then base their search on that hypothesis.
Then how do we know that there are not countless signal being
transmitted from alien civilizations to other civilizations, that do not
fit our concept of what a signal should be?
even recognize the thing as having been designed.Archeologist dig up long burred cites, how
can they distinguish between a naturally fashioned ediface and a
purposefully designed object, where there's decay and ruins throughout
the cite?
They do it by comparing what they find to degraded remains of known human artifacts.
Someday, man will go to one of the moons of Jupiter or the Planet Mars
where there no evidence of living entities remain; will they discount
every structure as designed because the builders are unknown assuming
the presence of buildings? The Chinese claimed to have found structures
on the dark side of the moon. If this is true, and unless the designers
are identified, would structure be automatically discounted. In many
professions there is a waste of talent and funds in their searches.
If someone discovered something that looked like a structure that humans might build, they would perhaps conclude it was built by aliens with behavior and technology similar to humans. If the alien was sufficiently different from humans, we might not
Then our concept is extremely narrow and confined.
On 06/11/2023 17:17, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
No one has ever conceived a positive Pasteur type test.
I've been trying without success to find the post where he wrote this,
so I'm in the dark as to what a Pasteur-type test is. Was he referring
to the fact that Pasteur injected a nine-year boy with a rabies vaccine,
and the boy recovered from being bitten by a rapid dog? Did that prove
that the vaccine cured the boy? Of course not: he could have recovered
anyway without treatment (not likely, from what we know of rabies, but
not impossible); aybe something in the food he was eating had an effect
on rabies; maybe it was the wish of the Great Designer in the Sky that
he should recover; maybe his parents prayed for recovery and God
answered their prayers. You may object that the last two possibilities
are the same, but remember that Ron Dean refuses to admit that his
Designer is God.
It's a massive thread, but it's in here.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/RmJfq-PdDl0/m/vaGIrVd5CAAJ
The material I quote from him above is just the final paragraph of a
post, in which he tries to change the subject, so there's no additional >context for what a Pasteur type test is. I don't recall what I was
thinking 5 years ago, but I suspect I interpreted it to be Pasteur's >disproof of spontaneous generation and by implication demonstration of
germ theory; that is a laboratory test of the theory.
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:26:31?PM UTC-5, Ernest Major wrote:
On 06/11/2023 17:17, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
No one has ever conceived a positive Pasteur type test.
I've been trying without success to find the post where he wrote this,
so I'm in the dark as to what a Pasteur-type test is. Was he referring
to the fact that Pasteur injected a nine-year boy with a rabies vaccine, >> > and the boy recovered from being bitten by a rapid dog? Did that prove
that the vaccine cured the boy? Of course not: he could have recovered
anyway without treatment (not likely, from what we know of rabies, but
not impossible); aybe something in the food he was eating had an effect >> > on rabies; maybe it was the wish of the Great Designer in the Sky that
he should recover; maybe his parents prayed for recovery and God
answered their prayers. You may object that the last two possibilities
are the same, but remember that Ron Dean refuses to admit that his
Designer is God.
"refuses to admit" is the fallacy of Begging the Question. You are
not much less fallacious in what you write, Ernest:
Ron Dean recently asserted that he absolutely rejects creationism.
Unless he has a self-serving definition of creationism, that implies
that he unreservedly denied that his Designer is God.
There are several definitions of "creationism," and the most self-serving one that
I have seen was the one Ron Okimoto clung to for several months: "belief in a creator".
That makes creationists of deists and theists and hence believers in most religions.
Yet Ron O was handled with kid gloves for it by all except the long-gone >species immutabilist Ray Martinez, and myself.
So I think all talk of Ron Dean's definition being "self-serving" is a red herring,
and the only thing that could possibly change that is an unequivocal >statement of what his (apparently unknown to others) definition is.
But now, on to the heart of the matter. The usual definition on talk.origins >is that of believing God "poofed" all kinds [Hebrew: *min*] into existence. >The Bible thus seems to attribute separate creation of the cud-chewing cloven-hoofed cattle
and, e.g. horses, which have neither character.
But design does not entail any such drastic intervention. I often cite the words
of the agnostic Loren Eiseley, which speak of design without any such creation:
``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
had appeared.''
--Loren Eiseley, _The Immense Journey_, Vintage Books,
Alfred A. Knopf, inc. and Random House, inc., 1957, p. 52
Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabong wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:There is no rational natural cause for the rise of DNA proofreading and
Ron Dean wrote:....
And there is this, lower in the same Britannica article:
"The exact purpose of the Antikythera mechanism remains speculative,
however. Nor is it known if the bronze-geared technology and the
advanced mechanical design skills involved in its construction were
exploited for other applications within the Greco-Roman world."
Yes, and so.....?
And So, indeed. The whole Antikithera subplot is
irrelevant to ID v. evolution. No one is going to
mistake something evolved for something designed that
does not reproduce.
The genetic proofreading debate has run its course
without anyone having seen support for ID.
repair,
There is, and it has been explained to you better than I
could.
given the mindless, unguided and aimlessness of the universe. To
the open mind, that's totally unbiased, a purposeful design would come
across as the better explanation. This would have certainly been the
case before Darwin.
These are only vague unsupported assumptions, connected
by logical leaps visible only to you.
As to the issue of an unknown designer... there are
whole cadres of astronomers searching for intelligent signals from
distant locations in the cosmos. If they find what appears to be an
intelligent designed signal, will they automatically discount it because
the designer would be unknown? I don't think so.
That's actually a good example. A sufficiently
non-random signal from space would be evidence for ET
intelligent life. It wouldn't indicate that Goddidit. I
would love to see such a discovery.
So far no such clear and convincing design marker has
been recognized in biology.
The lack of even a plausible candidate designer is a
gaping hole in your not-yet-a-hypothesis, let alone even
speculation of how design and creation were done. The
IDist refusal to even discuss this is a flashing red "now
spinning bullshit" sign.
God isn't rushing in to fill that gap.
Ron, you have similarly overbeaten the dead horses ofI don't think so. The were thousand of species of trilobites in 10
fine tuning and homeobox genes.
groups, orders and families that appeared in the Cambrian without any
evidence of a common ancestor. Some of these trilobites
had compound eyes virtually identical to modern dragon flies and bees.
That itself is evidence of common ancestry. Lack of
detailed fossil link (if such is actually lacking) could
be for several reasons, which i'm sure has been explained
to you as well.
Why do you assume trilobytes and arthropods are
unrelated?
There is no empirical evidence demonstrating the rise of these compound
eyes, which supposedly took millions of years to evolve.
[citation needed]
Furthermore,
the eyes are common and ancient. Mouse eye genes were substituted
This is why you need new material.
<snip mouse eye gene PRATTle>
Do you have anythingDon't know. The origin of life via natural systems is unknown. And as
new? Prebiotic chemistry, perhaps, or explain how the
nameless Designer implemented His design,
far as we have been able to demonstrate life comes _only_ from
pre-existing life. There are no known exceptions.
The origin of life via ID/magic is also unknown. There
are no known exceptions.
We know abiogenesis occurred at least once, unless you
claim life is eternal.
None of your claims above support ID.
I know the Christians
say that the living God breathed the breath of life into his creation
and man became a living being. Do you have a better explanation?
Yes.
whether Its
creation was by magic or natural means, or why we never
see radically new genomes with no apparent ancestors, or
how ID could potentially be falsified?
As a agnostic,
You are not an agnostic.
one of things that started me questioning,
You don't question, you simply believe.
was the fact
that the universe, time, and space had a beginning so,
Likely but impossible to establish as a "fact".
there had to be a
cause.
Pure assumption.
The cause could _not_ have come from within the universe, the
cause had to be peripheral or eternal to the universe.
Pure assumption.
The cause could
not be natural, since there was no nature at the beginning.
Pure assumption.
Your listening, learning, & reasoning skills are so poor,
you couldn't convince anyone the sky is blue. But please
do find new material and continue. You have a secret
commission to fulfill.
On 06/11/2023 17:17, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
No one has ever conceived a positive Pasteur type test.
I've been trying without success to find the post where he wrote this,
so I'm in the dark as to what a Pasteur-type test is. Was he referring
to the fact that Pasteur injected a nine-year boy with a rabies vaccine,
and the boy recovered from being bitten by a rapid dog? Did that prove
that the vaccine cured the boy? Of course not: he could have recovered
anyway without treatment (not likely, from what we know of rabies, but
not impossible); aybe something in the food he was eating had an effect
on rabies; maybe it was the wish of the Great Designer in the Sky that
he should recover; maybe his parents prayed for recovery and God
answered their prayers. You may object that the last two possibilities
are the same, but remember that Ron Dean refuses to admit that his
Designer is God.
Ron Dean recently asserted that he absolutely rejects creationism.
Unless he has a self-serving definition of creationism, that implies
that he unreservedly denied that his Designer is God.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 7:06:31 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:It seems to be a common conviction that in no case can design be
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of who >>>> or what made it, because design was self-evident!
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this antikythera >>>>>> device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I suspect they >>>>>> would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 years + on the >>>>>> sea floor, how likely was it that divers could even see the Greek >>>>>> inscriptions, could read the language or determined what it was its >>>>>> purpose or who designed it. But nevertheless, they recognized it as >>>>>> a design.[...]
What's your point? You seem to be making a great deal out the fact >>>>> that bronze gears found in a sunken ship can be recognized as
man-made. So what? That is an utterly trivial observation.
Except that's not entirely true. They recognized it as man-made,
because its being man-made was self-evident. The "regardless of who or >>> what made it" is entirely your addition. I doubt anyone, even you,
would look at the device and say, "yup, there's a good chance it was
manufactured by supernatural alien visitors."
recognized without knowing about the designer and exactly how it
accomplished its task. I suspect this is simply an easy way out. If
anyone has ever tried and justified this requirement. I don't remember it.
Ron, these point have been addressed by many posters many times. You seem to ignore everything you don't like.
It's not that, if it's not rational, I reject it and as a rule, I
explain why I disagree. I do not know of anyone who has attempted to
explain why a designer must be known before design can be recognized as purposeful design.
I realize that several people have "explained" how and why the six DNA proofreading and repair mechanism came about, in a universe where
mindless, aimless unguided evolutionary processes accomplished the task.
But it seems to me that here, naturalist are resorting to faith. I've
seen no evidence that demonstrates how and why DNA proofreading and
repair mechanics occurred through natural processes.
No, nobody here claims that design cannot be recognized unless you know exactly how the designer accomplished its task and who the designer was.
That's the impression I get!
It suffices to know some basic things about the designer - e.g. it used technology available to other humans to build things that other humans
have built in roughly the ways other humans have built them.
This is unknown, but millions of people use devises and gadgets that
were products of technologies and methods totally unknown to them. All
they know is that these items were built by people. You can have a cell phone and you can recognize it as a design in and of itself. I agree,
it's good to know that it was designed by man, but it was not necessary
to know anything about the designer because design is self- evident. It could not just have happened.
I believe there are instances where design would be recognized without
knowing about the designer, such as organized signals from the stars,
(the WOW signal, had it repeated) the point is searchers thought, they
had found an intelligence out there somewhere, without knowing anything >> about a potential sender. There are astronomers searching for such
signals. Is this not a waste?
Astronomers search for signals that would be devised by designers with similar thought processes to humans - they make a (sometimes implicit) hypothesis about the nature of potential alien designers and then base their search on that hypothesis.
Then how do we know that there are not countless signal being
transmitted from alien civilizations to other civilizations, that do not
fit our concept of what a signal should be?
even recognize the thing as having been designed.Archeologist dig up long burred cites, how
can they distinguish between a naturally fashioned ediface and a
purposefully designed object, where there's decay and ruins throughout
the cite?
They do it by comparing what they find to degraded remains of known human artifacts.
Someday, man will go to one of the moons of Jupiter or the Planet Mars
where there no evidence of living entities remain; will they discount
every structure as designed because the builders are unknown assuming
the presence of buildings? The Chinese claimed to have found structures >> on the dark side of the moon. If this is true, and unless the designers >> are identified, would structure be automatically discounted. In many
professions there is a waste of talent and funds in their searches.
If someone discovered something that looked like a structure that humans might build, they would perhaps conclude it was built by aliens with behavior and technology similar to humans. If the alien was sufficiently different from humans, we might not
Then our concept is extremely narrow and confined.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 7:06:31 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:It seems to be a common conviction that in no case can design be
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of who >>>> or what made it, because design was self-evident!
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this antikythera >>>>>> device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I suspect they >>>>>> would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 years + on the >>>>>> sea floor, how likely was it that divers could even see the Greek >>>>>> inscriptions, could read the language or determined what it was its >>>>>> purpose or who designed it. But nevertheless, they recognized it as >>>>>> a design.[...]
What's your point? You seem to be making a great deal out the fact >>>>> that bronze gears found in a sunken ship can be recognized as
man-made. So what? That is an utterly trivial observation.
Except that's not entirely true. They recognized it as man-made,
because its being man-made was self-evident. The "regardless of who or >>> what made it" is entirely your addition. I doubt anyone, even you,
would look at the device and say, "yup, there's a good chance it was
manufactured by supernatural alien visitors."
recognized without knowing about the designer and exactly how it
accomplished its task. I suspect this is simply an easy way out. If
anyone has ever tried and justified this requirement. I don't remember it.
Ron, these point have been addressed by many posters many times. You seem to ignore everything you don't like.
It's not that, if it's not rational, I reject it and as a rule, I
explain why I disagree. I do not know of anyone who has attempted to
explain why a designer must be known before design can be recognized as purposeful design.
I realize that several people have "explained" how and why the six DNA proofreading and repair mechanism came about, in a universe where
mindless, aimless unguided evolutionary processes accomplished the task.
But it seems to me that here, naturalist are resorting to faith. I've
seen no evidence that demonstrates how and why DNA proofreading and
repair mechanics occurred through natural processes.
No, nobody here claims that design cannot be recognized unless you know exactly how the designer accomplished its task and who the designer was.
That's the impression I get!
It suffices to know some basic things about the designer - e.g. it used technology available to other humans to build things that other humans
have built in roughly the ways other humans have built them.
This is unknown, but millions of people use devises and gadgets that
were products of technologies and methods totally unknown to them. All
they know is that these items were built by people. You can have a cell phone and you can recognize it as a design in and of itself. I agree,
it's good to know that it was designed by man, but it was not necessary
to know anything about the designer because design is self- evident. It could not just have happened.
I believe there are instances where design would be recognized without
knowing about the designer, such as organized signals from the stars,
(the WOW signal, had it repeated) the point is searchers thought, they
had found an intelligence out there somewhere, without knowing anything >> about a potential sender. There are astronomers searching for such
signals. Is this not a waste?
Astronomers search for signals that would be devised by designers with similar thought processes to humans - they make a (sometimes implicit) hypothesis about the nature of potential alien designers and then base their search on that hypothesis.
Then how do we know that there are not countless signal being
transmitted from alien civilizations to other civilizations, that do not
fit our concept of what a signal should be?
even recognize the thing as having been designed.Archeologist dig up long burred cites, how
can they distinguish between a naturally fashioned ediface and a
purposefully designed object, where there's decay and ruins throughout
the cite?
They do it by comparing what they find to degraded remains of known human artifacts.
Someday, man will go to one of the moons of Jupiter or the Planet Mars
where there no evidence of living entities remain; will they discount
every structure as designed because the builders are unknown assuming
the presence of buildings? The Chinese claimed to have found structures >> on the dark side of the moon. If this is true, and unless the designers >> are identified, would structure be automatically discounted. In many
professions there is a waste of talent and funds in their searches.
If someone discovered something that looked like a structure that humans might build, they would perhaps conclude it was built by aliens with behavior and technology similar to humans. If the alien was sufficiently different from humans, we might not
Then our concept is extremely narrow and confined.
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 17:38:11 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:26:31?PM UTC-5, Ernest Major wrote:
On 06/11/2023 17:17, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
No one has ever conceived a positive Pasteur type test.
I've been trying without success to find the post where he wrote this, >> > so I'm in the dark as to what a Pasteur-type test is. Was he referring >> > to the fact that Pasteur injected a nine-year boy with a rabies vaccine,
and the boy recovered from being bitten by a rapid dog? Did that prove >> > that the vaccine cured the boy? Of course not: he could have recovered >> > anyway without treatment (not likely, from what we know of rabies, but >> > not impossible); aybe something in the food he was eating had an effect >> > on rabies; maybe it was the wish of the Great Designer in the Sky that >> > he should recover; maybe his parents prayed for recovery and God
answered their prayers. You may object that the last two possibilities >> > are the same, but remember that Ron Dean refuses to admit that his
Designer is God.
"refuses to admit" is the fallacy of Begging the Question. You are
not much less fallacious in what you write, Ernest:
Ron Dean recently asserted that he absolutely rejects creationism.
Unless he has a self-serving definition of creationism, that implies
that he unreservedly denied that his Designer is God.
There are several definitions of "creationism," and the most self-serving one that
I have seen was the one Ron Okimoto clung to for several months: "belief in a creator".
That makes creationists of deists and theists and hence believers in most religions.
Yet Ron O was handled with kid gloves for it by all except the long-gone >species immutabilist Ray Martinez, and myself.
So I think all talk of Ron Dean's definition being "self-serving" is a red herring,
and the only thing that could possibly change that is an unequivocal >statement of what his (apparently unknown to others) definition is.
But now, on to the heart of the matter. The usual definition on talk.origins
is that of believing God "poofed" all kinds [Hebrew: *min*] into existence. >The Bible thus seems to attribute separate creation of the cud-chewing cloven-hoofed cattle
and, e.g. horses, which have neither character.
But design does not entail any such drastic intervention. I often cite the words
of the agnostic Loren Eiseley, which speak of design without any such creation:
``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
had appeared.''
--Loren Eiseley, _The Immense Journey_, Vintage Books,
Alfred A. Knopf, inc. and Random House, inc., 1957, p. 52
Humans design, so we know design doesn't require poofery, which makes
your comment above non-sequitur.
things cdesign proponentsists claim are designed, over the span of
time they claim, does require poofery from a supernatural agent.
This may be the only t.o.post I do today.
If not, then Mr. Tiib is next in line, but that may change if something
more pressing shows up later.
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 4:16:32?AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 17:38:11 -0800 (PST), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 2:26:31?PM UTC-5, Ernest Major wrote:
On 06/11/2023 17:17, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
No one has ever conceived a positive Pasteur type test.
I've been trying without success to find the post where he wrote this, >> >> > so I'm in the dark as to what a Pasteur-type test is. Was he referring >> >> > to the fact that Pasteur injected a nine-year boy with a rabies vaccine,
and the boy recovered from being bitten by a rapid dog? Did that prove >> >> > that the vaccine cured the boy? Of course not: he could have recovered >> >> > anyway without treatment (not likely, from what we know of rabies, but >> >> > not impossible); aybe something in the food he was eating had an effect
on rabies; maybe it was the wish of the Great Designer in the Sky that >> >> > he should recover; maybe his parents prayed for recovery and God
answered their prayers. You may object that the last two possibilities >> >> > are the same, but remember that Ron Dean refuses to admit that his
Designer is God.
"refuses to admit" is the fallacy of Begging the Question. You are
not much less fallacious in what you write, Ernest:
Ron Dean recently asserted that he absolutely rejects creationism.
Unless he has a self-serving definition of creationism, that implies
that he unreservedly denied that his Designer is God.
There are several definitions of "creationism," and the most self-serving one that
I have seen was the one Ron Okimoto clung to for several months: "belief in a creator".
That makes creationists of deists and theists and hence believers in most religions.
Yet Ron O was handled with kid gloves for it by all except the long-gone >> >species immutabilist Ray Martinez, and myself.
So I think all talk of Ron Dean's definition being "self-serving" is a red herring,
and the only thing that could possibly change that is an unequivocal
statement of what his (apparently unknown to others) definition is.
But now, on to the heart of the matter. The usual definition on talk.origins
is that of believing God "poofed" all kinds [Hebrew: *min*] into existence.
The Bible thus seems to attribute separate creation of the cud-chewing cloven-hoofed cattle
and, e.g. horses, which have neither character.
But design does not entail any such drastic intervention. I often cite the words
of the agnostic Loren Eiseley, which speak of design without any such creation:
``Perhaps there also, among rotting fish heads and blue,
night-burning bog lights, moved the eternal mystery,
the careful finger of God. The increase was not much.
It was two bubbles, two thin-walled little balloons at the
end of the Snout's small brain. The cerebral hemispheres
had appeared.''
--Loren Eiseley, _The Immense Journey_, Vintage Books,
Alfred A. Knopf, inc. and Random House, inc., 1957, p. 52
Thanks for keeping all of the above intact, jillery.
Humans design, so we know design doesn't require poofery, which makes
your comment above non-sequitur.
My comment above was contra Ernest Major's
clueless comment about Ron Dean having to have a strange
definition of "creationism" to say he is against it.
Poofery is the most common interpretation of "creationism,"
both here and in the big outside world. Creationism in
that sense denies common descent, which ID does not --
witness Michael Behe's numerous arguments FOR common descent
in two of his books. Also Loren Eiseley was unequivocally for
common descent and his whole book was a celebration of it.
That is why his comment, quoted above, is so valuable to this whole discussion.
things cdesign proponentsists claim are designed, over the span of
time they claim, does require poofery from a supernatural agent.
That's their problem, not mine, and I hope it isn't Ron Dean's either.
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of who
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this antikythera[...]
device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I suspect they
would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 years + on the
sea floor, how likely was it that divers could even see the Greek
inscriptions, could read the language or determined what it was its
purpose or who designed it. But nevertheless, they recognized it as
a design.
What's your point? You seem to be making a great deal out the fact
that bronze gears found in a sunken ship can be recognized as
man-made. So what? That is an utterly trivial observation.
or what made it, because design was self-evident!
Except that's not entirely true. They recognized it as man-made,
because its being man-made was self-evident. The "regardless of who or
what made it" is entirely your addition.
I doubt anyone, even you,
would look at the device and say, "yup, there's a good chance it was manufactured by supernatural alien visitors."
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of who
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this antikythera[...]
device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I suspect they
would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 years + on the
sea floor, how likely was it that divers could even see the Greek
inscriptions, could read the language or determined what it was its
purpose or who designed it. But nevertheless, they recognized it as
a design.
What's your point? You seem to be making a great deal out the fact
that bronze gears found in a sunken ship can be recognized as
man-made. So what? That is an utterly trivial observation.
or what made it, because design was self-evident!
Except that's not entirely true. They recognized it as man-made,
because its being man-made was self-evident. The "regardless of who
or what made it" is entirely your addition.
But that misses the point, the design aspect is obvious for one reason,
in this case, random, unguided natural processes could not have
manufactured the item.
But then there are things that is said to have
evolved; a birds wing. But is it designed to serve a purpose, or an
eagle eye sight, a bees proboscis appears to be designed to go deep into
the flower for the purpose of obtaining the sweet nectar. [...]
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance
of having been designed for a purpose.” - Richard Dawkins
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not
see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the
living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.” - Richard Dawkins
As an atheist, Dawkins has no alternative. But there is no way to
_know_for a fact. One can believe or not. But proof is beyond human
testing endeavors or capabilities. To insist on one way or another is
pure arrogance.
I doubt anyone, even you, would look at the device and say, "yup,
there's a good chance it was manufactured by supernatural alien
visitors."
As you wrote, some things are obviously man-made. But with living
organisms there is obvious differences. Living organisms can grow,
reproduce and develop, where as man-made can _only_ tend towards
disorder and decay, it can never grow, reproduce or develop on its own.
On 11/7/23 1:09 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Evolution is _random_ mutations and natural selection. Natural selection
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of who
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this[...]
antikythera device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I
suspect they would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000
years + on the sea floor, how likely was it that divers could even >>>>>> see the Greek inscriptions, could read the language or determined
what it was its purpose or who designed it. But nevertheless, they >>>>>> recognized it as a design.
What's your point? You seem to be making a great deal out the fact >>>>> that bronze gears found in a sunken ship can be recognized as
man-made. So what? That is an utterly trivial observation.
or what made it, because design was self-evident!
Except that's not entirely true. They recognized it as man-made,
because its being man-made was self-evident. The "regardless of who
or what made it" is entirely your addition.
But that misses the point, the design aspect is obvious for one
reason, in this case, random, unguided natural processes could not
have manufactured the item.
You are assuming your conclusion. That it is obviously man-made is
obvious reason enough to conclude design. The idea of natural processes forming it never enter the picture, except by someone trying to force
their pet view into it.
Also, you need to pound into your head that evolution is nonrandom and guided. >
But then there are things that is said to have evolved; a birds wing.
But is it designed to serve a purpose, or an eagle eye sight, a bees
proboscis appears to be designed to go deep into the flower for the
purpose of obtaining the sweet nectar. [...]
Again you are assuming your conclusion, big time.
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance
of having been designed for a purpose.” - Richard Dawkins
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not
see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the
living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the
illusion of design and planning.” - Richard Dawkins
I suggest you remove the word "purpose" from your vocabulary when
considering the design question. The purpose you come up with is
invariably your own idea. I understand it is considered bad form in
most spiritual traditions for people to act as god, which is what you
end up doing.
As an atheist, Dawkins has no alternative. But there is no way to
_know_for a fact. One can believe or not. But proof is beyond human
testing endeavors or capabilities. To insist on one way or another is
pure arrogance.
Now you are equivocating with the words "know" and "proof". No proof in
the real world is absolute, yet we still know things, because evidence
is often overwhelming. To insist on rejecting obvious evidence, as you
do, is pure arrogance.
I doubt anyone, even you, would look at the device and say, "yup,
there's a good chance it was manufactured by supernatural alien
visitors."
As you wrote, some things are obviously man-made. But with living
organisms there is obvious differences. Living organisms can grow,
reproduce and develop, where as man-made can _only_ tend towards
disorder and decay, it can never grow, reproduce or develop on its own.
You're right. Living things do not look anything like designed things.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/7/23 1:09 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this[...]
antikythera device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I
suspect they would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 >>>>>>> years + on the sea floor, how likely was it that divers could
even see the Greek inscriptions, could read the language or
determined what it was its purpose or who designed it. But
nevertheless, they recognized it as a design.
What's your point? You seem to be making a great deal out the
fact that bronze gears found in a sunken ship can be recognized as >>>>>> man-made. So what? That is an utterly trivial observation.
who or what made it, because design was self-evident!
Except that's not entirely true. They recognized it as man-made,
because its being man-made was self-evident. The "regardless of who
or what made it" is entirely your addition.
But that misses the point, the design aspect is obvious for one
reason, in this case, random, unguided natural processes could not
have manufactured the item.
You are assuming your conclusion. That it is obviously man-made is
obvious reason enough to conclude design. The idea of natural
processes forming it never enter the picture, except by someone trying
to force their pet view into it.
Also, you need to pound into your head that evolution is nonrandom and
guided.
Evolution is _random_ mutations and natural selection. Natural selection
only selects from whatever is available. It's just chance that we
evolved. I once read that if the tape of life were rewound, what are the chances that life as we know it would be the same?
That's how it appears.But then there are things that is said to have evolved; a birds wing.
But is it designed to serve a purpose, or an eagle eye sight, a bees
proboscis appears to be designed to go deep into the flower for the
purpose of obtaining the sweet nectar. [...]
Again you are assuming your conclusion, big time.
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance >>> of having been designed for a purpose.” - Richard Dawkins
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not
see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet
the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us
with the illusion of design and planning.” - Richard Dawkins
I suggest you remove the word "purpose" from your vocabulary when
considering the design question. The purpose you come up with is
invariably your own idea. I understand it is considered bad form in
most spiritual traditions for people to act as god, which is what you
end up doing.
so, you turn to personal insult, rather than deal with what I wrote.
As an atheist, Dawkins has no alternative. But there is no way to
_know_for a fact. One can believe or not. But proof is beyond human
testing endeavors or capabilities. To insist on one way or another
is pure arrogance.
Now you are equivocating with the words "know" and "proof". No proof
in the real world is absolute, yet we still know things, because
evidence is often overwhelming. To insist on rejecting obvious
evidence, as you do, is pure arrogance.
You cannot not know! at one time everyone _knew_ the world was flat and
they _knew_ that living things just popped into existence - IE flies
from rotting meat; rats from dirty clothing and life from non life - abiogenesis. All you can know in this life is death and taxes.
This is futile and pointless!I doubt anyone, even you, would look at the device and say, "yup,
there's a good chance it was manufactured by supernatural alien
visitors."
As you wrote, some things are obviously man-made. But with living
organisms there is obvious differences. Living organisms can grow,
reproduce and develop, where as man-made can _only_ tend towards
disorder and decay, it can never grow, reproduce or develop on its own.
You're right. Living things do not look anything like designed things.
On 11/7/23 7:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/7/23 1:09 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this[...]
antikythera device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I >>>>>>>> suspect they would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 >>>>>>>> years + on the sea floor, how likely was it that divers could
even see the Greek inscriptions, could read the language or
determined what it was its purpose or who designed it. But
nevertheless, they recognized it as a design.
What's your point? You seem to be making a great deal out the
fact that bronze gears found in a sunken ship can be recognized
as man-made. So what? That is an utterly trivial observation. >>>>>>>
who or what made it, because design was self-evident!
Except that's not entirely true. They recognized it as man-made,
because its being man-made was self-evident. The "regardless of
who or what made it" is entirely your addition.
But that misses the point, the design aspect is obvious for one
reason, in this case, random, unguided natural processes could not
have manufactured the item.
You are assuming your conclusion. That it is obviously man-made is
obvious reason enough to conclude design. The idea of natural
processes forming it never enter the picture, except by someone
trying to force their pet view into it.
Also, you need to pound into your head that evolution is nonrandom
and guided.
Evolution is _random_ mutations and natural selection. Natural
selection only selects from whatever is available. It's just chance
that we evolved. I once read that if the tape of life were rewound,
what are the chances that life as we know it would be the same?
And still, evolution is nonrandom and guided. It has random components,
but the overall process is nonrandom. The same is true of driving your car. Do you call driving a random, unguided process because there's a
lot of randomness involved in combustion of gasoline and the layout of
roads was largely arbitrary?
That's how it appears.But then there are things that is said to have evolved; a birds
wing. But is it designed to serve a purpose, or an eagle eye sight,
a bees proboscis appears to be designed to go deep into the flower
for the purpose of obtaining the sweet nectar. [...]
Again you are assuming your conclusion, big time.
so, you turn to personal insult, rather than deal with what I wrote.
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” - Richard Dawkins >>>>
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does
not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.
Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress
us with the illusion of design and planning.” - Richard Dawkins
I suggest you remove the word "purpose" from your vocabulary when
considering the design question. The purpose you come up with is
invariably your own idea. I understand it is considered bad form in
most spiritual traditions for people to act as god, which is what you
end up doing.
;
I dealt with what you wrote. Since I don't consider you a god, to
ignore it is to deal with it sufficiently, and I dealt with it even more
than that.
You cannot not know! at one time everyone _knew_ the world was flatAs an atheist, Dawkins has no alternative. But there is no way to
_know_for a fact. One can believe or not. But proof is beyond human
testing endeavors or capabilities. To insist on one way or another
is pure arrogance.
Now you are equivocating with the words "know" and "proof". No proof
in the real world is absolute, yet we still know things, because
evidence is often overwhelming. To insist on rejecting obvious
evidence, as you do, is pure arrogance.
;
and they _knew_ that living things just popped into existence - IE
flies from rotting meat; rats from dirty clothing and life from non
life - abiogenesis. All you can know in this life is death and taxes.
What you are describing is epistemological nihilism, the idea that one
cannot know anything. I suspect nobody actually accepts it (after all,
even to believe it would contradict its point), and if people did, the results would be disastrous to put it mildly. Since I do not support
the extinction of humanity (among other reasons), I reject your statement.
This is futile and pointless!You're right. Living things do not look anything like designed things. >>>I doubt anyone, even you, would look at the device and say, "yup,
there's a good chance it was manufactured by supernatural alien
visitors."
As you wrote, some things are obviously man-made. But with living
organisms there is obvious differences. Living organisms can grow,
reproduce and develop, where as man-made can _only_ tend towards
disorder and decay, it can never grow, reproduce or develop on its own. >>>
You could deal with the issues people bring up instead of merely
repeating your mantras.
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/7/23 7:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/7/23 1:09 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of >>>>>> who or what made it, because design was self-evident!
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this[...]
antikythera device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I >>>>>>>> suspect they would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 >>>>>>>> years + on the sea floor, how likely was it that divers could >>>>>>>> even see the Greek inscriptions, could read the language or >>>>>>>> determined what it was its purpose or who designed it. But
nevertheless, they recognized it as a design.
What's your point? You seem to be making a great deal out the >>>>>>> fact that bronze gears found in a sunken ship can be recognized >>>>>>> as man-made. So what? That is an utterly trivial observation. >>>>>>>
Except that's not entirely true. They recognized it as man-made, >>>>> because its being man-made was self-evident. The "regardless of
who or what made it" is entirely your addition.
But that misses the point, the design aspect is obvious for one
reason, in this case, random, unguided natural processes could not
have manufactured the item.
You are assuming your conclusion. That it is obviously man-made is
obvious reason enough to conclude design. The idea of natural
processes forming it never enter the picture, except by someone
trying to force their pet view into it.
Also, you need to pound into your head that evolution is nonrandom
and guided.
Evolution is _random_ mutations and natural selection. Natural
selection only selects from whatever is available. It's just chance
that we evolved. I once read that if the tape of life were rewound,
what are the chances that life as we know it would be the same?
And still, evolution is nonrandom and guided. It has random components, but the overall process is nonrandom. The same is true of driving your car. Do you call driving a random, unguided process because there's a
lot of randomness involved in combustion of gasoline and the layout of roads was largely arbitrary?
That's how it appears.But then there are things that is said to have evolved; a birds
wing. But is it designed to serve a purpose, or an eagle eye sight, >>>> a bees proboscis appears to be designed to go deep into the flower
for the purpose of obtaining the sweet nectar. [...]
Again you are assuming your conclusion, big time.
so, you turn to personal insult, rather than deal with what I wrote.
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” - Richard Dawkins >>>>
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does >>>> not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.
Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress
us with the illusion of design and planning.” - Richard Dawkins
I suggest you remove the word "purpose" from your vocabulary when
considering the design question. The purpose you come up with is
invariably your own idea. I understand it is considered bad form in
most spiritual traditions for people to act as god, which is what you >>> end up doing.
I dealt with what you wrote. Since I don't consider you a god, to
ignore it is to deal with it sufficiently, and I dealt with it even more than that.
You cannot not know! at one time everyone _knew_ the world was flatAs an atheist, Dawkins has no alternative. But there is no way to
_know_for a fact. One can believe or not. But proof is beyond human >>>> testing endeavors or capabilities. To insist on one way or another >>>> is pure arrogance.
Now you are equivocating with the words "know" and "proof". No proof >>> in the real world is absolute, yet we still know things, because
evidence is often overwhelming. To insist on rejecting obvious
evidence, as you do, is pure arrogance.
and they _knew_ that living things just popped into existence - IE
flies from rotting meat; rats from dirty clothing and life from non
life - abiogenesis. All you can know in this life is death and taxes.
What you are describing is epistemological nihilism, the idea that one cannot know anything. I suspect nobody actually accepts it (after all, even to believe it would contradict its point), and if people did, the results would be disastrous to put it mildly. Since I do not support
the extinction of humanity (among other reasons), I reject your statement.
This is futile and pointless!You're right. Living things do not look anything like designed things. >>>I doubt anyone, even you, would look at the device and say, "yup, >>>>> there's a good chance it was manufactured by supernatural alien
visitors."
As you wrote, some things are obviously man-made. But with living
organisms there is obvious differences. Living organisms can grow,
reproduce and develop, where as man-made can _only_ tend towards
disorder and decay, it can never grow, reproduce or develop on its own. >>>
You could deal with the issues people bring up instead of merely
repeating your mantras.
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6)
years to earn my degree in electrical engineering. MsEE, During this
period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design.
We learned _to_ design, which was basically computers, paperwork,
planning, drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing. Then
it was a manufactured product.
A motherboard for an example is not
identified as a design. Design preceded the manufacture of the
motherboard Nevertheless, it can be described as a bad design.. A motherboard can look very complex, however,
it is made up multiple simple circuits in combination or in concert with other circuits to accomplish a specified function.
Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6)
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
years to earn my degree in electrical engineering. MsEE, During this
period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design.
We learned _to_ design, which was basically computers, paperwork,
planning, drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing. Then
it was a manufactured product. A motherboard for an example is not
identified as a design. Design preceded the manufacture of the
motherboard Nevertheless, it can be described as a bad design.. A
motherboard can look very complex, however,
it is made up multiple simple circuits in combination or in concert with other circuits to accomplish a specified function.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/7/23 7:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/7/23 1:09 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this[...]
antikythera device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I >>>>>>>> suspect they would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 >>>>>>>> years + on the sea floor, how likely was it that divers could >>>>>>>> even see the Greek inscriptions, could read the language or >>>>>>>> determined what it was its purpose or who designed it. But
nevertheless, they recognized it as a design.
What's your point? You seem to be making a great deal out the >>>>>>> fact that bronze gears found in a sunken ship can be recognized >>>>>>> as man-made. So what? That is an utterly trivial observation.
My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of >>>>>> who or what made it, because design was self-evident!
Except that's not entirely true. They recognized it as man-made, >>>>> because its being man-made was self-evident.
The "regardless of
who or what made it" is entirely your addition.
But that misses the point, the design aspect is obvious for one
reason, in this case, random, unguided natural processes could not
have manufactured the item.
You are assuming your conclusion. That it is obviously man-made is
obvious reason enough to conclude design. The idea of natural
processes forming it never enter the picture, except by someone
trying to force their pet view into it.
Also, you need to pound into your head that evolution is nonrandom
and guided.
Evolution is _random_ mutations and natural selection. Natural
selection only selects from whatever is available. It's just chance
that we evolved. I once read that if the tape of life were rewound,
what are the chances that life as we know it would be the same?
And still, evolution is nonrandom and guided. It has random components, but the overall process is nonrandom. The same is true of driving your car. Do you call driving a random, unguided process because there's a
lot of randomness involved in combustion of gasoline and the layout of roads was largely arbitrary?
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” - Richard Dawkins >>>>
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does >>>> not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.
Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress
us with the illusion of design and planning.” - Richard Dawkins
I suggest you remove the word "purpose" from your vocabulary when
considering the design question. The purpose you come up with is
invariably your own idea.
I understand it is considered bad form in
most spiritual traditions for people to act as god, which is what you >>> end up doing.
so, you turn to personal insult, rather than deal with what I wrote.
I dealt with what you wrote. Since I don't consider you a god, to
ignore it is to deal with it sufficiently, and I dealt with it even more than that.
On 11/8/23 11:39 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6)
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
years to earn my degree in electrical engineering. MsEE, During this
period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design.
We learned _to_ design, which was basically computers, paperwork,
planning, drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing. Then
it was a manufactured product. A motherboard for an example is not
identified as a design. Design preceded the manufacture of the
motherboard Nevertheless, it can be described as a bad design.. A
motherboard can look very complex, however,
it is made up multiple simple circuits in combination or in concert with
other circuits to accomplish a specified function.
So your idea of design is even narrower than mine. And since life does
not fit the concept of design according to my definition (no hint of >paperwork, planning, drawing schematics, or testing before
manufacturing, for one thing), it should be the case that life does not
fit your concept of design, either.
I thoroughly approve of one point you make. You emphasize that design
is a process, not an end result. Too many people miss that point.
On 11/8/23 11:39 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
[...]Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6)
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
years to earn my degree in electrical engineering. MsEE, During this period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design.
We learned _to_ design, which was basically computers, paperwork, planning, drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing. Then it was a manufactured product. A motherboard for an example is not identified as a design. Design preceded the manufacture of the
motherboard Nevertheless, it can be described as a bad design.. A motherboard can look very complex, however,
it is made up multiple simple circuits in combination or in concert with other circuits to accomplish a specified function.
So your idea of design is even narrower than mine.
And since life does
not fit the concept of design according to my definition (no hint of paperwork, planning, drawing schematics, or testing before
manufacturing, for one thing),
it should be the case that life does not
fit your concept of design, either.
I thoroughly approve of one point you make. You emphasize that design
is a process, not an end result.
Too many people miss that point.
On Tuesday, 7 November 2023 at 08:11:31 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 7:06:31 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this antikythera >>>>>> device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I suspect they >>>>>> would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 years + on the >>>>>> sea floor, how likely was it that divers could even see the Greek >>>>>> inscriptions, could read the language or determined what it was its >>>>>> purpose or who designed it. But nevertheless, they recognized it as >>>>>> a design.[...]
It seems to be a common conviction that in no case can design be
recognized without knowing about the designer and exactly how it
accomplished its task. I suspect this is simply an easy way out. If
anyone has ever tried and justified this requirement. I don't remember it.
Ron, these point have been addressed by many posters many times. You seem to ignore everything you don't like.
It's not that, if it's not rational, I reject it and as a rule, I
explain why I disagree. I do not know of anyone who has attempted to explain why a designer must be known before design can be recognized as purposeful design.
It is because of how wisdom works. Knowledge of fact is never alone but always related to other knowledge. Every event happens sometime for some cause in a particular way and leaves evidence that it was so.
Now you have
no evidences, materials to read about it, no hypotheses, no cites. Nothing. Neither scientific nor non-scientific.
That "design" is faith-based dogma.
Precisely because there are nothing but that faith.
I realize that several people have "explained" how and why the six DNA proofreading and repair mechanism came about, in a universe where mindless, aimless unguided evolutionary processes accomplished the task. But it seems to me that here, naturalist are resorting to faith. I've
seen no evidence that demonstrates how and why DNA proofreading and
repair mechanics occurred through natural processes.
How offspring of common ancestor of grizzly and polar bear did become different bears? How common ancestor of coyote and grey wolf became different canines? How common ancestor of horse, donkey and zebra
became different equines? Were these non-natural reasons? The repair mechanisms occurred in similar way and for similar reasons why polar
bears adapted to swim hundreds of kilometres in freezing water.
Easier to survive and to reproduce in its environment. There are walls of books,
articles and evidences down to molecules about every aspect of it.
You refuse, deny and misunderstand the basics, nothing to talk of reading any materials.
Your denial of evolution is faith-based dogma.
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 6:06:33 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 November 2023 at 08:11:31 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 7:06:31 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this antikythera[...]
device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I suspect they >>>>>> would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 years + on the >>>>>> sea floor, how likely was it that divers could even see the Greek >>>>>> inscriptions, could read the language or determined what it was its
purpose or who designed it. But nevertheless, they recognized it as
a design.
Here I snipped drivel by Mark Isaak, and reasonable comments by
Ron Dean in response, dissected by me yesterday on this thread, at:
Remainder deleted, to be replied to later, possibly as early as tomorrow. I've got two classes to teach in differential equations
tomorrow, and I still have to prepare my power point presentations,
and finish correcting their work on a quiz, so I cannot post more on this today.
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 11:21:30?AM UTC-4, Ralph Page wrote:
This kind of behavior on your part is irritating and results in the rude
responses from folks like Lawyer Daggett that you find unacceptable.
I object. It is not rude to respond to lies by calling them lies. What is rude is
ignoring evidence and repeating lies. I was deferential, for a long time, with >a person who espoused stupid and ignorant ideas, granting them the grace of >presuming they were honest in their delusions. But it reaches a limit. They were
offered clear and incontrovertible evidence that their claims were false.
Clear and incontrovertible!
They repeated their false claims as if they had never seen the refutations. The
denial is a lie. The lie is explicit. I don't care that it is self-deceit as well. It is lying.
To call me rude for calling a liar a liar is to forgive the liar for lying. Don't do that.
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 6:06:33 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 November 2023 at 08:11:31 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:Here I snipped drivel by Mark Isaak, and reasonable comments by
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 7:06:31 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this antikythera[...]
device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I suspect they >>>>>> would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 years + on the >>>>>> sea floor, how likely was it that divers could even see the Greek >>>>>> inscriptions, could read the language or determined what it was its
purpose or who designed it. But nevertheless, they recognized it as
a design.
Ron Dean in response, dissected by me yesterday on this thread, at:
[Ron:]
[Bill Rogers, in the role of a man in a glass house throwing stones:]It seems to be a common conviction that in no case can design be
recognized without knowing about the designer and exactly how it
accomplished its task. I suspect this is simply an easy way out. If >> anyone has ever tried and justified this requirement. I don't remember it.
Ron, these point have been addressed by many posters many times. You seem to ignore everything you don't like.
It's not that, if it's not rational, I reject it and as a rule, I explain why I disagree. I do not know of anyone who has attempted to explain why a designer must be known before design can be recognized as purposeful design.
It is because of how wisdom works. Knowledge of fact is never alone but always related to other knowledge. Every event happens sometime for some cause in a particular way and leaves evidence that it was so.
These vague generalities do not shed light on what Ron wrote in his last sentence.
Nor do the following unsupported accusations:
Now you have
no evidences, materials to read about it, no hypotheses, no cites. Nothing.
Neither scientific nor non-scientific.
I think he has a good piece of evidence in the repair mechanism he has outlined.
I have seen no description of how it might have evolved. What I have seen
is a "Darwin of the Gaps" argument by Bill Rogers, which is about like this:
"It's natural selection: those organisms who were able to evolve an efficient and essentially flawless repair mechanism had a survival
advantage over those that did not, so they are the ones we see today."
Did YOU see an evolutionary path? You make no effort to cite one.
That "design" is faith-based dogma.
So is lack of design, in the opposite direction.
Precisely because there are nothing but that faith.
Next, you run away from a major difficulty to some of the easiestI realize that several people have "explained" how and why the six DNA proofreading and repair mechanism came about, in a universe where mindless, aimless unguided evolutionary processes accomplished the task. But it seems to me that here, naturalist are resorting to faith. I've seen no evidence that demonstrates how and why DNA proofreading and repair mechanics occurred through natural processes.
things of all to explain.
How offspring of common ancestor of grizzly and polar bear did become different bears? How common ancestor of coyote and grey wolf became different canines? How common ancestor of horse, donkey and zebra
became different equines? Were these non-natural reasons? The repair mechanisms occurred in similar way and for similar reasons why polar
bears adapted to swim hundreds of kilometres in freezing water.
"similar" is so general as to be worthless. You couldn't even find a "similar"
path for bats to evolve their wings without passing through at least one stage that was maladaptive.
You claimed there were "many" such ways,
but you were unable to find a single one.
FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHERS READING THIS:
I broached this subject with Mr. Tiib here:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WATJ1V2lWcI/m/cB_4zzxUBgAJ Subject: Re: Darwin of the Gaps
Dec 13, 2022, 1:20:19 PM
And here is where I laid out the difficulties, on the same thread, with references to the best attempt to find a path that I have ever seen:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WATJ1V2lWcI/m/y2p9FGZgBAAJ
Dec 16, 2022, 11:05:22 PM
Back to you, Mr. Tiib: can you try to find a path NOW that is not maladaptive somewhere?
Easier to survive and to reproduce in its environment. There are walls of books,NOT the aspect of a plausible evolutionary path. Even one for bat wings seems less formidable than one for those repair mechanisms.
articles and evidences down to molecules about every aspect of it.
You refuse, deny and misunderstand the basics, nothing to talk of reading any materials.This canard has been leveled at MarkE by Bill Rogers, because MarkE hadn't read a bunch of materials on numerous scenarios for the production of the first nucleotides
under primitive earth conditions. But that wasn't what MarkE was driving at. It was things like the production of a ribozyme able to replicate any RNA strand
using a rich batch of nucleotides.
Athel knows that this is one of the main unsolved problems of OOL,
and that is why he is afraid to discuss such problems with anyone,
and why Bill Rogers kept attacking MarkE for not reading things that
Rogers demanded he read; he knew they would keep MarkE too busy
to ask such embarrassing questions.
Your denial of evolution is faith-based dogma.Ron isn't denying evolution; he is denying the adequacy
of neo-Darwinism to explain it.
The same goes with MarkE and the laughably inadequate present-day OOL theory.
This is what this thread started out discussing,
until Ron changed the subject to repair mechanisms.
Remainder deleted, to be replied to later, possibly as early as tomorrow. I've got two classes to teach in differential equations
tomorrow, and I still have to prepare my power point presentations,
and finish correctings their work on a quiz, so I cannot post more on this today.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
August 1979 --> present
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 2:41:34 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/7/23 7:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6)
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/7/23 1:09 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...]My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of >>>>>>>> who or what made it, because design was self-evident!
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this >>>>>>>>>> antikythera device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I >>>>>>>>>> suspect they would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 >>>>>>>>>> years + on the sea floor, how likely was it that divers could >>>>>>>>>> even see the Greek inscriptions, could read the language or >>>>>>>>>> determined what it was its purpose or who designed it. But >>>>>>>>>> nevertheless, they recognized it as a design.
What's your point? You seem to be making a great deal out the >>>>>>>>> fact that bronze gears found in a sunken ship can be recognized >>>>>>>>> as man-made. So what? That is an utterly trivial observation. >>>>>>>>>
Except that's not entirely true. They recognized it as man-made, >>>>>>> because its being man-made was self-evident. The "regardless of >>>>>>> who or what made it" is entirely your addition.
But that misses the point, the design aspect is obvious for one >>>>>> reason, in this case, random, unguided natural processes could not >>>>>> have manufactured the item.
You are assuming your conclusion. That it is obviously man-made is >>>>> obvious reason enough to conclude design. The idea of natural
processes forming it never enter the picture, except by someone
trying to force their pet view into it.
Also, you need to pound into your head that evolution is nonrandom >>>>> and guided.
Evolution is _random_ mutations and natural selection. Natural
selection only selects from whatever is available. It's just chance >>>> that we evolved. I once read that if the tape of life were rewound, >>>> what are the chances that life as we know it would be the same?
And still, evolution is nonrandom and guided. It has random components, >>> but the overall process is nonrandom. The same is true of driving your >>> car. Do you call driving a random, unguided process because there's a >>> lot of randomness involved in combustion of gasoline and the layout of >>> roads was largely arbitrary?
I dealt with what you wrote. Since I don't consider you a god, toThat's how it appears.But then there are things that is said to have evolved; a birds >>>>>> wing. But is it designed to serve a purpose, or an eagle eye sight, >>>>>> a bees proboscis appears to be designed to go deep into the flower >>>>>> for the purpose of obtaining the sweet nectar. [...]
Again you are assuming your conclusion, big time.
so, you turn to personal insult, rather than deal with what I wrote. >>>
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give theI suggest you remove the word "purpose" from your vocabulary when >>>>> considering the design question. The purpose you come up with is
appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” - Richard Dawkins
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does >>>>>> not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. >>>>>> Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress >>>>>> us with the illusion of design and planning.” - Richard Dawkins >>>>>
invariably your own idea. I understand it is considered bad form in >>>>> most spiritual traditions for people to act as god, which is what you >>>>> end up doing.
ignore it is to deal with it sufficiently, and I dealt with it even more >>> than that.
What you are describing is epistemological nihilism, the idea that one >>> cannot know anything. I suspect nobody actually accepts it (after all, >>> even to believe it would contradict its point), and if people did, the >>> results would be disastrous to put it mildly. Since I do not supportYou cannot not know! at one time everyone _knew_ the world was flat >>>> and they _knew_ that living things just popped into existence - IEAs an atheist, Dawkins has no alternative. But there is no way to >>>>>> _know_for a fact. One can believe or not. But proof is beyond human >>>>>> testing endeavors or capabilities. To insist on one way or another >>>>>> is pure arrogance.
Now you are equivocating with the words "know" and "proof". No proof >>>>> in the real world is absolute, yet we still know things, because
evidence is often overwhelming. To insist on rejecting obvious
evidence, as you do, is pure arrogance.
flies from rotting meat; rats from dirty clothing and life from non >>>> life - abiogenesis. All you can know in this life is death and taxes. >>>
the extinction of humanity (among other reasons), I reject your statement.
This is futile and pointless!I doubt anyone, even you, would look at the device and say, "yup, >>>>>>> there's a good chance it was manufactured by supernatural alien >>>>>>> visitors."
As you wrote, some things are obviously man-made. But with living >>>>>> organisms there is obvious differences. Living organisms can grow, >>>>>> reproduce and develop, where as man-made can _only_ tend towards >>>>>> disorder and decay, it can never grow, reproduce or develop on its own.
You're right. Living things do not look anything like designed things. >>>>>
You could deal with the issues people bring up instead of merely
repeating your mantras.
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
years to earn my degree in electrical engineering. MsEE, During this
period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design.
We learned _to_ design, which was basically computers, paperwork,
planning, drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing. Then >> it was a manufactured product.
Well, clearly if you limit your definition of design to the kind of designing you were taught to do, -"computers, paperwork, planning,
drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing" - then there's
not the slightest evidence that life was designed. You feel free to
broaden your definition of design beyond the sort of design you were
taught in school, so why do you object when Mark's article does the same?
I do not suggest that which is taught regarding design in the
universities is all inclusive. It's just a technical definition that
applies to the act of designing.
A motherboard for an example is not
identified as a design. Design preceded the manufacture of the
motherboard Nevertheless, it can be described as a bad design.. A
motherboard can look very complex, however,
it is made up multiple simple circuits in combination or in concert with >> other circuits to accomplish a specified function.
On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 2:41:34 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/7/23 7:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6)
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/7/23 1:09 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/5/23 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [...]My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of >>>>>>>> who or what made it, because design was self-evident!
This misrepresents what I wrote. When _divers_ saw this
antikythera device they recognized it as a design. Otherwise, I >>>>>>>>>> suspect they would have left in on the wreckage. But after 2000 >>>>>>>>>> years + on the sea floor, how likely was it that divers could >>>>>>>>>> even see the Greek inscriptions, could read the language or >>>>>>>>>> determined what it was its purpose or who designed it. But >>>>>>>>>> nevertheless, they recognized it as a design.
What's your point? You seem to be making a great deal out the >>>>>>>>> fact that bronze gears found in a sunken ship can be recognized >>>>>>>>> as man-made. So what? That is an utterly trivial observation. >>>>>>>>>
Except that's not entirely true. They recognized it as man-made, >>>>>>> because its being man-made was self-evident. The "regardless of >>>>>>> who or what made it" is entirely your addition.
But that misses the point, the design aspect is obvious for one
reason, in this case, random, unguided natural processes could not >>>>>> have manufactured the item.
You are assuming your conclusion. That it is obviously man-made is
obvious reason enough to conclude design. The idea of natural
processes forming it never enter the picture, except by someone
trying to force their pet view into it.
Also, you need to pound into your head that evolution is nonrandom
and guided.
Evolution is _random_ mutations and natural selection. Natural
selection only selects from whatever is available. It's just chance
that we evolved. I once read that if the tape of life were rewound,
what are the chances that life as we know it would be the same?
And still, evolution is nonrandom and guided. It has random components, >>> but the overall process is nonrandom. The same is true of driving your
car. Do you call driving a random, unguided process because there's a
lot of randomness involved in combustion of gasoline and the layout of
roads was largely arbitrary?
That's how it appears.But then there are things that is said to have evolved; a birds
wing. But is it designed to serve a purpose, or an eagle eye sight, >>>>>> a bees proboscis appears to be designed to go deep into the flower >>>>>> for the purpose of obtaining the sweet nectar. [...]
Again you are assuming your conclusion, big time.
>
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” - Richard Dawkins >>>>>>
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does >>>>>> not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. >>>>>> Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress >>>>>> us with the illusion of design and planning.” - Richard Dawkins
I suggest you remove the word "purpose" from your vocabulary when
considering the design question. The purpose you come up with is
invariably your own idea. I understand it is considered bad form in >>>>> most spiritual traditions for people to act as god, which is what you >>>>> end up doing.
so, you turn to personal insult, rather than deal with what I wrote.
I dealt with what you wrote. Since I don't consider you a god, to
ignore it is to deal with it sufficiently, and I dealt with it even more >>> than that.
>As an atheist, Dawkins has no alternative. But there is no way to
_know_for a fact. One can believe or not. But proof is beyond human >>>>>> testing endeavors or capabilities. To insist on one way or another >>>>>> is pure arrogance.
Now you are equivocating with the words "know" and "proof". No proof >>>>> in the real world is absolute, yet we still know things, because
evidence is often overwhelming. To insist on rejecting obvious
evidence, as you do, is pure arrogance.
You cannot not know! at one time everyone _knew_ the world was flat
and they _knew_ that living things just popped into existence - IE
flies from rotting meat; rats from dirty clothing and life from non
life - abiogenesis. All you can know in this life is death and taxes.
What you are describing is epistemological nihilism, the idea that one
cannot know anything. I suspect nobody actually accepts it (after all,
even to believe it would contradict its point), and if people did, the
results would be disastrous to put it mildly. Since I do not support
the extinction of humanity (among other reasons), I reject your statement. >>>
This is futile and pointless!You're right. Living things do not look anything like designed things. >>>>>I doubt anyone, even you, would look at the device and say, "yup, >>>>>>> there's a good chance it was manufactured by supernatural alien
visitors."
As you wrote, some things are obviously man-made. But with living
organisms there is obvious differences. Living organisms can grow, >>>>>> reproduce and develop, where as man-made can _only_ tend towards
disorder and decay, it can never grow, reproduce or develop on its own. >>>>>
You could deal with the issues people bring up instead of merely
repeating your mantras.
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
years to earn my degree in electrical engineering. MsEE, During this
period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design.
We learned _to_ design, which was basically computers, paperwork,
planning, drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing. Then
it was a manufactured product.
A motherboard for an example is not
identified as a design. Design preceded the manufacture of the
motherboard Nevertheless, it can be described as a bad design.. A
motherboard can look very complex, however,
it is made up multiple simple circuits in combination or in concert with
other circuits to accomplish a specified function.
Well, Ron, I see that Mark is lying low, not responding [...]
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/7/23 7:20 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/7/23 1:09 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the
appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” - Richard Dawkins >>>>
“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does >>>> not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view.
Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress
us with the illusion of design and planning.” - Richard Dawkins
I suggest you remove the word "purpose" from your vocabulary when
considering the design question. The purpose you come up with is
invariably your own idea. I understand it is considered bad form in
most spiritual traditions for people to act as god, which is what you >>> end up doing.
so, you turn to personal insult, rather than deal with what I wrote.
I dealt with what you wrote. Since I don't consider you a god, to
ignore it is to deal with it sufficiently, and I dealt with it even more than that.
As an atheist, Dawkins has no alternative. But there is no way to
_know_for a fact. One can believe or not. But proof is beyond human >>>> testing endeavors or capabilities. To insist on one way or another >>>> is pure arrogance.
Now you are equivocating with the words "know" and "proof". No proof >>> in the real world is absolute, yet we still know things, because
evidence is often overwhelming. To insist on rejecting obvious
evidence, as you do, is pure arrogance.
You cannot not know! at one time everyone _knew_ the world was flat
and they _knew_ that living things just popped into existence - IE
flies from rotting meat; rats from dirty clothing and life from non
life - abiogenesis. All you can know in this life is death and taxes.
I doubt anyone, even you, would look at the device and say, "yup, >>>>> there's a good chance it was manufactured by supernatural alien
visitors."
As you wrote, some things are obviously man-made. But with living
organisms there is obvious differences. Living organisms can grow,
reproduce and develop, where as man-made can _only_ tend towards
disorder and decay, it can never grow, reproduce or develop on its own.
You're right. Living things do not look anything like designed things.
This is futile and pointless!
You could deal with the issues people bring up instead of merely
repeating your mantras.
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6)
years to earn my degree in electrical engineering. MsEE, During this
period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6)
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
years to earn my degree in electrical engineering.
MsEE, During this
period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design.
We learned _to_ design, which was basically computers, paperwork,
planning, drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing. Then >>> it was a manufactured product.
Mark Isaak wrote:....
You could deal with the issues people bring up instead of merely
repeating your mantras.
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6)
years to earn my degree in electrical engineering. MsEE, During this
period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design.
We learned _to_ design, which was basically computers, paperwork,
planning, drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing. Then
it was a manufactured product.
A motherboard for an example is not
identified as a design.
Design preceded the manufacture of the
motherboard Nevertheless, it can be described as a bad design..
A
motherboard can look very complex, however,
it is made up multiple simple circuits in combination or in concert with other circuits to accomplish a specified function.
Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:....
You could deal with the issues people bring up instead of merely
repeating your mantras.
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6)
years to earn my degree in electrical engineering. MsEE, During this
period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design.
We learned _to_ design, which was basically computers, paperwork,
planning, drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing. Then
it was a manufactured product.
So you took EE classes in "paperwork"? Seriously?
learned planning, testing and manufacturing in school?
This bears little resemblance to any legit EE or other
engineering curriculum.
This is why your claims to hold a BSEE, MSEE, or
whatever, are in dispute. You appear ignorant of
electronics and engineering. While your alleged
education is not relevant to ID/creationism (except that
you brought it up), it does speak to your pattern of
repeated intellectual dishonesty.
A motherboard for an example is not
identified as a design.
What does that mean?
Design preceded the manufacture of the
motherboard Nevertheless, it can be described as a bad design..
Huh? All motherboard designs are bad designs? Why do
you hate motherboards so?
Do you ever read what you've written? Got any
proofreading & repair to spare?
A
motherboard can look very complex, however,
it is made up multiple simple circuits in combination or in concert with
other circuits to accomplish a specified function.
Like any organism.
What was your point in this? Do you claim you are an
expert in electrical design, therefore we should honor
your assertion of biological design? Braggadocio?
Diversion? Inability to stay on track?
El Kabob wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:....
You could deal with the issues people bring up instead of merely
repeating your mantras.
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6)
years to earn my degree in electrical engineering. MsEE, During this
period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design.
We learned _to_ design, which was basically computers, paperwork,
planning, drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing. Then >> it was a manufactured product.
So you took EE classes in "paperwork"? Seriously?
Didn't say that! You had to hand in paperwork.
You
learned planning, testing and manufacturing in school?
This bears little resemblance to any legit EE or other
engineering curriculum.
Never heard of drawing schematics, drafting? And no manufacturing was
not taught, but does follow design.
This is why your claims to hold a BSEE, MSEE, or
whatever, are in dispute. You appear ignorant of
electronics and engineering. While your alleged
education is not relevant to ID/creationism (except that
you brought it up), it does speak to your pattern of
repeated intellectual dishonesty.
I do not lie, nor am I intellectually dishonest, you can question my arguments, but character assassination is unacceptable.
Design preceded the manufacture of the
motherboard Nevertheless, it can be described as a bad design..
Huh? All motherboard designs are bad designs? Why do
you hate motherboards so?
What was your point in this? Do you claim you are an
expert in electrical design, therefore we should honor
your assertion of biological design? Braggadocio?
Diversion? Inability to stay on track?
Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabob wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:....
You could deal with the issues people bring up instead of merely
repeating your mantras.
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6)
years to earn my degree in electrical engineering.
Didn't say that! You had to hand in paperwork.MsEE, During this
period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design. >>>> We learned _to_ design, which was basically computers, paperwork,
planning, drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing. Then >>>> it was a manufactured product.
So you took EE classes in "paperwork"? Seriously?
On 2023-11-12 00:18:01 +0000, El Kabong said:
Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabob wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:....
You could deal with the issues people bring up instead of merely
repeating your mantras.
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6)
years to earn my degree in electrical engineering.
Out of curiosity, which universities were these? Bob Jones University
and Liberty University? Why did you need two, anyway? Were you dismissed
from the first one?
Didn't say that! You had to hand in paperwork.MsEE, During this
period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design. >>>>> We learned _to_ design, which was basically computers, paperwork,
planning, drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing.
Then
it was a manufactured product.
So you took EE classes in "paperwork"? Seriously?
Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabob wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:>
Mark Isaak wrote:....
You could deal with the issues people bring up instead of merely
repeating your mantras.
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6)
years to earn my degree in electrical engineering. MsEE, During this
period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design. >>>> We learned _to_ design, which was basically computers, paperwork,
planning, drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing. Then >>>> it was a manufactured product.
So you took EE classes in "paperwork"? Seriously?
Didn't say that! You had to hand in paperwork.
You
You kind of did say that. Maybe you consider homework to
be paperwork. No doubt you would recognize The Designer's
paperwork should you ever come across it.
learned planning, testing and manufacturing in school?>
This bears little resemblance to any legit EE or other
engineering curriculum.
Never heard of drawing schematics, drafting? And no manufacturing was
not taught, but does follow design.
That's just incidental to electrical design, let alone
biology. So far i'm not recognizing much of your
alleged training as being part of engineering or
biodesign.
This is why your claims to hold a BSEE, MSEE, or>
whatever, are in dispute. You appear ignorant of
electronics and engineering. While your alleged
education is not relevant to ID/creationism (except that
you brought it up), it does speak to your pattern of
repeated intellectual dishonesty.
I do not lie, nor am I intellectually dishonest, you can question my
arguments, but character assassination is unacceptable.
That's not true, Ron. You get corrected, then continue
with the same old PRATTs. You make dubious claims about
yourself. You dissemble routinely, and that's a nice way
of saying it.
Design preceded the manufacture of the
motherboard Nevertheless, it can be described as a bad design..
Huh? All motherboard designs are bad designs? Why do
you hate motherboards so?
Weird.
What was your point in this? Do you claim you are an
expert in electrical design, therefore we should honor
your assertion of biological design? Braggadocio?
Diversion? Inability to stay on track?
It looks like we will never know that.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-11-12 00:18:01 +0000, El Kabong said:
Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabob wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:....
You could deal with the issues people bring up instead of merely >>>>>>> repeating your mantras.
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6) >>>>>> years to earn my degree in electrical engineering.
Out of curiosity, which universities were these? Bob Jones University
and Liberty University? Why did you need two, anyway? Were you
dismissed from the first one?
Cost of living. It cost less to live in the South than in the North.
Didn't say that! You had to hand in paperwork.MsEE, During this
period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design. >>>>>> We learned _to_ design, which was basically computers, paperwork,
planning, drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing. Then >>>>>> it was a manufactured product.
So you took EE classes in "paperwork"? Seriously?
El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabob wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:>
Mark Isaak wrote:....
You could deal with the issues people bring up instead of merely
repeating your mantras.
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6)
years to earn my degree in electrical engineering. MsEE, During this >>>> period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design. >>>> We learned _to_ design, which was basically computers, paperwork,
planning, drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing. Then >>>> it was a manufactured product.
So you took EE classes in "paperwork"? Seriously?
Didn't say that! You had to hand in paperwork.
You
You kind of did say that. Maybe you consider homework to
be paperwork. No doubt you would recognize The Designer's
paperwork should you ever come across it.
learned planning, testing and manufacturing in school?>
This bears little resemblance to any legit EE or other
engineering curriculum.
Never heard of drawing schematics, drafting? And no manufacturing was
not taught, but does follow design.
That's just incidental to electrical design, let alone
biology. So far i'm not recognizing much of your
alleged training as being part of engineering or
biodesign.
I don't know you, don't care about you, why do you care about me?
This is why your claims to hold a BSEE, MSEE, or>
whatever, are in dispute. You appear ignorant of
electronics and engineering. While your alleged
education is not relevant to ID/creationism (except that
you brought it up), it does speak to your pattern of
repeated intellectual dishonesty.
I do not lie, nor am I intellectually dishonest, you can question my
arguments, but character assassination is unacceptable.
That's not true, Ron. You get corrected, then continue
with the same old PRATTs. You make dubious claims about
yourself. You dissemble routinely, and that's a nice way
of saying it.
Design preceded the manufacture of the
motherboard Nevertheless, it can be described as a bad design..
Huh? All motherboard designs are bad designs? Why do
you hate motherboards so?
Weird.
What was your point in this? Do you claim you are an
expert in electrical design, therefore we should honor
your assertion of biological design? Braggadocio?
Diversion? Inability to stay on track?
It looks like we will never know that.
On 2023-11-13 15:47:54 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-11-12 00:18:01 +0000, El Kabong said:
Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabob wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:....
You could deal with the issues people bring up instead of merely >>>>>>> repeating your mantras.
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6) >>>>>> years to earn my degree in electrical engineering.
Out of curiosity, which universities were these? Bob Jones University
and Liberty University? Why did you need two, anyway? Were you
dismissed from the first one?
Cost of living. It cost less to live in the South than in the North.
That's not an answer. Even in the south universities have names.
--Didn't say that! You had to hand in paperwork.MsEE, During this
period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design.
We learned _to_ design, which was basically computers, paperwork, >>>>>> planning, drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing. Then
it was a manufactured product.
So you took EE classes in "paperwork"? Seriously?
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
Athel is being selectively nosy. There are plenty of people here who are more secretive
about their backgrounds than Ron Dean. For instance, jillery has not revealed her (?) real name(s),
place of work (if any), her (?) gender, the city in which she (?) lives, her (?) post-secondary education....
But Athel is supremely uninterested in any of these details.
That's because, you see, jillery is safely in the anti-ID camp. In fact, fanatically so.
Athel is too, but his fanaticism only becomes apparent under widely
scattered "Black Swan" circumstances.
On 11/10/23 7:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Ron, I see that Mark is lying low, not responding [...]
Your previous post and post to which I respond now do say something that *might* be interesting: Namely, that Erich von Däniken perceived design
and inferred gods (or aliens with seemingly god-like powers)
Could you elaborate on what you see as the significance of
von Daniken?
It seems to me that von Daniken makes the same mistake Ron Dean makes:
From final appearance, he concludes a designer in lines with his preconception.
And von Daniken's conclusions have proven to be wrong,
as it seems likely Ron's will be.
Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabong wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:>
El Kabob wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:>
Mark Isaak wrote:....
You could deal with the issues people bring up instead of merely >>>>>>> repeating your mantras.
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6) >>>>>> years to earn my degree in electrical engineering. MsEE, During this >>>>>> period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design. >>>>>> We learned _to_ design, which was basically computers, paperwork,
planning, drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing. Then >>>>>> it was a manufactured product.
So you took EE classes in "paperwork"? Seriously?
Didn't say that! You had to hand in paperwork.
You
You kind of did say that. Maybe you consider homework to
be paperwork. No doubt you would recognize The Designer's
paperwork should you ever come across it.
learned planning, testing and manufacturing in school?>
This bears little resemblance to any legit EE or other
engineering curriculum.
Never heard of drawing schematics, drafting? And no manufacturing was
not taught, but does follow design.
That's just incidental to electrical design, let alone
biology. So far i'm not recognizing much of your
alleged training as being part of engineering or
biodesign.
I don't know you, don't care about you, why do you care about me?
Because you are the source of ongoing disinformation
spewage.
Please address the responses to your claims candidly, so
dissembly can be rooted out wherever it is found. Are
you part of the solution or part of the problem?
This is why your claims to hold a BSEE, MSEE, or>
whatever, are in dispute. You appear ignorant of
electronics and engineering. While your alleged
education is not relevant to ID/creationism (except that
you brought it up), it does speak to your pattern of
repeated intellectual dishonesty.
I do not lie, nor am I intellectually dishonest, you can question my
arguments, but character assassination is unacceptable.
That's not true, Ron. You get corrected, then continue
with the same old PRATTs. You make dubious claims about
yourself. You dissemble routinely, and that's a nice way
of saying it.
Design preceded the manufacture of the
motherboard Nevertheless, it can be described as a bad design..
Huh? All motherboard designs are bad designs? Why do
you hate motherboards so?
Weird.
What was your point in this? Do you claim you are an
expert in electrical design, therefore we should honor
your assertion of biological design? Braggadocio?
Diversion? Inability to stay on track?
It looks like we will never know that.
On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 02:31:35 UTC+2, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 6:06:33 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 November 2023 at 08:11:31 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 7:06:31 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
[Ron:]
It seems to be a common conviction that in no case can design be
recognized without knowing about the designer and exactly how it
accomplished its task. I suspect this is simply an easy way out. If >> anyone has ever tried and justified this requirement. I don't remember it.
[Bill Rogers, in the role of a man in a glass house throwing stones:]
Ron, these point have been addressed by many posters many times. You seem to ignore everything you don't like.
It's not that, if it's not rational, I reject it and as a rule, I explain why I disagree. I do not know of anyone who has attempted to explain why a designer must be known before design can be recognized as
purposeful design.
It is because of how wisdom works. Knowledge of fact is never alone but always related to other knowledge. Every event happens sometime for some cause in a particular way and leaves evidence that it was so.
These vague generalities do not shed light on what Ron wrote in his last sentence.
He wrote that no one explains why it is needed to know who was actor of alleged
act. But for me it is self-obvious.
Say ... we see dead body and someone claims that murder happened. It is obvious that we then ask who, how, when, where, with what, why etc. It is because
facts are never alone and have to fit with each other for an explanation to form.
That is what I tried to express here, and yes, it is insulting to thinking brain.
Without that there is "murder happened" all alone and that is not explanation
but naked dogma.
Nor do the following unsupported accusations:
It is fact not accusation. He does not have any explanations at all. Bald maxim
is not explanation. Can we agree on that?
Now you have
no evidences, materials to read about it, no hypotheses, no cites. Nothing.
Neither scientific nor non-scientific.
I think he has a good piece of evidence in the repair mechanism he has outlined.
I have seen no description of how it might have evolved. What I have seen is a "Darwin of the Gaps" argument by Bill Rogers, which is about like this:
"It's natural selection: those organisms who were able to evolve an efficient and essentially flawless repair mechanism had a survival advantage over those that did not, so they are the ones we see today."
Did YOU see an evolutionary path? You make no effort to cite one.
The whole essence of situation is that evolution explanation is orders of magnitude more detailed and more supported with evidence than
design explanation.
That "design" is faith-based dogma.
So is lack of design, in the opposite direction.
There can be no "lack" theories.
I realize that several people have "explained" how and why the six DNA proofreading and repair mechanism came about, in a universe where mindless, aimless unguided evolutionary processes accomplished the task.
But it seems to me that here, naturalist are resorting to faith. I've seen no evidence that demonstrates how and why DNA proofreading and repair mechanics occurred through natural processes.
Next, you run away from a major difficulty to some of the easiest
things of all to explain.
Indeed how to explain to person who does not understand the basics,
that I wrote below, something more complex?
How offspring of common ancestor of grizzly and polar bear did become different bears?
"similar" is so general as to be worthless. You couldn't even find a "similar"
path for bats to evolve their wings without passing through at least one stage that was maladaptive.
Now you run away from bears, canines and equines with bat. So we are even.
What stage in row of (a) parachuting to reduce fall damage -> (b) gliding to get from tree to tree -> (c) better controlled gliding -> (d) flight is maladaptive for little nocturnal insectivore mammal?
You claimed there were "many" such ways,
but you were unable to find a single one.
That is same as with polar bear. In what order and steps the skull and nose become longer, omnivore became carnivore, rare wader became swimmer,
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WATJ1V2lWcI/m/cB_4zzxUBgAJ Subject: Re: Darwin of the Gaps
Dec 13, 2022, 1:20:19 PM
And here is where I laid out the difficulties, on the same thread, with references to the best attempt to find a path that I have ever seen:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WATJ1V2lWcI/m/y2p9FGZgBAAJ
Dec 16, 2022, 11:05:22 PM
Back to you, Mr. Tiib: can you try to find a path NOW that is not maladaptive somewhere?
What path is there maladaptive somewhere?
I decided to postpone the reply to the remainder of
your Nov. 7 post, to clarify a few things about this reply of yours, Öö.
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 3:31:36 PM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 02:31:35 UTC+2, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 6:06:33 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 November 2023 at 08:11:31 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 7:06:31 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
[Ron:]
It seems to be a common conviction that in no case can design be >> recognized without knowing about the designer and exactly how it >> accomplished its task. I suspect this is simply an easy way out. If
anyone has ever tried and justified this requirement. I don't remember it.
[Bill Rogers, in the role of a man in a glass house throwing stones:]
Ron, these point have been addressed by many posters many times. You seem to ignore everything you don't like.
It's not that, if it's not rational, I reject it and as a rule, I explain why I disagree. I do not know of anyone who has attempted to explain why a designer must be known before design can be recognized as
purposeful design.
It is because of how wisdom works. Knowledge of fact is never alone but
always related to other knowledge. Every event happens sometime for some
cause in a particular way and leaves evidence that it was so.
These vague generalities do not shed light on what Ron wrote in his last sentence.
He wrote that no one explains why it is needed to know who was actor of allegedI wouldn't go so far as to suggest a *need*. The Antikythera mechanism was obviously designed, despite our lack of knowledge of who designed it.
act. But for me it is self-obvious.
See the reply I did to Mark Isaak a little over an hour ago.
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 11:11:35 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/10/23 7:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Ron, I see that Mark is lying low, not responding [...]
Mark, in case you've forgotten, I next put something to ameliorate that comment:
"But then, there is no reason for him to hurry,
since he has all weekend to think about his reactions."
You deleted that hint, and so far from taking it, you
responded within less than four hours [see above]
and you deleted everything else I wrote in my long post.
You did post a cursory "synopsis", but it is so irrelevant
to all the points I was making, that the best thing to do about
it now is to delete it in toto.
[...]
You did, however give a half-baked response to something in it.
Your previous post and post to which I respond now do say something that
*might* be interesting: Namely, that Erich von Däniken perceived design
and inferred gods (or aliens with seemingly god-like powers)
Nonsense: there is not a thing he wrote about that required god-like powers, or even abilities that are beyond us. Had he known what we now know
about the Antikythera mechanism, he might have fooled a lot of people
about it being beyond our present abilities, but there is no evidence of that so far. I say this despite the fact that remarkable new things are still being
discovered about it. Here is a 2021 article with some major new hypotheses about it:
"A Model of the Cosmos in the ancient Greek Antikythera Mechanism"
Tony Freeth, corresponding author; David Higgon, Aris Dacanalis, Lindsay MacDonald, Myrto Georgakopoulou,3 and Adam Wojcik corresponding author
Sci Rep. 2021; 11: 5821.
Published online 2021 Mar 12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84310-w
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7955085/#MOESM4
Could you elaborate on what you see as the significance of
von Daniken?
I brought him into the picture to refute the following claim by you:
"They [the divers] recognized it as man-made,
because its being man-made was self-evident."
This was in response to Ron's statement,
"My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of
who or what made it, because design was self-evident!"
Ron was referring to its design, which is not to be found in the outer container, which is all the divers ever saw of it. Nor is it to be found
in the fact that it had numerous gears, easily hypothesized to be of human manufacture.
Instead, the design was in the *arrangement* of the gears, which (it eventually turned out)
had the purpose of predicting various
astronomical events, including the apparent location
of the moon and the sun at any time. It now seems that it could also predict the apparent location of all the planets known at the time, despite the fact that some
crucial gears are still missing. The following excerpts are taken from the 2021 article:
"The close match between our proposed mechanisms and the data is shown in Fig. 4. The four spokes of b1 suggest four different functions
(Supplementary Fig. S12). The mean Sun and inferior planets take up three
of these. What is the function of the prominent bearing on Spoke B (Fig.
4f)? Fig. 5b shows a solution: the bearing enables a four-gear epicyclic system that calculates the lunar nodes. Our proposed tooth counts for the gears and their modules (Supplementary Discussion S4) mean that the
bearing is in exactly the right place on Spoke B. No other use has
previously been found for this bearing."
...
"For the first time, the features on b1 and the components of Fragment D
are fully explained (Figs. (Figs.4,4, ,5,5, Supplementary Fig. S21, Supplementary Discussion S5, Supplementary Video S1). We conclude that
our Venus and Mercury gear trains are *strongly* indicated by the evidence."
I am especially intrigued by the mention of epicycles. These are individual terms in a Fourier series that can approximate the orbit of any body
in any planetary system (given suitable observations, of course)
to any desired degree of accuracy. These series are part of a whole branch
of analysis called "almost periodic functions." I have borrowed a library book with that very title, written by Harald Bohr, younger brother of Neils Bohr,
who founded the whole theory.
Alas, the only other t.o. regular that I know of who could appreciate these details was Richard Norman, who disappeared in 2017.
It seems to me that von Daniken makes the same mistake Ron Dean makes:
From final appearance, he concludes a designer in lines with his
preconception.
Why so coy about what that "preconception" is supposed to be?
But then, your innuendo is far more flamboyant
than the truth: nowhere in the Wikipedia article
does it suggest that von Daniken thought the extraterrestrial
visitors that he talks about were supernatural. Instead, the
title of his book refers to the hypothesis that the people of the time thought they might be gods.
And von Daniken's conclusions have proven to be wrong,
as it seems likely Ron's will be.
Banking on innuendo to the end, you keep us guessing what
"conclusions" you may be referring to.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS I am highly skeptical that extraterrestrial visitors taught humans the things
that went into the design of the Antikythera mechanism, but that is because
I think OOL so rare that it only happens at most once in the lifetime of a galaxy,
even one as large as our Milky Way. What is YOUR reason for dismissing
the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors out of hand?
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 11:11:35 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/10/23 7:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Ron, I see that Mark is lying low, not responding [...]
Mark, in case you've forgotten, I next put something to ameliorate that comment:
"But then, there is no reason for him to hurry,
since he has all weekend to think about his reactions."
You deleted that hint, and so far from taking it, you
responded within less than four hours [see above]
and you deleted everything else I wrote in my long post.
You did post a cursory "synopsis", but it is so irrelevant
to all the points I was making, that the best thing to do about
it now is to delete it in toto.
[...]
You did, however give a half-baked response to something in it.
Your previous post and post to which I respond now do say something that
*might* be interesting: Namely, that Erich von Däniken perceived design
and inferred gods (or aliens with seemingly god-like powers)
Nonsense: there is not a thing he wrote about that required god-like powers, or even abilities that are beyond us.
Could you elaborate on what you see as the significance of
von Daniken?
I brought him into the picture to refute the following claim by you:
"They [the divers] recognized it as man-made,
because its being man-made was self-evident."
This was in response to Ron's statement,
"My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of
who or what made it, because design was self-evident!"
It seems to me that von Daniken makes the same mistake Ron Dean makes:
From final appearance, he concludes a designer in lines with his
preconception.
Why so coy about what that "preconception" is supposed to be?
And von Daniken's conclusions have proven to be wrong,
as it seems likely Ron's will be.
Banking on innuendo to the end, you keep us guessing what
"conclusions" you may be referring to.
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 11:11:35?PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:You know I learned something new, which I find very exciting and >invigorating. The ancient Greeks were way too backwater ignorant to have >thought up the Antikythera mechanism on their own unaided by >extraterrestials. Therefore Planet X exists and is called Nibiru. Perhaps >Niburu is a way station for Throom? My mind has opened to endless >possibilities due to this one discovery. Thanks.
On 11/10/23 7:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Ron, I see that Mark is lying low, not responding [...]
Mark, in case you've forgotten, I next put something to ameliorate that comment:
"But then, there is no reason for him to hurry,
since he has all weekend to think about his reactions."
You deleted that hint, and so far from taking it, you
responded within less than four hours [see above]
and you deleted everything else I wrote in my long post.
You did post a cursory "synopsis", but it is so irrelevant
to all the points I was making, that the best thing to do about
it now is to delete it in toto.
[...]
You did, however give a half-baked response to something in it.
Your previous post and post to which I respond now do say something that >>> *might* be interesting: Namely, that Erich von Dniken perceived design
and inferred gods (or aliens with seemingly god-like powers)
Nonsense: there is not a thing he wrote about that required god-like powers, >> or even abilities that are beyond us. Had he known what we now know
about the Antikythera mechanism, he might have fooled a lot of people
about it being beyond our present abilities, but there is no evidence of that
so far. I say this despite the fact that remarkable new things are still being
discovered about it. Here is a 2021 article with some major new hypotheses about it:
"A Model of the Cosmos in the ancient Greek Antikythera Mechanism"
Tony Freeth, corresponding author; David Higgon, Aris Dacanalis, Lindsay
MacDonald, Myrto Georgakopoulou,3 and Adam Wojcik corresponding author
Sci Rep. 2021; 11: 5821.
Published online 2021 Mar 12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84310-w
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7955085/#MOESM4
Could you elaborate on what you see as the significance of
von Daniken?
I brought him into the picture to refute the following claim by you:
"They [the divers] recognized it as man-made,
because its being man-made was self-evident."
This was in response to Ron's statement,
"My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of
who or what made it, because design was self-evident!"
Ron was referring to its design, which is not to be found in the outer
container, which is all the divers ever saw of it. Nor is it to be found
in the fact that it had numerous gears, easily hypothesized to be of human manufacture.
Instead, the design was in the *arrangement* of the gears, which (it
eventually turned out)
had the purpose of predicting various
astronomical events, including the apparent location
of the moon and the sun at any time. It now seems that it could also predict >> the apparent location of all the planets known at the time, despite the fact that some
crucial gears are still missing. The following excerpts are taken from the 2021 article:
"The close match between our proposed mechanisms and the data is shown in
Fig. 4. The four spokes of b1 suggest four different functions
(Supplementary Fig. S12). The mean Sun and inferior planets take up three
of these. What is the function of the prominent bearing on Spoke B (Fig.
4f)? Fig. 5b shows a solution: the bearing enables a four-gear epicyclic
system that calculates the lunar nodes. Our proposed tooth counts for the
gears and their modules (Supplementary Discussion S4) mean that the
bearing is in exactly the right place on Spoke B. No other use has
previously been found for this bearing."
...
"For the first time, the features on b1 and the components of Fragment D
are fully explained (Figs. ?(Figs.4,4, ?,5,5, Supplementary Fig. S21,
Supplementary Discussion S5, Supplementary Video S1). We conclude that
our Venus and Mercury gear trains are *strongly* indicated by the evidence." >>
I am especially intrigued by the mention of epicycles. These are individual >> terms in a Fourier series that can approximate the orbit of any body
in any planetary system (given suitable observations, of course)
to any desired degree of accuracy. These series are part of a whole branch >> of analysis called "almost periodic functions." I have borrowed a library
book with that very title, written by Harald Bohr, younger brother of Neils Bohr,
who founded the whole theory.
Alas, the only other t.o. regular that I know of who could appreciate these >> details was Richard Norman, who disappeared in 2017.
It seems to me that von Daniken makes the same mistake Ron Dean makes:
From final appearance, he concludes a designer in lines with his
preconception.
Why so coy about what that "preconception" is supposed to be?
But then, your innuendo is far more flamboyant
than the truth: nowhere in the Wikipedia article
does it suggest that von Daniken thought the extraterrestrial
visitors that he talks about were supernatural. Instead, the
title of his book refers to the hypothesis that the people of the time
thought they might be gods.
And von Daniken's conclusions have proven to be wrong,
as it seems likely Ron's will be.
Banking on innuendo to the end, you keep us guessing what
"conclusions" you may be referring to.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS I am highly skeptical that extraterrestrial visitors taught humans the things
that went into the design of the Antikythera mechanism, but that is because >> I think OOL so rare that it only happens at most once in the lifetime of a galaxy,
even one as large as our Milky Way. What is YOUR reason for dismissing
the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors out of hand?
Has Giorgio Tsoukalos been alerted?
On 11/13/23 4:54 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 11:11:35 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/10/23 7:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Ron, I see that Mark is lying low, not responding [...]
Mark, in case you've forgotten, I next put something to ameliorate that comment:
"But then, there is no reason for him to hurry,
since he has all weekend to think about his reactions."
You deleted that hint, and so far from taking it, you
responded within less than four hours [see above]
and you deleted everything else I wrote in my long post.
You did post a cursory "synopsis", but it is so irrelevantYou made points? I hadn't noticed. I hope you can learn to write more clearly.
to all the points I was making, that the best thing to do about
it now is to delete it in toto.
[...]
You did, however give a half-baked response to something in it.
Your previous post and post to which I respond now do say something that >> *might* be interesting: Namely, that Erich von Däniken perceived design >> and inferred gods (or aliens with seemingly god-like powers)
Nonsense: there is not a thing he wrote about that required god-like powers,Granted, my reading of von Daniken was at least 50 years ago, but one of
or even abilities that are beyond us.
the themes I remember is that the ancient aliens had abilities far
beyond those of the peoples of 1000 years or more ago.
[snip von Daniken meets Antikythera]
Could you elaborate on what you see as the significance of
von Daniken?
I brought him into the picture to refute the following claim by you:
"They [the divers] recognized it as man-made,
because its being man-made was self-evident."
This was in response to Ron's statement,
"My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless ofI was wrong to follow Ron's lead in assuming the divers recognized
who or what made it, because design was self-evident!"
anything about the Antikythera mechanism. That, however, is a trivial
point. As everyone knows, upon examination of the device, it quickly
became obvious that it was designed. (However, I think it wrong to call
it "self-evident"; it was evident based on everyone's familiarity with man-made things.) NOTE: That parenthetical comment, and the following paragraph, are the only parts of this post that I consider on-topic.
All the discussion about who recognized Antikytheran design when is of
no interest to me, and I don't see why it interests anyone else except historians. The Antikythera device is a bad example for how people do
or do not recognize design, because with gears, metal, and writing, it
is so obviously man-made. Why not simply use an iPhone as the example
of a designed thing? A better example would be finding some unfamiliar packaging material on the beach.
It seems to me that von Daniken makes the same mistake Ron Dean makes:
From final appearance, he concludes a designer in lines with his
preconception.
Why so coy about what that "preconception" is supposed to be?Sorry, I thought that you knew von Danikan's works. His preconception
(or at least the idea he was selling) was that ancient aliens existed
and visited Earth.
And von Daniken's conclusions have proven to be wrong,
as it seems likely Ron's will be.
Banking on innuendo to the end, you keep us guessing whatAgain, it should be obvious from interminable repetition. Ron concludes non-human design.
"conclusions" you may be referring to.
I might add that I found this whole post a great waste of time. You
(and not only you) seem to be fascinated by the Antikythera device.
Nothing wrong with that, but trying to tie it (and not, say, a
typewriter, crossbow, or dental pick) into the design argument is pointless. --
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or wherebetray that they do not think critically about their design assertions.
new species came from.
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 14:08:42 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:Nicely done. :-)
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 11:11:35?PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:You know I learned something new, which I find very exciting and
On 11/10/23 7:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Ron, I see that Mark is lying low, not responding [...]
Mark, in case you've forgotten, I next put something to ameliorate that
comment:
"But then, there is no reason for him to hurry,
since he has all weekend to think about his reactions."
You deleted that hint, and so far from taking it, you
responded within less than four hours [see above]
and you deleted everything else I wrote in my long post.
You did post a cursory "synopsis", but it is so irrelevant
to all the points I was making, that the best thing to do about
it now is to delete it in toto.
[...]
You did, however give a half-baked response to something in it.
Your previous post and post to which I respond now do say something that >>>> *might* be interesting: Namely, that Erich von Dniken perceived design >>>> and inferred gods (or aliens with seemingly god-like powers)
Nonsense: there is not a thing he wrote about that required god-like powers,
or even abilities that are beyond us. Had he known what we now know
about the Antikythera mechanism, he might have fooled a lot of people
about it being beyond our present abilities, but there is no evidence of that
so far. I say this despite the fact that remarkable new things are still being
discovered about it. Here is a 2021 article with some major new
hypotheses about it:
"A Model of the Cosmos in the ancient Greek Antikythera Mechanism"
Tony Freeth, corresponding author; David Higgon, Aris Dacanalis, Lindsay >>> MacDonald, Myrto Georgakopoulou,3 and Adam Wojcik corresponding author
Sci Rep. 2021; 11: 5821.
Published online 2021 Mar 12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84310-w
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7955085/#MOESM4
Could you elaborate on what you see as the significance of
von Daniken?
I brought him into the picture to refute the following claim by you:
"They [the divers] recognized it as man-made,
because its being man-made was self-evident."
This was in response to Ron's statement,
"My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of
who or what made it, because design was self-evident!"
Ron was referring to its design, which is not to be found in the outer
container, which is all the divers ever saw of it. Nor is it to be found >>> in the fact that it had numerous gears, easily hypothesized to be of
human manufacture.
Instead, the design was in the *arrangement* of the gears, which (it
eventually turned out)
had the purpose of predicting various
astronomical events, including the apparent location
of the moon and the sun at any time. It now seems that it could also predict
the apparent location of all the planets known at the time, despite the
fact that some
crucial gears are still missing. The following excerpts are taken from
the 2021 article:
"The close match between our proposed mechanisms and the data is shown in >>> Fig. 4. The four spokes of b1 suggest four different functions
(Supplementary Fig. S12). The mean Sun and inferior planets take up three >>> of these. What is the function of the prominent bearing on Spoke B (Fig. >>> 4f)? Fig. 5b shows a solution: the bearing enables a four-gear epicyclic >>> system that calculates the lunar nodes. Our proposed tooth counts for the >>> gears and their modules (Supplementary Discussion S4) mean that the
bearing is in exactly the right place on Spoke B. No other use has
previously been found for this bearing."
...
"For the first time, the features on b1 and the components of Fragment D >>> are fully explained (Figs. ?(Figs.4,4, ?,5,5, Supplementary Fig. S21,
Supplementary Discussion S5, Supplementary Video S1). We conclude that
our Venus and Mercury gear trains are *strongly* indicated by the evidence."
I am especially intrigued by the mention of epicycles. These are individual >>> terms in a Fourier series that can approximate the orbit of any body
in any planetary system (given suitable observations, of course)
to any desired degree of accuracy. These series are part of a whole branch >>> of analysis called "almost periodic functions." I have borrowed a library >>> book with that very title, written by Harald Bohr, younger brother of
Neils Bohr,
who founded the whole theory.
Alas, the only other t.o. regular that I know of who could appreciate these >>> details was Richard Norman, who disappeared in 2017.
It seems to me that von Daniken makes the same mistake Ron Dean makes: >>>> From final appearance, he concludes a designer in lines with his
preconception.
Why so coy about what that "preconception" is supposed to be?
But then, your innuendo is far more flamboyant
than the truth: nowhere in the Wikipedia article
does it suggest that von Daniken thought the extraterrestrial
visitors that he talks about were supernatural. Instead, the
title of his book refers to the hypothesis that the people of the time
thought they might be gods.
And von Daniken's conclusions have proven to be wrong,
as it seems likely Ron's will be.
Banking on innuendo to the end, you keep us guessing what
"conclusions" you may be referring to.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS I am highly skeptical that extraterrestrial visitors taught humans
the things
that went into the design of the Antikythera mechanism, but that is because >>> I think OOL so rare that it only happens at most once in the lifetime
of a galaxy,
even one as large as our Milky Way. What is YOUR reason for dismissing
the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors out of hand?
invigorating. The ancient Greeks were way too backwater ignorant to have
thought up the Antikythera mechanism on their own unaided by
extraterrestials. Therefore Planet X exists and is called Nibiru. Perhaps
Niburu is a way station for Throom? My mind has opened to endless
possibilities due to this one discovery. Thanks.
Has Giorgio Tsoukalos been alerted?
I've noticed that there's a certain (lack of) mentality
which thinks that knowledge is synonymous with intelligence;
a couple even stated that since we have more tech gadgets
that the ancient Egyptians we're therefore more intelligent,
and that therefore they *couldn't* have designed and built
the pyramids, all evidence to the contrary. IMHO the
converse may well be true; I believe that it took greater
intelligence to survive and prosper then than it does now,
when many things which would have been fatal then are minor
inconveniences today.
Just my 20 mills... ;-)
Athel is being selectively nosy. There are plenty of people here who are more secretive
about their backgrounds than Ron Dean.
place of work (if any), her (?) gender, the city in which she (?) lives, her (?) post-secondary education....
But Athel is supremely uninterested in any of these details.
That's because, you see, jillery is safely in the anti-ID camp. In fact, fanatically so.
Athel is too, but his fanaticism only becomes apparent under widely
scattered "Black Swan" circumstances.
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 11:46:39 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-11-13 15:47:54 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-11-12 00:18:01 +0000, El Kabong said:Cost of living. It cost less to live in the South than in the North.
Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabob wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:....
You could deal with the issues people bring up instead of merely >>>>>>>>> repeating your mantras.
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6) >>>>>>>> years to earn my degree in electrical engineering.
Out of curiosity, which universities were these? Bob Jones University
and Liberty University? Why did you need two, anyway? Were you
dismissed from the first one?
That's not an answer. Even in the south universities have names.
Methiks Athel is being nosy because he has a prejudice against
the South, and would love to have this prejudice widened to include
any anti-ID person.
[He may not be too different from jillery, who has even called
the University of South Carolina a "redneck university."
Fact is, it is just as fanatically committed to the fashionable
kind of "diversity" as the average Northern state-supported university.]
Athel even brought trumped up charges about me being ignorant
of the difference between biochemistry of living organisms,
and the biochemistry of OOL. In fact, I have been acutely
aware of just how different the main tools of research into these
two disciplines are since early 1996, almost a year before I heard of Michael Behe
or, indeed, the modern theory of Intelligent Design.
--Didn't say that! You had to hand in paperwork.MsEE, During this
period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design. >>>>>>>> We learned _to_ design, which was basically computers, paperwork, >>>>>>>> planning, drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing. Then
it was a manufactured product.
So you took EE classes in "paperwork"? Seriously?
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
Nice to know all these things. Athel is even the author of a highly
regarded book on the biochemistry of life.
And Athel knows enough about OOL *not* to argue with Tour,
because any debate between them would shatter the illusion
that the anti-ID contingent holds so dear,
that we are making great progress in OOL. So great, in fact,
that we will be able to say in a few decades that we have
OOL pretty much figured out.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS None of the above prevents Athel from being a snobbish credentialist, sneering at Tour because he doesn't have a degree in "biology."
Tour knows more about OOL than the average biologist, because he has
a very low bar to clear for that status.
I decided to postpone the reply to the remainder of
your Nov. 7 post, to clarify a few things about this reply of yours, Öö.
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 3:31:36 PM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Friday, 10 November 2023 at 02:31:35 UTC+2, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, November 7, 2023 at 6:06:33 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 November 2023 at 08:11:31 UTC+2, Ron Dean wrote:
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 7:06:31 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/6/23 10:44 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
[Ron:]
It seems to be a common conviction that in no case can design be >> recognized without knowing about the designer and exactly how it >> accomplished its task. I suspect this is simply an easy way out. If
anyone has ever tried and justified this requirement. I don't remember it.
[Bill Rogers, in the role of a man in a glass house throwing stones:]
Ron, these point have been addressed by many posters many times. You seem to ignore everything you don't like.
It's not that, if it's not rational, I reject it and as a rule, I explain why I disagree. I do not know of anyone who has attempted to explain why a designer must be known before design can be recognized as
purposeful design.
It is because of how wisdom works. Knowledge of fact is never alone but
always related to other knowledge. Every event happens sometime for some
cause in a particular way and leaves evidence that it was so.
These vague generalities do not shed light on what Ron wrote in his last sentence.
He wrote that no one explains why it is needed to know who was actor of alleged
act. But for me it is self-obvious.
I wouldn't go so far as to suggest a *need*. The Antikythera mechanism was obviously designed, despite our lack of knowledge of who designed it.
See the reply I did to Mark Isaak a little over an hour ago.
Say ... we see dead body and someone claims that murder happened. It is obvious that we then ask who, how, when, where, with what, why etc. It is because
facts are never alone and have to fit with each other for an explanation to form.
That is what I tried to express here, and yes, it is insulting to thinking brain.
Without that there is "murder happened" all alone and that is not explanation
but naked dogma.
It isn't "naked dogma," but established fact, that a person whom the police have nicknamed "Jack the Ripper" murdered several prostitutes.
After well over a century, no one knows who he was, but that doesn't
take away from the public interest in it. The opposite is true.
Nor do the following unsupported accusations:
It is fact not accusation. He does not have any explanations at all. Bald maxim
is not explanation. Can we agree on that?
On the sentence immediately preceding your question, sure, but not on
the one before that.
Now you have
no evidences, materials to read about it, no hypotheses, no cites. Nothing.
Neither scientific nor non-scientific.
I think he has a good piece of evidence in the repair mechanism he has outlined.
I have seen no description of how it might have evolved. What I have seen
is a "Darwin of the Gaps" argument by Bill Rogers, which is about like this:
As a matter of fact, Bill Rogers was OBVIOUSLY ducking a direct"It's natural selection: those organisms who were able to evolve an efficient and essentially flawless repair mechanism had a survival advantage over those that did not, so they are the ones we see today."
question by Ron Dean:
"Also proofreading which detects the mutation first, then signals the repair mechanics. How did this get
started, and what were the steps by step natural process that brought about the P&R system[?]"
Bill's reply was even more evasive than I remembered it being, in addition to beinggetting lethal mutations. After a few thousand generations, all the bacteria that were around had a P&R system."
insulting in the way he was talking down to Ron as if he were a child:
"Once upon a time, there were two bacteria. One of them had a proof reading and repair system. The other did not. The one with the P&R system had descendants with only occasional lethal mutations. The one without a P&R system had descendants that kept
-- https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg/m/DK0Bul1-AAAJ
Sep 29, 2023, 7:30:52 PM
Did YOU see an evolutionary path? You make no effort to cite one.
The whole essence of situation is that evolution explanation is orders of magnitude more detailed and more supported with evidence thanBut you do not give one, and neither did Bill Rogers, of HOW
design explanation.
it *might* have come about.
That "design" is faith-based dogma.
So is lack of design, in the opposite direction.
There can be no "lack" theories.Of course there can. One can hypothesize an evolutionary path
that somehow avoids precursors to the P&R mechanism that are maladaptive, and do not violate the familiar precept, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
<snip for focus>
I realize that several people have "explained" how and why the six DNA
proofreading and repair mechanism came about, in a universe where mindless, aimless unguided evolutionary processes accomplished the task.
But it seems to me that here, naturalist are resorting to faith. I've
seen no evidence that demonstrates how and why DNA proofreading and repair mechanics occurred through natural processes.
Next, you run away from a major difficulty to some of the easiest
things of all to explain.
Indeed how to explain to person who does not understand the basics,What makes you think Ron does NOT understand the basics?
that I wrote below, something more complex?
They don't advance his case one-thousandths as much as some well
chosen mysteries that people like Bill Rogers runs away from?
Besides the P&R mechanisms, I am indebted to Ron for my first
long look at the mystery of how much the Antikythera mechanism
was able to accomplish, and who was responsible for its design.
<snip for focus>How offspring of common ancestor of grizzly and polar bear did become different bears?
"similar" is so general as to be worthless. You couldn't even find a "similar"
path for bats to evolve their wings without passing through at least one stage that was maladaptive.
Now you run away from bears, canines and equines with bat. So we are even.Don't be ridiculous. Who would prefer childishly simple questions to
major mysteries? YOU?
What stage in row of (a) parachuting to reduce fall damage -> (b) gliding to
get from tree to tree -> (c) better controlled gliding -> (d) flight is maladaptive for little nocturnal insectivore mammal?
You are leaving out the really mysterious steps between (c) and
(d) which Noni Mausa showed to be a problem: the tradeoff
between reduced agility at other times besides gliding, and greater gliding ability.
You yourself did not like the hypothesized intermediates:
tinyurl.com/8c7yrr8y
You also agreed with Noni Mausa's comments in the following webpage
about two of the steps being problematic:
https://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2011/03/05/visualising-protobats
Here is what [s]he wrote:
"Can I propose the split from Smith's (A) to (D, E) would have to be very quick, and not studded with a lot of species displaying intermediate hand web configurations?
"The reason being, (A) is a perfectly useful grasping and climbing hand, while (D, E) are good wings, but (B, C) don't look very good for either task. Too small for real flight, too clumsy and fragile for grasping."
You claimed there were "many" such ways,
but you were unable to find a single one.
That is same as with polar bear. In what order and steps the skull and noseImmaterial. I have no objections to it happening in various orders, nothing like the dilemma Noni Masa, myself, and even yourself are stuck on.
become longer, omnivore became carnivore, rare wader became swimmer,
Draw a bat ancestor sequence better than the one Smith drew in his book, and email
me a scan at nyikos "at" math.sc.edu. Take all the time you want,
a year if necessary. I am a very patient man where major mysteries are concerned.
<snip for focus>
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WATJ1V2lWcI/m/cB_4zzxUBgAJ Subject: Re: Darwin of the Gaps
Dec 13, 2022, 1:20:19 PM
And here is where I laid out the difficulties, on the same thread, with references to the best attempt to find a path that I have ever seen:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/WATJ1V2lWcI/m/y2p9FGZgBAAJ Dec 16, 2022, 11:05:22 PM
Back to you, Mr. Tiib: can you try to find a path NOW that is not maladaptive somewhere?
What path is there maladaptive somewhere?Take a look at the A to E sequence at the tinyurl, which I crafted myself [the original
gargantuan url will appear once it does its work]. Compare with what Noni Mausa wrote.
That's the best effort I (and, presumably, Darren Naish, who set up the tetrapodzoology page)
I can find for a detailed path of plausible intermediates anywhere. Find or draw me a better one.
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Athel is being selectively nosy. There are plenty of people here who are more secretive
about their backgrounds than Ron Dean. For instance, jillery has not revealed her (?) real name(s),
place of work (if any), her (?) gender, the city in which she (?) lives, her (?) post-secondary education....
But Athel is supremely uninterested in any of these details.
That's because, you see, jillery is safely in the anti-ID camp. In fact, fanatically so.
Athel is too, but his fanaticism only becomes apparent under widely
scattered "Black Swan" circumstances.
IMO it's generally a bad idea to use your real name on
Usenet, for obvious reasons. Some malignants take usenet
feuds way too far.
In the long run, a poster's rep will live or die by their
competence and integrity. Readers will figure people out
regardless of CV or other personal information.
Ron chooses to bring up his background, with sometimes
conflicting details, expecting cred. If his stories
don't add up, that in itself is fair game. Ron has
posted under many other nyms, tho not recently, and which
he has denied. Another poster compiled a list of those
alleged nyms, and it was long.
Beyond that, I don't know or care about anyone's real
identity. I do wonder about Ron's motivation.
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Athel is being selectively nosy. There are plenty of people here who
are more secretive
about their backgrounds than Ron Dean.
And I wish I had given absolutely nothing, much less than I did! We
live in a dangerous world at the present day. And especially in certain
small towns.
For instance, jillery has not revealed her (?) real name(s),
place of work (if any), her (?) gender, the city in which she (?)
lives, her (?) post-secondary education....
But Athel is supremely uninterested in any of these details.
That's because, you see, jillery is safely in the anti-ID camp. In
fact, fanatically so.
Athel is too,
[ … ]
Then a couple days later, I opened my mail box and a cat's bloody
detached head greeted me. I contacted the police, they rode past my
home a few times, but did nothing. So, I bought a 3030 Henry lever
action rifle after that happened, for protection. I target practiced a
few times a day for about 2 weeks. The harassment stopped. But I was
prepared to do, whatever it took to protect my family.
[ … ]
Cost of living. It cost less to live in the South than in the North.
Out of curiosity, which universities were these? Bob Jones University >>>>> and Liberty University? Why did you need two, anyway? Were you
dismissed from the first one?
That's not an answer. Even in the south universities have names.
I refuse to provide any further information about me, where I live or
my real name.
Methiks Athel is being nosy because he has a prejudice against
the South, and would love to have this prejudice widened to include
any anti-ID person.
That wasn't intended for this group, but often I forget to choose theAthel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
Nice to know all these things. Athel is even the author of a highly
regarded book on the biochemistry of life.
I'm impressed!
El Kabong wrote:[]
Beyond that, I don't know or care about anyone's real
identity. I do wonder about Ron's motivation.
After reading a book, on a challenge, entitled, "Evolution a theory in Crisis" by Dr. Denton, I read other books by people who I made certain
they were scientist. As to my motivation, I became disillusioned with evolution. Today, I think evolution is greatest and the most devastating fraud ever perpetrated upon the human race.
Based upon my experience, of never questioning, what I read and heard
from proponents of evolution, I accepted it as fact. They were experts,
who after all, had the evidence. I wonder how many people fall into the
same category I did. Today, unless I personally _observe_it myself, I
accept nothing without questioning.
El Kabong wrote:..........
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Athel is being selectively nosy. There are plenty of people here who are more secretive
about their backgrounds than Ron Dean. For instance, jillery has not revealed her (?) real name(s),
place of work (if any), her (?) gender, the city in which she (?) lives, her (?) post-secondary education....
But Athel is supremely uninterested in any of these details.
That's because, you see, jillery is safely in the anti-ID camp. In fact, fanatically so.
Athel is too, but his fanaticism only becomes apparent under widely
scattered "Black Swan" circumstances.
IMO it's generally a bad idea to use your real name on
Usenet, for obvious reasons. Some malignants take usenet
feuds way too far.
In the long run, a poster's rep will live or die by their
competence and integrity. Readers will figure people out
regardless of CV or other personal information.
Ron chooses to bring up his background, with sometimes
conflicting details, expecting cred. If his stories
don't add up, that in itself is fair game. Ron has
posted under many other nyms, tho not recently, and which
he has denied. Another poster compiled a list of those
alleged nyms, and it was long.
To my dismay, I did post under my _full_ name for a short time, even mentioned the state where I was residing at the time. By searching the
net my home address could be found.
Beyond that, I don't know or care about anyone's real
identity. I do wonder about Ron's motivation.
After reading a book, on a challenge, entitled, "Evolution a theory in Crisis" by Dr. Denton, I read other books by people who I made certain
they were scientist. As to my motivation, I became disillusioned with evolution. Today, I think evolution is greatest and the most devastating fraud ever perpetrated upon the human race.
Based upon my experience, of never questioning, what I read and heard
from proponents of evolution, I accepted it as fact. They were experts,
who after all, had the evidence. I wonder how many people fall into the
same category I did.
Today, unless I personally _observe_it myself, I
accept nothing without questioning.
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 12:54:57 -0500
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
El Kabong wrote:[]
Beyond that, I don't know or care about anyone's realAfter reading a book, on a challenge, entitled, "Evolution a theory in
identity. I do wonder about Ron's motivation.
Crisis" by Dr. Denton, I read other books by people who I made certain
I does seem to have turned you into an evolution skeptic. Maybe you
should reread it in light of the flaws in it pointed out by some of the regulars here.
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 12:54:57 -0500
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
El Kabong wrote:[]
Beyond that, I don't know or care about anyone's realAfter reading a book, on a challenge, entitled, "Evolution a theory in
identity. I do wonder about Ron's motivation.
Crisis" by Dr. Denton, I read other books by people who I made certain
I does seem to have turned you into an evolution skeptic. Maybe you
should reread it in light of the flaws in it pointed out by some of the >regulars here.
--they were scientist. As to my motivation, I became disillusioned withGood lawd! That's quite a leap from having a few doubts. How has this
evolution. Today, I think evolution is greatest and the most devastating
fraud ever perpetrated upon the human race.
fraud devastated you?
Based upon my experience, of never questioning, what I read and heardTricky. You'd need quite a full lab to reproduce a lot of stuff; generally
from proponents of evolution, I accepted it as fact. They were experts,
who after all, had the evidence. I wonder how many people fall into the
same category I did. Today, unless I personally _observe_it myself, I
accept nothing without questioning.
I take it people aren't out to trick me, unless I see major flaws in their >reasoning, or an ulterior motive.
Geology is another thing; you'd have to wait around a bit to see it in >action.
Prsumably you don't allow much history, and certainly no Old Testament >miracles.
On 2023-11-14 15:24:17 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 14:08:42 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2nyikos@gmail.com> wrote:Nicely done. :-)
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 11:11:35?PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:You know I learned something new, which I find very exciting and
On 11/10/23 7:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Ron, I see that Mark is lying low, not responding [...]
Mark, in case you've forgotten, I next put something to ameliorate that >>>> comment:
"But then, there is no reason for him to hurry,
since he has all weekend to think about his reactions."
You deleted that hint, and so far from taking it, you
responded within less than four hours [see above]
and you deleted everything else I wrote in my long post.
You did post a cursory "synopsis", but it is so irrelevant
to all the points I was making, that the best thing to do about
it now is to delete it in toto.
[...]
You did, however give a half-baked response to something in it.
Your previous post and post to which I respond now do say something that >>>>> *might* be interesting: Namely, that Erich von Dniken perceived design >>>>> and inferred gods (or aliens with seemingly god-like powers)
Nonsense: there is not a thing he wrote about that required god-like powers,
or even abilities that are beyond us. Had he known what we now know
about the Antikythera mechanism, he might have fooled a lot of people
about it being beyond our present abilities, but there is no evidence of that
so far. I say this despite the fact that remarkable new things are still being
discovered about it. Here is a 2021 article with some major new
hypotheses about it:
"A Model of the Cosmos in the ancient Greek Antikythera Mechanism"
Tony Freeth, corresponding author; David Higgon, Aris Dacanalis, Lindsay >>>> MacDonald, Myrto Georgakopoulou,3 and Adam Wojcik corresponding author >>>> Sci Rep. 2021; 11: 5821.
Published online 2021 Mar 12. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84310-w
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7955085/#MOESM4
Could you elaborate on what you see as the significance of
von Daniken?
I brought him into the picture to refute the following claim by you:
"They [the divers] recognized it as man-made,
because its being man-made was self-evident."
This was in response to Ron's statement,
"My point was the divers recognized it as a design, regardless of
who or what made it, because design was self-evident!"
Ron was referring to its design, which is not to be found in the outer >>>> container, which is all the divers ever saw of it. Nor is it to be found >>>> in the fact that it had numerous gears, easily hypothesized to be of
human manufacture.
Instead, the design was in the *arrangement* of the gears, which (it
eventually turned out)
had the purpose of predicting various
astronomical events, including the apparent location
of the moon and the sun at any time. It now seems that it could also predict
the apparent location of all the planets known at the time, despite the >>>> fact that some
crucial gears are still missing. The following excerpts are taken from >>>> the 2021 article:
"The close match between our proposed mechanisms and the data is shown in >>>> Fig. 4. The four spokes of b1 suggest four different functions
(Supplementary Fig. S12). The mean Sun and inferior planets take up three >>>> of these. What is the function of the prominent bearing on Spoke B (Fig. >>>> 4f)? Fig. 5b shows a solution: the bearing enables a four-gear epicyclic >>>> system that calculates the lunar nodes. Our proposed tooth counts for the >>>> gears and their modules (Supplementary Discussion S4) mean that the
bearing is in exactly the right place on Spoke B. No other use has
previously been found for this bearing."
...
"For the first time, the features on b1 and the components of Fragment D >>>> are fully explained (Figs. ?(Figs.4,4, ?,5,5, Supplementary Fig. S21,
Supplementary Discussion S5, Supplementary Video S1). We conclude that >>>> our Venus and Mercury gear trains are *strongly* indicated by the evidence."
I am especially intrigued by the mention of epicycles. These are individual
terms in a Fourier series that can approximate the orbit of any body
in any planetary system (given suitable observations, of course)
to any desired degree of accuracy. These series are part of a whole branch >>>> of analysis called "almost periodic functions." I have borrowed a library >>>> book with that very title, written by Harald Bohr, younger brother of
Neils Bohr,
who founded the whole theory.
Alas, the only other t.o. regular that I know of who could appreciate these
details was Richard Norman, who disappeared in 2017.
It seems to me that von Daniken makes the same mistake Ron Dean makes: >>>>> From final appearance, he concludes a designer in lines with his
preconception.
Why so coy about what that "preconception" is supposed to be?
But then, your innuendo is far more flamboyant
than the truth: nowhere in the Wikipedia article
does it suggest that von Daniken thought the extraterrestrial
visitors that he talks about were supernatural. Instead, the
title of his book refers to the hypothesis that the people of the time >>>> thought they might be gods.
And von Daniken's conclusions have proven to be wrong,
as it seems likely Ron's will be.
Banking on innuendo to the end, you keep us guessing what
"conclusions" you may be referring to.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS I am highly skeptical that extraterrestrial visitors taught humans
the things
that went into the design of the Antikythera mechanism, but that is because
I think OOL so rare that it only happens at most once in the lifetime
of a galaxy,
even one as large as our Milky Way. What is YOUR reason for dismissing >>>> the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors out of hand?
invigorating. The ancient Greeks were way too backwater ignorant to have >>> thought up the Antikythera mechanism on their own unaided by
extraterrestials. Therefore Planet X exists and is called Nibiru. Perhaps >>> Niburu is a way station for Throom? My mind has opened to endless
possibilities due to this one discovery. Thanks.
Has Giorgio Tsoukalos been alerted?
I've noticed that there's a certain (lack of) mentality
which thinks that knowledge is synonymous with intelligence;
a couple even stated that since we have more tech gadgets
that the ancient Egyptians we're therefore more intelligent,
and that therefore they *couldn't* have designed and built
the pyramids, all evidence to the contrary. IMHO the
converse may well be true; I believe that it took greater
intelligence to survive and prosper then than it does now,
when many things which would have been fatal then are minor
inconveniences today.
Just my 20 mills... ;-)
Even today, the San Bushmen are able to survive in the Kalahari Desert.
They know a lot that we don't know, and they have the intelligence to
apply it.
On 2023-11-14 17:01:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Athel is being selectively nosy. There are plenty of people here who
are more secretive
about their backgrounds than Ron Dean.
Are there other people who boast about their qualifications without
being willing to say where they got them?
;And I wish I had given absolutely nothing, much less than I did! We
live in a dangerous world at the present day. And especially in
certain small towns.
Start by stopping boasting about your studies of electrical engineering.
If you don't want us to know about them don't mention them.
In discussing the case of the antikythers mechanism, I identified itas an obviously engineered design.
For instance, jillery has not revealed her (?) real name(s),
place of work (if any), her (?) gender, the city in which she (?)
lives, her (?) post-secondary education....
All true. But her qualifications can be judged from what she posts.
We're not asked to respect her views because she studied basket-weaving
or whatever.
But Athel is supremely uninterested in any of these details.
That's because, you see, jillery is safely in the anti-ID camp. In
fact, fanatically so.
Athel is too,
Not true. I'd change to IDiocy immediately if a serious scientist came
up with convincing evidence for it. RonO probably would as well.
[ … ]
Then a couple days later, I opened my mail box and a cat's bloody
detached head greeted me. I contacted the police, they rode past my
home a few times, but did nothing. So, I bought a 3030 Henry lever
action rifle after that happened, for protection. I target practiced a
few times a day for about 2 weeks. The harassment stopped. But I was
prepared to do, whatever it took to protect my family.
I guess you live in the USA. In Europe we mostly don't have to worry
about that. I've never owned any sort of gun, and never thought I needed
one.
I refuse to provide any further information about me, where I live or
[ … ]
;Cost of living. It cost less to live in the South than in the North.
Out of curiosity, which universities were these? Bob Jones University >>>>>> and Liberty University? Why did you need two, anyway? Were you
dismissed from the first one?
That's not an answer. Even in the south universities have names.
my real name.
Fair enough. But don't boast about your two universities if you don't
want to talk about them.
Methiks Athel is being nosy because he has a prejudice against
the South, and would love to have this prejudice widened to include
any anti-ID person.
Where on earth did you get that nonsense from? Can you point to a post
in which I've manifested this so-called prejudice?
;
That wasn't intended for this group, but often I forget to choose theAthel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly >>>> in England until 1987.
right signature. Anyway, it's no secret.
Nice to know all these things. Athel is even the author of a highlyI'm impressed!
regarded book on the biochemistry of life.
;
I don't care about creationist. But ID is where I find myself, after becoming disillusioned with evolution a few years ago. In the past, I
was a dedicated, unquestioning evolutionist.
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-11-14 17:01:12 +0000, Ron Dean said:
[ … ]
I'd change to IDiocy immediately if a serious scientist came up with
convincing evidence for it. RonO probably would as well.
Would you: I question this.
How do you describe a serious scientist?
Do you know a serious scientist who questions evolution? I'll bet
that's not the description of a serious scientist.
Have you ever questioned evolution?
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 12:56:39 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabong wrote:..........
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:To my dismay, I did post under my _full_ name for a short time, even
Athel is being selectively nosy. There are plenty of people here who are more secretive
about their backgrounds than Ron Dean. For instance, jillery has not revealed her (?) real name(s),
place of work (if any), her (?) gender, the city in which she (?) lives, her (?) post-secondary education....
But Athel is supremely uninterested in any of these details.
That's because, you see, jillery is safely in the anti-ID camp. In fact, fanatically so.
Athel is too, but his fanaticism only becomes apparent under widely
scattered "Black Swan" circumstances.
IMO it's generally a bad idea to use your real name on
Usenet, for obvious reasons. Some malignants take usenet
feuds way too far.
In the long run, a poster's rep will live or die by their
competence and integrity. Readers will figure people out
regardless of CV or other personal information.
Ron chooses to bring up his background, with sometimes
conflicting details, expecting cred. If his stories
don't add up, that in itself is fair game. Ron has
posted under many other nyms, tho not recently, and which
he has denied. Another poster compiled a list of those
alleged nyms, and it was long.
mentioned the state where I was residing at the time. By searching the
net my home address could be found.
After reading a book, on a challenge, entitled, "Evolution a theory in
Beyond that, I don't know or care about anyone's real
identity. I do wonder about Ron's motivation.
Crisis" by Dr. Denton, I read other books by people who I made certain
they were scientist. As to my motivation, I became disillusioned with
evolution. Today, I think evolution is greatest and the most devastating
fraud ever perpetrated upon the human race.
Based upon my experience, of never questioning, what I read and heard
from proponents of evolution, I accepted it as fact. They were experts,
who after all, had the evidence. I wonder how many people fall into the
same category I did.
Today, unless I personally _observe_it myself, I
accept nothing without questioning.
When did you last observe a designer construct a living thing from scratch?
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 12:54:57 -0500
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
El Kabong wrote:[]
Beyond that, I don't know or care about anyone's realAfter reading a book, on a challenge, entitled, "Evolution a theory in
identity. I do wonder about Ron's motivation.
Crisis" by Dr. Denton, I read other books by people who I made certain
I does seem to have turned you into an evolution skeptic. Maybe you
should reread it in light of the flaws in it pointed out by some of the regulars here.
they were scientist. As to my motivation, I became disillusioned withGood lawd! That's quite a leap from having a few doubts. How has this
evolution. Today, I think evolution is greatest and the most devastating
fraud ever perpetrated upon the human race.
fraud devastated you?
Based upon my experience, of never questioning, what I read and heardTricky. You'd need quite a full lab to reproduce a lot of stuff; generally
from proponents of evolution, I accepted it as fact. They were experts,
who after all, had the evidence. I wonder how many people fall into the
same category I did. Today, unless I personally _observe_it myself, I
accept nothing without questioning.
I take it people aren't out to trick me, unless I see major flaws in their reasoning, or an ulterior motive.
Geology is another thing; you'd have to wait around a bit to see it in action.
Prsumably you don't allow much history, and certainly no Old Testament miracles.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 12:56:39 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabong wrote:..........
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:To my dismay, I did post under my _full_ name for a short time, even
Athel is being selectively nosy. There are plenty of people here who are more secretive
about their backgrounds than Ron Dean. For instance, jillery has not revealed her (?) real name(s),
place of work (if any), her (?) gender, the city in which she (?) lives, her (?) post-secondary education....
But Athel is supremely uninterested in any of these details.
That's because, you see, jillery is safely in the anti-ID camp. In fact, fanatically so.
Athel is too, but his fanaticism only becomes apparent under widely
scattered "Black Swan" circumstances.
IMO it's generally a bad idea to use your real name on
Usenet, for obvious reasons. Some malignants take usenet
feuds way too far.
In the long run, a poster's rep will live or die by their
competence and integrity. Readers will figure people out
regardless of CV or other personal information.
Ron chooses to bring up his background, with sometimes
conflicting details, expecting cred. If his stories
don't add up, that in itself is fair game. Ron has
posted under many other nyms, tho not recently, and which
he has denied. Another poster compiled a list of those
alleged nyms, and it was long.
mentioned the state where I was residing at the time. By searching the
net my home address could be found.
After reading a book, on a challenge, entitled, "Evolution a theory in
Beyond that, I don't know or care about anyone's real
identity. I do wonder about Ron's motivation.
Crisis" by Dr. Denton, I read other books by people who I made certain
they were scientist. As to my motivation, I became disillusioned with
evolution. Today, I think evolution is greatest and the most devastating >> fraud ever perpetrated upon the human race.
Based upon my experience, of never questioning, what I read and heard
from proponents of evolution, I accepted it as fact. They were experts,
who after all, had the evidence. I wonder how many people fall into the
same category I did.
Today, unless I personally _observe_it myself, I
accept nothing without questioning.
When did you last observe a designer construct a living thing from scratch?
Of course, I never have. But given all of the data and the evidence, I _believe_ intelligent design is
the _better_ of the two option on the plate. . A s I see it evidence for evolution is skimpy and subject to interpretation.
Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 12:54:57 -0500
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
El Kabong wrote:[]
Beyond that, I don't know or care about anyone's realAfter reading a book, on a challenge, entitled, "Evolution a theory in
identity. I do wonder about Ron's motivation.
Crisis" by Dr. Denton, I read other books by people who I made certain
I does seem to have turned you into an evolution skeptic. Maybe you
should reread it in light of the flaws in it pointed out by some of the regulars here.
The book was written in the 1980's so what could be flaws by today's standards were not when the book was published.
they were scientist. As to my motivation, I became disillusioned withGood lawd! That's quite a leap from having a few doubts. How has this
evolution. Today, I think evolution is greatest and the most devastating >> fraud ever perpetrated upon the human race.
fraud devastated you?
That was a bit over the top. Evolution was integral to my make-up it was
a major part of my outlook on life. To become disillusioned was upsetting.
Based upon my experience, of never questioning, what I read and heardTricky. You'd need quite a full lab to reproduce a lot of stuff; generally I take it people aren't out to trick me, unless I see major flaws in their reasoning, or an ulterior motive.
from proponents of evolution, I accepted it as fact. They were experts,
who after all, had the evidence. I wonder how many people fall into the
same category I did. Today, unless I personally _observe_it myself, I
accept nothing without questioning.
That's much broader than I intended. I was primarily in reference to
claims and hypothesis by advocates of evolution. So much of the
evidence is subject to interpretation within pre-existing
personal convictions (paradigms). And this applies to both schools of thought.
Geology is another thing; you'd have to wait around a bit to see it in action.
I certainly did not mean to be applying this to such of a broad expanse.
Prsumably you don't allow much history, and certainly no Old Testament miracles.
Why do you lump history and the Old Testament miracles together. Why do
you bring religion into the discussion?
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 12:56:39 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabong wrote:..........
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:To my dismay, I did post under my _full_ name for a short time, even
Athel is being selectively nosy. There are plenty of people here who are more secretive
about their backgrounds than Ron Dean. For instance, jillery has not revealed her (?) real name(s),
place of work (if any), her (?) gender, the city in which she (?) lives, her (?) post-secondary education....
But Athel is supremely uninterested in any of these details.
That's because, you see, jillery is safely in the anti-ID camp. In fact, fanatically so.
Athel is too, but his fanaticism only becomes apparent under widely >>>> scattered "Black Swan" circumstances.
IMO it's generally a bad idea to use your real name on
Usenet, for obvious reasons. Some malignants take usenet
feuds way too far.
In the long run, a poster's rep will live or die by their
competence and integrity. Readers will figure people out
regardless of CV or other personal information.
Ron chooses to bring up his background, with sometimes
conflicting details, expecting cred. If his stories
don't add up, that in itself is fair game. Ron has
posted under many other nyms, tho not recently, and which
he has denied. Another poster compiled a list of those
alleged nyms, and it was long.
mentioned the state where I was residing at the time. By searching the
net my home address could be found.
After reading a book, on a challenge, entitled, "Evolution a theory in
Beyond that, I don't know or care about anyone's real
identity. I do wonder about Ron's motivation.
Crisis" by Dr. Denton, I read other books by people who I made certain
they were scientist. As to my motivation, I became disillusioned with
evolution. Today, I think evolution is greatest and the most devastating >> fraud ever perpetrated upon the human race.
Based upon my experience, of never questioning, what I read and heard
from proponents of evolution, I accepted it as fact. They were experts, >> who after all, had the evidence. I wonder how many people fall into the >> same category I did.
Today, unless I personally _observe_it myself, I
accept nothing without questioning.
When did you last observe a designer construct a living thing from scratch?
Of course, I never have. But given all of the data and the evidence, I _believe_ intelligent design is
the _better_ of the two option on the plate. . A s I see it evidence for evolution is skimpy and subject to interpretation.
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
When did you last observe a designer construct a living thing fromOf course, I never have. But given all of the data and the evidence, I _believe_ intelligent design is
scratch?
the _better_ of the two option on the plate. . As I see it evidence for evolution is skimpy and subject to interpretation.
On 11/14/23 12:13 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 12:54:57 -0500
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
El Kabong wrote:[]
Beyond that, I don't know or care about anyone's realAfter reading a book, on a challenge, entitled, "Evolution a theory in
identity. I do wonder about Ron's motivation.
Crisis" by Dr. Denton, I read other books by people who I made certain
I does seem to have turned you into an evolution skeptic. Maybe you
should reread it in light of the flaws in it pointed out by some of the
regulars here.
I believe you, like many people, misuse the word "skeptic". I am an evolution skeptic. I do not accept new findings regarding evolution
except tentatively and with evidence. I would not accept evolution
strongly enough to want to defend it if I had not seen much evidence for
it myself and read about a great deal more beyond that.
Ron Dean, on the other hand, is an evolution denier. A skeptic would
change his mind when confronted with new evidence. Ron has never done
that and probably never will.
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Athel is being selectively nosy. There are plenty of people here who are more secretive
about their backgrounds than Ron Dean.
And I wish I had given absolutely nothing, much less than I did! We live
in a dangerous world at the present day. And especially in certain small towns.
For instance, jillery has not revealed her (?) real name(s),
place of work (if any), her (?) gender, the city in which she (?) lives, her (?) post-secondary education....
But Athel is supremely uninterested in any of these details.
That's because, you see, jillery is safely in the anti-ID camp. In fact, fanatically so.
Athel is too, but his fanaticism only becomes apparent under widely scattered "Black Swan" circumstances.
Not a bad idea. As I said it's a dangerous world. After commenting at a
town meeting a few years ago, someone would call my home and say
nothing, then hang up, upsetting my family. After days of this, I had
our land line dropped.
Then a couple days later, I opened my mail box and a cat's bloody
detached head greeted me. I contacted the police, they rode past my home
a few times, but did nothing. So, I bought a 3030 Henry lever action
rifle after that happened, for protection. I target practiced a few
times a day for about 2 weeks. The harassment stopped. But I was
prepared to do, whatever it took to protect my family.
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 11:46:39 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-11-13 15:47:54 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-11-12 00:18:01 +0000, El Kabong said:Cost of living. It cost less to live in the South than in the North.
Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabob wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:....
You could deal with the issues people bring up instead of merely >>>>>>>>> repeating your mantras.
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6) >>>>>>>> years to earn my degree in electrical engineering.
Out of curiosity, which universities were these? Bob Jones University >>>> and Liberty University? Why did you need two, anyway? Were you
dismissed from the first one?
That's not an answer. Even in the south universities have names.
I refuse to provide any further information about me, where I live or my real name.
Methiks Athel is being nosy because he has a prejudice against
the South, and would love to have this prejudice widened to include
any anti-ID person.
I became an ID person after, on a challenge, I read the book "Evolution
a Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton. I've seen criticisms on TO by
people who I suspect never opened the book. Their views are probably
based on the opinions of someone else.
[He may not be too different from jillery, who has even called
the University of South Carolina a "redneck university."
Fact is, it is just as fanatically committed to the fashionable
kind of "diversity" as the average Northern state-supported university.]
Athel even brought trumped up charges about me being ignorant
of the difference between biochemistry of living organisms,
and the biochemistry of OOL. In fact, I have been acutely
aware of just how different the main tools of research into these
two disciplines are since early 1996, almost a year before I heard of Michael Behe
or, indeed, the modern theory of Intelligent Design.
--Didn't say that! You had to hand in paperwork.MsEE, During this
period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design.
We learned _to_ design, which was basically computers, paperwork, >>>>>>>> planning, drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing. Then
it was a manufactured product.
So you took EE classes in "paperwork"? Seriously?
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
Nice to know all these things. Athel is even the author of a highly regarded book on the biochemistry of life.
I'm impressed!
And Athel knows enough about OOL *not* to argue with Tour,
because any debate between them would shatter the illusion
that the anti-ID contingent holds so dear,
that we are making great progress in OOL. So great, in fact,
that we will be able to say in a few decades that we have
OOL pretty much figured out.
I question that. I might be possible one day to create life in a lab.
But there were no labs 3.8 - 4 billion years ago.
PS None of the above prevents Athel from being a snobbish credentialist, sneering at Tour because he doesn't have a degree in "biology."
Tour knows more about OOL than the average biologist, because he has
a very low bar to clear for that status.
Mark Isaak wrote:........
On 11/14/23 12:13 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 12:54:57 -0500
Ron Dean <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
El Kabong wrote:[]
I does seem to have turned you into an evolution skeptic. Maybe youBeyond that, I don't know or care about anyone's realAfter reading a book, on a challenge, entitled, "Evolution a theory in >>> Crisis" by Dr. Denton, I read other books by people who I made certain >>
identity. I do wonder about Ron's motivation.
should reread it in light of the flaws in it pointed out by some of the >> regulars here.
I believe you, like many people, misuse the word "skeptic". I am an evolution skeptic. I do not accept new findings regarding evolution except tentatively and with evidence. I would not accept evolution strongly enough to want to defend it if I had not seen much evidence for it myself and read about a great deal more beyond that.
Ron Dean, on the other hand, is an evolution denier. A skeptic would change his mind when confronted with new evidence. Ron has never done that and probably never will.
I've been there Mark, for about 25 years I was a convinced, dedicated
and unquestioning evolutionist. I was convinced that scientist had the evidence and that anyone who denied the fact of evolution was a
religious nut job and ignorant of the facts. I completely trusted the experts.
Then on a challenge, I read a book by a Dr. Denton and then.....
another by Dr. Myers then another by a Dr. Behe. These men were
_scientist_ who had pointed out things I never new. Several people have attacked these scientist, but they got me to questioning evolution,
which I had not done before.
If I were to be presented with solid empirical evidence proving that
modern phylum, which appeared during the Cambrian are traceable back to
a common ancestor in the pre-Cambrian, that would be a good start.
Secondly, these 28+ phylum supposedly gave rise to the classes, orders - species that came afterwards including Homo Sapiens. But this is theory
with only sketchy fossil evidence supporting this theory, most of which
is not objective evidence, but rather is subjective to interpretation.
An the interpretation is controlled within the overriding pre-existing
bias or worldview(paradigm). This of course applies to both sides of the debate.
The evolution of the eye, is said to have evolved independently at least
39 times over 10's of millions of years. However, some species of
trilobites when they first appeared, had functioning compound eyes
similar to the eyes of modern flies and dragon flies. There is no
history of the evolution of trilobite eyes or any other of the 39 eyes. There is a more recent discovery that challenges the multiple
independent eye evolution claims. And that is the discovery that a
single gene, Pa6 master control gene controls the downstream genes, that form the specific eyes of each and all organisms with vision.
The eye gene of a mouse was taken and placed in various locations on a
fruit fly embryo, and to everyone's surprise the mouse master control
gene controlled the formation of fruit fly eyes wherever it was placed.
And these eyes had vision. To further confirm his theory Walter Gehring placed a fruit fly eye gene in a frog, and the fruit fly eye gene
controlled the production of a frog eye in the frog.
..
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/4/text_pop/l_044_01.html
This eye gene may very well be the same gene that that controlled the formation of eyes in the trilobites and the horseshoe crab. To believe
that in a universe where there is only unguided, aimless, mindless,
random mutations and natural selection, brought about the utterly
amazing, ancient, changeless master control eye gene is unbelievable.
This single fact strongly suggest planning, forethought and purpose by
an incredible designing engineer. Even more incredible is, this just one
of numerous other master control genes. For example: The "tinman" master control controls the formation of hearts from flies through humans.
Another master control gene controls the formation of stomachs. Another "tool kit" the dilless (Dill) gene controls the formation of fins,
insect legs and legs in birds etc. And there are numerous other master control genes controlling the formation of other organs and body forms.
In my mind this demonstrates that deliberate, purposeful design is the better option. Design is evidence, and if there is design in nature,
this evidence infers a designer.
And of course, this is a major part of life, although evolution does not deal with the origin of life. Without the origin of the first life,
there would be no evolution. But there are scientist who are engaged
with the OOL. Such advanced engineering as described above is far beyond
and in advance of any design by human engineers.
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 11:11:35 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/10/23 7:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that von Daniken makes the same mistake Ron Dean makes:
From final appearance, he concludes a designer in lines with his
preconception.
Why so coy about what that "preconception" is supposed to be?
But then, your innuendo is far more flamboyant
than the truth: nowhere in the Wikipedia article
does it suggest that von Daniken thought the extraterrestrial
visitors that he talks about were supernatural. Instead, the
title of his book refers to the hypothesis that the people of the time thought they might be gods.
And von Daniken's conclusions have proven to be wrong,
as it seems likely Ron's will be.
Banking on innuendo to the end, you keep us guessing what
"conclusions" you may be referring to.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS I am highly skeptical that extraterrestrial visitors taught humans the things
that went into the design of the Antikythera mechanism, but that is because
I think OOL so rare that it only happens at most once in the lifetime of a galaxy,
even one as large as our Milky Way. What is YOUR reason for dismissing
the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors out of hand?
You know I learned something new, which I find very exciting and invigorating.
The ancient Greeks were way too backwater ignorant to have
thought up the Antikythera mechanism on their own unaided by extraterrestials. Therefore Planet X exists and is called Nibiru. Perhaps Niburu is a way station for Throom? My mind has opened to endless possibilities due to this one discovery. Thanks.
Has Giorgio Tsoukalos been alerted?
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 12:01:39 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:..
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Athel is being selectively nosy. There are plenty of people here who are more secretiveAnd I wish I had given absolutely nothing, much less than I did! We live
about their backgrounds than Ron Dean.
in a dangerous world at the present day. And especially in certain small
towns.
I doubt that any of the things you've written here in talk.origins
are known to your small-town neighbors.
since the late nineties, when it was routine to get unsolicited email
from participants and lurkers. But since I returned in December 2010
after almost a decade of absence, there has been only one such
person, first calling herself Thrinaxodon, then Oxyaena. And I only
got about five emails altogether, and she has been gone for over two years now.
For instance, jillery has not revealed her (?) real name(s),
place of work (if any), her (?) gender, the city in which she (?) lives, her (?) post-secondary education....
But Athel is supremely uninterested in any of these details.
That's because, you see, jillery is safely in the anti-ID camp. In fact, fanatically so.
Athel is too, but his fanaticism only becomes apparent under widely
scattered "Black Swan" circumstances.
Not a bad idea. As I said it's a dangerous world. After commenting at a
town meeting a few years ago, someone would call my home and say
nothing, then hang up, upsetting my family. After days of this, I had
our land line dropped.
Then a couple days later, I opened my mail box and a cat's bloody
detached head greeted me. I contacted the police, they rode past my home
a few times, but did nothing. So, I bought a 3030 Henry lever action
rifle after that happened, for protection. I target practiced a few
times a day for about 2 weeks. The harassment stopped. But I was
prepared to do, whatever it took to protect my family.
There are crazies like that in the big outside world.
But the worst it ever got here were when Ron Okimoto
succeeded in getting Dr. Dr. Kleinman banned from talk.origins
for rather routine annoying behavior.
Emboldened by this, Ron O went berserk after I corrected some
factual claims by him about woolly rhinos. He lied his head off
about what I had done, repeatedly libeling me about having
told lies about him, yet not daring to say what the content
of any of those alleged lies was.
To make a long story short, DIG would have none of banning me.
Being banned would have been a lot worse for me than the kind of threats you received,
but at least there was no physical harm in it. But the main point is,
the fact that I have been upfront about all the things jillery is secretive about
(see above) had no bearing on whether I would have been banned.
If anything, the danger was lessened by the evident fact that I have nothing to hide.
I refuse to provide any further information about me, where I live or my
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 11:46:39 AM UTC-5, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-11-13 15:47:54 +0000, Ron Dean said:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2023-11-12 00:18:01 +0000, El Kabong said:Cost of living. It cost less to live in the South than in the North.
Ron Dean wrote:
El Kabob wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:....
You could deal with the issues people bring up instead of merely >>>>>>>>>>> repeating your mantras.
Have you read "What Design Looks Like" yet?
Yes, I did read the article. I went to two universities for six (6) >>>>>>>>>> years to earn my degree in electrical engineering.
Out of curiosity, which universities were these? Bob Jones University >>>>>> and Liberty University? Why did you need two, anyway? Were you
dismissed from the first one?
That's not an answer. Even in the south universities have names.
real name.
Ah. So "El Kabong" was right when he said that you are
posting under a pseudonym. However, he has also claimed
that you have had plenty of pseudonyms on the internet.
Be that as it may, it seems like you've not used any others
on talk.origins. The only other participant who is like you at all
is MarkE, but he is so MUCH like you that I can't imagine why
you would want to go to the trouble of posting under two pseudonyms.
Methiks Athel is being nosy because he has a prejudice againstI became an ID person after, on a challenge, I read the book "Evolution
the South, and would love to have this prejudice widened to include
any anti-ID person.
a Theory in Crisis" by Michael Denton. I've seen criticisms on TO by
people who I suspect never opened the book. Their views are probably
based on the opinions of someone else.
I hate to say this, but you often sound like your views are based
on the opinions of someone else. You do not seem to have absorbed
more than a pittance of the scientific things I've said over the years
either to you or to some adversary of yours with whom you were arguing.
[He may not be too different from jillery, who has even calledI'm impressed!
the University of South Carolina a "redneck university."
Fact is, it is just as fanatically committed to the fashionable
kind of "diversity" as the average Northern state-supported university.] >>>
Athel even brought trumped up charges about me being ignorant
of the difference between biochemistry of living organisms,
and the biochemistry of OOL. In fact, I have been acutely
aware of just how different the main tools of research into these
two disciplines are since early 1996, almost a year before I heard of Michael Behe
or, indeed, the modern theory of Intelligent Design.
--Didn't say that! You had to hand in paperwork.MsEE, During this
period of time, not once did I read or hear this definition of design.
We learned _to_ design, which was basically computers, paperwork, >>>>>>>>>> planning, drawing schematics and testing followed by manufacturing. Then
it was a manufactured product.
So you took EE classes in "paperwork"? Seriously?
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly >>>> in England until 1987.
Nice to know all these things. Athel is even the author of a highly
regarded book on the biochemistry of life.
I question that. I might be possible one day to create life in a lab.
And Athel knows enough about OOL *not* to argue with Tour,
because any debate between them would shatter the illusion
that the anti-ID contingent holds so dear,
that we are making great progress in OOL. So great, in fact,
that we will be able to say in a few decades that we have
OOL pretty much figured out.
But there were no labs 3.8 - 4 billion years ago.
Not on earth, unless they were constructed by extraterrestrial
visitors. But directed panspermia of microorganisms is
only a tiny fraction as expensive as visiting earth to create them here.
PS None of the above prevents Athel from being a snobbish credentialist, >>> sneering at Tour because he doesn't have a degree in "biology."
Tour knows more about OOL than the average biologist, because he has
a very low bar to clear for that status.
A little tidbit to show how poor Athel's choice of the word "biology" was: here at my university, almost all biology is taught in the Department of Biological Sciences,
but biochemistry is taught in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. And Tour's challenge is square in the center of biochemistry.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS Isn't it funny how Athel hasn't done an in-depth, on-topic critique of Tour's challenge,
leaving it for rank amateurs like jillery to stick their necks out, with their limited knowledge?
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/14/23 12:13 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:I've been there Mark, for about 25 years I was a convinced, dedicated
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 12:54:57 -0500
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
El Kabong wrote:[]
Beyond that, I don't know or care about anyone's realAfter reading a book, on a challenge, entitled, "Evolution a theory in >>>> Crisis" by Dr. Denton, I read other books by people who I made certain
identity. I do wonder about Ron's motivation.
I does seem to have turned you into an evolution skeptic. Maybe you
should reread it in light of the flaws in it pointed out by some of the
regulars here.
I believe you, like many people, misuse the word "skeptic". I am an
evolution skeptic. I do not accept new findings regarding evolution
except tentatively and with evidence. I would not accept evolution
strongly enough to want to defend it if I had not seen much evidence
for it myself and read about a great deal more beyond that.
Ron Dean, on the other hand, is an evolution denier. A skeptic would
change his mind when confronted with new evidence. Ron has never done
that and probably never will.
and unquestioning evolutionist. I was convinced that scientist had the evidence and that anyone who denied the fact of evolution was a
religious nut job and ignorant of the facts. I completely trusted the experts. Then on a challenge, I read a book by a Dr. Denton and then
another by Dr. Myers
then another by a Dr. Behe. These men were _scientist_ who had pointed
out things I never new. Several people have attacked these scientist,
but they got me to questioning evolution, which I had not done before.
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 9:11:39 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 11:11:35 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/10/23 7:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that von Daniken makes the same mistake Ron Dean makes: >>>> From final appearance, he concludes a designer in lines with his
preconception.
Why so coy about what that "preconception" is supposed to be?
But then, your innuendo is far more flamboyant
than the truth: nowhere in the Wikipedia article
does it suggest that von Daniken thought the extraterrestrial
visitors that he talks about were supernatural. Instead, the
title of his book refers to the hypothesis that the people of the time
thought they might be gods.
Hemi, I see you decided below to be many times more flamboyant than Mark was above,
but you put your lampoon in the wrong place. It should have gone right after the
preceding paragraph.
And von Daniken's conclusions have proven to be wrong,
as it seems likely Ron's will be.
Banking on innuendo to the end, you keep us guessing what
"conclusions" you may be referring to.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS I am highly skeptical that extraterrestrial visitors taught humans the things
that went into the design of the Antikythera mechanism, but that is because >>> I think OOL so rare that it only happens at most once in the lifetime of a galaxy,
even one as large as our Milky Way. What is YOUR reason for dismissing
the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors out of hand?
You know I learned something new, which I find very exciting and
invigorating.
Yeah, it must be awfully exciting and invigorating to ignore the question
I asked Mark in the end, giving him an excuse to delete it and to
pretend it never existed. This despite the fact that I gave a
highly on-topic reason for my skepticism.
It must also be tremendously invigorating to substitute
a crude satire for reasoned skepticism. You always were
more at home with flippancy than you were
with attempts to reason in an on-topic way about your
opinions and cherished beliefs.
The ancient Greeks were way too backwater ignorant to have
thought up the Antikythera mechanism on their own unaided by
extraterrestials. Therefore Planet X exists and is called Nibiru. Perhaps
Niburu is a way station for Throom? My mind has opened to endless
possibilities due to this one discovery. Thanks.
Has Giorgio Tsoukalos been alerted?
I hate to be a party pooper, Hemi, but I really wish you would try to come
to grips with the questions that make for progress on on-topic issues
like the Fermi paradox: If life is so easy to evolve that it is almost inevitable on any planet that is suitable for it, "where is everybody?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
I gave my answer, which seems to be unpopular with most of the regulars, including Athel, Bill Rogers, Bob Casanova, Lawyer Daggett, and Mark Isaak. But they are all burying their heads in the sand about it. Are you, too, destined to do so?
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/14/23 12:13 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:I've been there Mark, for about 25 years I was a convinced, dedicated
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 12:54:57 -0500
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
El Kabong wrote:[]
Beyond that, I don't know or care about anyone's realAfter reading a book, on a challenge, entitled, "Evolution a theory in >>>> Crisis" by Dr. Denton, I read other books by people who I made certain
identity. I do wonder about Ron's motivation.
I does seem to have turned you into an evolution skeptic. Maybe you
should reread it in light of the flaws in it pointed out by some of the
regulars here.
I believe you, like many people, misuse the word "skeptic". I am an
evolution skeptic. I do not accept new findings regarding evolution
except tentatively and with evidence. I would not accept evolution
strongly enough to want to defend it if I had not seen much evidence
for it myself and read about a great deal more beyond that.
Ron Dean, on the other hand, is an evolution denier. A skeptic would
change his mind when confronted with new evidence. Ron has never done
that and probably never will.
and unquestioning evolutionist. I was convinced that scientist had the evidence and that anyone who denied the fact of evolution was a
religious nut job and ignorant of the facts. I completely trusted the experts. Then on a challenge, I read a book by a Dr. Denton and then
another by Dr. Myers then another by a Dr. Behe. These men were
_scientist_ who had pointed out things I never new. Several people have attacked these scientist, but they got me to questioning evolution,
which I had not done before.
If I were to be presented with solid empirical evidence proving that
modern phylum, which appeared during the Cambrian are traceable back to
a common ancestor in the pre-Cambrian, that would be a good start.
Secondly, these 28+ phylum supposedly gave rise to the classes, orders - species that came afterwards including Homo Sapiens. But this is theory
with only sketchy fossil evidence supporting this theory, most of which
is not objective evidence, but rather is subjective to interpretation.
An the interpretation is controlled within the overriding pre-existing
bias or worldview(paradigm). This of course applies to both sides of the debate.
The evolution of the eye, is said to have evolved independently at least
39 times over 10's of millions of years. However, some species of
trilobites when they first appeared, had functioning compound eyes
similar to the eyes of modern flies and dragon flies. There is no
history of the evolution of trilobite eyes or any other of the 39 eyes.
There is a more recent discovery that challenges the multiple
independent eye evolution claims. And that is the discovery that a
single gene, Pa6 master control gene controls the downstream genes, that
form the specific eyes of each and all organisms with vision.
The eye gene of a mouse was taken and placed in various locations on a
fruit fly embryo, and to everyone's surprise the mouse master control
gene controlled the formation of fruit fly eyes wherever it was placed.
And these eyes had vision. To further confirm his theory Walter Gehring placed a fruit fly eye gene in a frog, and the fruit fly eye gene
controlled the production of a frog eye in the frog.
..
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/4/text_pop/l_044_01.html
This eye gene may very well be the same gene that that controlled the formation of eyes in the trilobites and the horseshoe crab. To believe
that in a universe where there is only unguided, aimless, mindless,
random mutations and natural selection, brought about the utterly
amazing, ancient, changeless master control eye gene is unbelievable.
This single fact strongly suggest planning, forethought and purpose by
an incredible designing engineer. Even more incredible is, this just one
of numerous other master control genes. For example: The "tinman" master control controls the formation of hearts from flies through humans.
Another master control gene controls the formation of stomachs. Another
"tool kit" the dilless (Dill) gene controls the formation of fins,
insect legs and legs in birds etc. And there are numerous other master control genes controlling the formation of other organs and body forms.
In my mind this demonstrates that deliberate, purposeful design is the
better option. Design is evidence, and if there is design in nature,
this evidence infers a designer.
And of course, this is a major part of life, although evolution does not
deal with the origin of life. Without the origin of the first life,
there would be no evolution. But there are scientist who are engaged
with the OOL. Such advanced engineering as described above is far beyond
and in advance of any design by human engineers.
On 11/16/23 3:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/14/23 12:13 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:I've been there Mark, for about 25 years I was a convinced, dedicated
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 12:54:57 -0500
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
El Kabong wrote:[]
I does seem to have turned you into an evolution skeptic. Maybe youBeyond that, I don't know or care about anyone's realAfter reading a book, on a challenge, entitled, "Evolution a theory in >>>>> Crisis" by Dr. Denton, I read other books by people who I made certain >>>>
identity. I do wonder about Ron's motivation.
should reread it in light of the flaws in it pointed out by some of the >>>> regulars here.
I believe you, like many people, misuse the word "skeptic". I am an
evolution skeptic. I do not accept new findings regarding evolution
except tentatively and with evidence. I would not accept evolution
strongly enough to want to defend it if I had not seen much evidence
for it myself and read about a great deal more beyond that.
Ron Dean, on the other hand, is an evolution denier. A skeptic would
change his mind when confronted with new evidence. Ron has never
done that and probably never will.
and unquestioning evolutionist. I was convinced that scientist had the
evidence and that anyone who denied the fact of evolution was a
religious nut job and ignorant of the facts. I completely trusted the
experts. Then on a challenge, I read a book by a Dr. Denton and then
another by Dr. Myers then another by a Dr. Behe. These men were
_scientist_ who had pointed out things I never new. Several people
have attacked these scientist, but they got me to questioning
evolution, which I had not done before.
How do you feel about the fact that two of the three authors you just mentioned accept evolution?
If I were to be presented with solid empirical evidence proving that
modern phylum, which appeared during the Cambrian are traceable back
to a common ancestor in the pre-Cambrian, that would be a good start.
How about evidence for a modern order being traceable back to the Cretaceous? That should still show macroevolution, and it has the
advantage of being recent enough that the evidence might still exist.
(Or is that a disadvantage in your eyes?)
Secondly, these 28+ phylum supposedly gave rise to the classes, orders
- species that came afterwards including Homo Sapiens. But this is
theory with only sketchy fossil evidence supporting this theory, most
of which is not objective evidence, but rather is subjective to
interpretation. An the interpretation is controlled within the
overriding pre-existing bias or worldview(paradigm). This of course
applies to both sides of the debate.
I don't think you have a good grasp on the concepts of "subjective" and "interpretation", maybe because you had, and still have, the "convinced, dedicated, and unquestioning" mindset. Part of the training for a
scientist is how to test hypotheses. To do this, one needs to look only
at the objective parts of the evidence -- parts that one can measure,
and that other people can measure and get the same numbers.
needs to state one's hypothesis and TELL WHAT RESULTS ONE EXPECTS IF AND
ONLY IF IT IS TRUE. Then one crunches the numbers and see whether they
match the expectations of the hypothesis. Then one explains what one did
so other people can check (a) if the procedures were sufficient to
support the conclusions, and (b) if they get the same results when they
try it.
Yes, there is some subjectivity and interpretation around the edges, but sciences are not the hapless fools you treat them as. They know about subjectivity and have designed the process to minimize it, so that, in
the long run (with other people performing the same sorts of tests), it
drops to zero.
Contrast that with your approach, which is subjectivity IN ITS ENTIRETY.
The evolution of the eye, is said to have evolved independently at
least 39 times over 10's of millions of years. However, some species
of trilobites when they first appeared, had functioning compound eyes
similar to the eyes of modern flies and dragon flies. There is no
history of the evolution of trilobite eyes or any other of the 39
eyes. There is a more recent discovery that challenges the multiple
independent eye evolution claims. And that is the discovery that a
single gene, Pa6 master control gene controls the downstream genes,
that form the specific eyes of each and all organisms with vision.
The eye gene of a mouse was taken and placed in various locations on a
fruit fly embryo, and to everyone's surprise the mouse master control
gene controlled the formation of fruit fly eyes wherever it was
placed. And these eyes had vision. To further confirm his theory
Walter Gehring placed a fruit fly eye gene in a frog, and the fruit
fly eye gene controlled the production of a frog eye in the frog.
..
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/4/text_pop/l_044_01.html
This eye gene may very well be the same gene that that controlled the
formation of eyes in the trilobites and the horseshoe crab. To believe
that in a universe where there is only unguided, aimless, mindless,
random mutations and natural selection, brought about the utterly
amazing, ancient, changeless master control eye gene is unbelievable.
This single fact strongly suggest planning, forethought and purpose by
an incredible designing engineer. Even more incredible is, this just
one of numerous other master control genes. For example: The "tinman"
master control controls the formation of hearts from flies through
humans. Another master control gene controls the formation of
stomachs. Another "tool kit" the dilless (Dill) gene controls the
formation of fins, insect legs and legs in birds etc. And there are
numerous other master control genes controlling the formation of other
organs and body forms.
Sure. All of that is entirely consistent with evolution, which we know
is a better designer than any person is. (Remember, design itself is an evolutionary process.)
In my mind this demonstrates that deliberate, purposeful design is the
better option. Design is evidence, and if there is design in nature,
this evidence infers a designer.
But like you say, that is in your mind. You have no evidence.
And of course, this is a major part of life, although evolution does
not deal with the origin of life. Without the origin of the first
life, there would be no evolution. But there are scientist who are
engaged with the OOL. Such advanced engineering as described above is
far beyond and in advance of any design by human engineers.
I agree. Life is very different from the engineered design we are
familiar with. Among the big differences: life reproduces itself; it is
not produced by a manufacturing process. And different lineages of life
comes up with different solutions to the same problem, something that no intelligent design would do. For reasons known only to yourself, you
think that life looking unlike design is evidence that life looks
designed. That makes no sense to me.
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 9:11:39 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 11:11:35 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>> On 11/10/23 7:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that von Daniken makes the same mistake Ron Dean makes: >>>> From final appearance, he concludes a designer in lines with his
preconception.
Why so coy about what that "preconception" is supposed to be?
But then, your innuendo is far more flamboyant
than the truth: nowhere in the Wikipedia article
does it suggest that von Daniken thought the extraterrestrial
visitors that he talks about were supernatural. Instead, the
title of his book refers to the hypothesis that the people of the time >>> thought they might be gods.
Hemi, I see you decided below to be many times more flamboyant than Mark was above,
but you put your lampoon in the wrong place. It should have gone right after the
preceding paragraph.
And von Daniken's conclusions have proven to be wrong,
as it seems likely Ron's will be.
Banking on innuendo to the end, you keep us guessing what
"conclusions" you may be referring to.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS I am highly skeptical that extraterrestrial visitors taught humans the things
that went into the design of the Antikythera mechanism, but that is because
I think OOL so rare that it only happens at most once in the lifetime of a galaxy,
even one as large as our Milky Way. What is YOUR reason for dismissing >>> the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors out of hand?
You know I learned something new, which I find very exciting and
invigorating.
Yeah, it must be awfully exciting and invigorating to ignore the question I asked Mark in the end, giving him an excuse to delete it and to
pretend it never existed. This despite the fact that I gave a
highly on-topic reason for my skepticism.
It must also be tremendously invigorating to substitute
a crude satire for reasoned skepticism. You always were
more at home with flippancy than you were
with attempts to reason in an on-topic way about your
opinions and cherished beliefs.
The ancient Greeks were way too backwater ignorant to have
thought up the Antikythera mechanism on their own unaided by
extraterrestials. Therefore Planet X exists and is called Nibiru. Perhaps >> Niburu is a way station for Throom? My mind has opened to endless
possibilities due to this one discovery. Thanks.
Has Giorgio Tsoukalos been alerted?
I hate to be a party pooper, Hemi, but I really wish you would try to come to grips with the questions that make for progress on on-topic issues
like the Fermi paradox: If life is so easy to evolve that it is almost inevitable on any planet that is suitable for it, "where is everybody?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
I gave my answer, which seems to be unpopular with most of the regulars, including Athel, Bill Rogers, Bob Casanova, Lawyer Daggett, and Mark Isaak.
But they are all burying their heads in the sand about it. Are you, too, destined to do so?
You might interpret it as flippancy but where did the influencers that introduced the Antikythera mechanism base their operations?
[end of quote]PS I am highly skeptical that extraterrestrial visitors taught humans the things
that went into the design of the Antikythera mechanism, but that is because
I think OOL so rare that it only happens at most once in the lifetime of a galaxy,
even one as large as our Milky Way.
What evidence
have we they exist? Your panspermia is the far flung variety yet local influencers lack support too. Where are they hiding?
But we both know the answer don’t we:
https://youtu.be/0rBa9s-Qt9w?si=CKAq9vJIldjns2Jl
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 9:46:42 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 9:11:39 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote: >>>> peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 11:11:35 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 11/10/23 7:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that von Daniken makes the same mistake Ron Dean makes: >>>>>> From final appearance, he concludes a designer in lines with his
preconception.
Why so coy about what that "preconception" is supposed to be?
But then, your innuendo is far more flamboyant
than the truth: nowhere in the Wikipedia article
does it suggest that von Daniken thought the extraterrestrial
visitors that he talks about were supernatural. Instead, the
title of his book refers to the hypothesis that the people of the time >>>>> thought they might be gods.
Hemi, I see you decided below to be many times more flamboyant than Mark was above,
but you put your lampoon in the wrong place. It should have gone right after the
preceding paragraph.
And von Daniken's conclusions have proven to be wrong,
as it seems likely Ron's will be.
Banking on innuendo to the end, you keep us guessing what
"conclusions" you may be referring to.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS I am highly skeptical that extraterrestrial visitors taught humans the things
that went into the design of the Antikythera mechanism, but that is because
I think OOL so rare that it only happens at most once in the lifetime of a galaxy,
even one as large as our Milky Way. What is YOUR reason for dismissing >>>>> the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors out of hand?
You know I learned something new, which I find very exciting and
invigorating.
Yeah, it must be awfully exciting and invigorating to ignore the question >>> I asked Mark in the end, giving him an excuse to delete it and to
pretend it never existed. This despite the fact that I gave a
highly on-topic reason for my skepticism.
It must also be tremendously invigorating to substitute
a crude satire for reasoned skepticism. You always were
more at home with flippancy than you were
with attempts to reason in an on-topic way about your
opinions and cherished beliefs.
The ancient Greeks were way too backwater ignorant to have
thought up the Antikythera mechanism on their own unaided by
extraterrestials. Therefore Planet X exists and is called Nibiru. Perhaps >>>> Niburu is a way station for Throom? My mind has opened to endless
possibilities due to this one discovery. Thanks.
Has Giorgio Tsoukalos been alerted?
See below about Bob Casanova's reaction.
I hate to be a party pooper, Hemi, but I really wish you would try to come >>> to grips with the questions that make for progress on on-topic issues
like the Fermi paradox: If life is so easy to evolve that it is almost
inevitable on any planet that is suitable for it, "where is everybody?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
I gave my answer, which seems to be unpopular with most of the regulars, >>> including Athel, Bill Rogers, Bob Casanova, Lawyer Daggett, and Mark Isaak. >>> But they are all burying their heads in the sand about it. Are you, too, >>> destined to do so?
It does look like the answer to this last question is going to be Yes.
You might interpret it as flippancy but where did the influencers that
introduced the Antikythera mechanism base their operations?
There you go again, ignoring my manifesto about the mechanism:
[quoted from above]
[end of quote]PS I am highly skeptical that extraterrestrial visitors taught humans the things
that went into the design of the Antikythera mechanism, but that is because
I think OOL so rare that it only happens at most once in the lifetime of a galaxy,
even one as large as our Milky Way.
What evidence
have we they exist? Your panspermia is the far flung variety yet local
influencers lack support too. Where are they hiding?
I think you've let Bob Casanova's praise for your entertainment go to your head.
He's a typical bottom-poster, and in this case he looks like a virtual bottom-reader
who only exhibited interest in what you had to say. What you kept of my text would
spoil the virtual reality he has concocted in his head about me, thanks to his head-in-sand internment, a.k.a. killfile.
But we both know the answer don’t we:
https://youtu.be/0rBa9s-Qt9w?si=CKAq9vJIldjns2Jl
Not sure what Sedona, Arizona or the singer's reactions to it
have to do with any of the above. At least it is not as unpleasant
as the exploding head video you once badgered me to watch,
but it doesn't seem any more relevant.
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/16/23 3:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I do not have a problem with that at all! In fact, I trust the people
Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/14/23 12:13 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:I've been there Mark, for about 25 years I was a convinced, dedicated
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 12:54:57 -0500
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
El Kabong wrote:[]
Beyond that, I don't know or care about anyone's realAfter reading a book, on a challenge, entitled, "Evolution a
identity. I do wonder about Ron's motivation.
theory in
Crisis" by Dr. Denton, I read other books by people who I made
certain
I does seem to have turned you into an evolution skeptic. Maybe you
should reread it in light of the flaws in it pointed out by some of
the
regulars here.
I believe you, like many people, misuse the word "skeptic". I am an
evolution skeptic. I do not accept new findings regarding evolution
except tentatively and with evidence. I would not accept evolution
strongly enough to want to defend it if I had not seen much evidence
for it myself and read about a great deal more beyond that.
Ron Dean, on the other hand, is an evolution denier. A skeptic
would change his mind when confronted with new evidence. Ron has
never done that and probably never will.
and unquestioning evolutionist. I was convinced that scientist had
the evidence and that anyone who denied the fact of evolution was a
religious nut job and ignorant of the facts. I completely trusted the
experts. Then on a challenge, I read a book by a Dr. Denton and then
another by Dr. Myers then another by a Dr. Behe. These men were
_scientist_ who had pointed out things I never new. Several people
have attacked these scientist, but they got me to questioning
evolution, which I had not done before.
How do you feel about the fact that two of the three authors you just
mentioned accept evolution?
who advocate for evolution because I know the evolutionist present that
which they believe is in support of evolution.
But, as I noted before, evidence is rarely objective and is subject to interpretation. Then the interpretation of the evidence is very often
done within or under the pre-excepted paradigm.
No disadvantage! I do not think macro-evolution in reality existed. AndIf I were to be presented with solid empirical evidence proving that
modern phylum, which appeared during the Cambrian are traceable back
to a common ancestor in the pre-Cambrian, that would be a good start.
How about evidence for a modern order being traceable back to the
Cretaceous? That should still show macroevolution, and it has the
advantage of being recent enough that the evidence might still exist.
(Or is that a disadvantage in your eyes?)
a major problem that I have with evolution is the absence of
observation. Transitional or intermediate fossils between major groups
of organisms is not observed. This bothered Darwin, but he hoped future discoveries would vindicate his theory.
Secondly, these 28+ phylum supposedly gave rise to the classes,
orders - species that came afterwards including Homo Sapiens. But
this is theory with only sketchy fossil evidence supporting this
theory, most of which is not objective evidence, but rather is
subjective to interpretation. An the interpretation is controlled
within the overriding pre-existing bias or worldview(paradigm). This
of course applies to both sides of the debate.
I don't think you have a good grasp on the concepts of "subjective"
and "interpretation", maybe because you had, and still have, the
"convinced, dedicated, and unquestioning" mindset. Part of the
training for a scientist is how to test hypotheses. To do this, one
needs to look only at the objective parts of the evidence -- parts
that one can measure, and that other people can measure and get the
same numbers.
We are not discussing physics here. But rather a historical pathway that
life from the beginning of life took to reach the present variety of
living organisms. There is no time machine, therefore what's left is
trying to read the past from fossils. An if evolution occurred there
must paths through which
the continuous changes is observeable.
Then one
needs to state one's hypothesis and TELL WHAT RESULTS ONE EXPECTS IFI noted that you gave no examples where the proceedure you describe accomplished the expected goal. So, there is no way to know anything
AND ONLY IF IT IS TRUE. Then one crunches the numbers and see whether
they match the expectations of the hypothesis. Then one explains what
one did so other people can check (a) if the procedures were
sufficient to support the conclusions, and (b) if they get the same
results when they try it.
about this with the limited and broad based info.
Yes, there is some subjectivity and interpretation around the edges,Here again no examples.
but sciences are not the hapless fools you treat them as. They know
about subjectivity and have designed the process to minimize it, so
that, in the long run (with other people performing the same sorts of
tests), it drops to zero.
Just so many words meaning nothing. Very little is observable, therefore theories are presented or excuses designed to explain away the absence
Contrast that with your approach, which is subjectivity IN ITS ENTIRETY.
of evidence where it should be.
The rarity of intermediates between
species, is due to predication, weathering, scavengers etc. etc. etc.
The evolution of the eye, is said to have evolved independently at
least 39 times over 10's of millions of years. However, some species
of trilobites when they first appeared, had functioning compound eyes
similar to the eyes of modern flies and dragon flies. There is no
history of the evolution of trilobite eyes or any other of the 39
eyes. There is a more recent discovery that challenges the multiple
independent eye evolution claims. And that is the discovery that a
single gene, Pa6 master control gene controls the downstream genes,
that form the specific eyes of each and all organisms with vision.
The eye gene of a mouse was taken and placed in various locations on
a fruit fly embryo, and to everyone's surprise the mouse master
control gene controlled the formation of fruit fly eyes wherever it
was placed. And these eyes had vision. To further confirm his theory
Walter Gehring placed a fruit fly eye gene in a frog, and the fruit
fly eye gene controlled the production of a frog eye in the frog.
..
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/04/4/text_pop/l_044_01.html
This eye gene may very well be the same gene that that controlled the
formation of eyes in the trilobites and the horseshoe crab. To
believe that in a universe where there is only unguided, aimless,
mindless, random mutations and natural selection, brought about the
utterly amazing, ancient, changeless master control eye gene is
unbelievable. This single fact strongly suggest planning, forethought
and purpose by an incredible designing engineer. Even more incredible
is, this just one of numerous other master control genes. For
example: The "tinman" master control controls the formation of hearts
from flies through humans. Another master control gene controls the
formation of stomachs. Another "tool kit" the dilless (Dill) gene
controls the formation of fins, insect legs and legs in birds etc.
And there are numerous other master control genes controlling the
formation of other organs and body forms.
Sure. All of that is entirely consistent with evolution, which we know
is a better designer than any person is. (Remember, design itself is
an evolutionary process.)
In my mind this demonstrates that deliberate, purposeful design is
the better option. Design is evidence, and if there is design in
nature, this evidence infers a designer.
But like you say, that is in your mind. You have no evidence.
When trilobites and horseshoe crabs appeared comparatively abruptly in
the fossil record with fully functioning eyes, indicating the very early origin of the Pa6 master control gene which remained constant and
unchanged through living modern animals. This is evidence of deliberate, purposeful design. To argue for evolution where there is
_no_observation_ of "blind spots" to camera eyes, requires faith. I
realize certain worms today have blind spots, but they have what they
need and none of what is unnecessary, the same holds true for the
various other critters with increasing, but less than advanced compound
eyes.
There is something I find no satisfactory reason as to why: what causedAnd of course, this is a major part of life, although evolution does
not deal with the origin of life. Without the origin of the first
life, there would be no evolution. But there are scientist who are
engaged with the OOL. Such advanced engineering as described above is
far beyond and in advance of any design by human engineers.
I agree. Life is very different from the engineered design we are
familiar with. Among the big differences: life reproduces itself; it
is not produced by a manufacturing process. And different lineages of
life comes up with different solutions to the same problem, something
that no intelligent design would do. For reasons known only to
yourself, you think that life looking unlike design is evidence that
life looks designed. That makes no sense to me.
the dead lifeless chemicals to strive for first life. Say it didn't (an accident) then what bestowed early life with the "desire" to continue.
There was no mind, no thought, no purpose and no conscienceness.
Furthermore, a certain wasp species digs a burrow then lays eggs, then
places certain plant leaves within and over the eggs that decays,
generating heat, which hatches the eggs. But after placing the leave -
she's gone never to return. Here is _instinct_ where did instinct come
from and why? A sea turtle lays a thousand eggs in sand never to return, knowing none of her offspring. This is is life in continuity, but why?
And how was it initiated? I know there is no answer to this. Escept......?
[ … ]
No disadvantage! I do not think macro-evolution in reality existed.
And a major problem that I have with evolution is the absence of
observation. Transitional or intermediate fossils between major groups
of organisms is not observed. This bothered Darwin, but he hoped future discoveries would vindicate his theory.
However, it has not to be. This failure was met by the Late Stephen J
Gould and Niles Eldredge. These two scientist tried to integrate the
real nature of the fossil record with Darwin's theory.
Had the fossil record supported evolution, there would have been no
need for this effort by Gould and Eldredge. In fact, the proponents of evolution have virtually abounded
the fossil record and turned to other systems and methods in searching
for supporting evidence.
...
--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
Had the fossil record supported evolution, there would have been no
need for this effort by Gould and Eldredge. In fact, the proponents of
evolution have virtually abounded
What on earth does "abounded" mean in this context?
No disadvantage! I do not think macro-evolution in reality existed.
And
a major problem that I have with evolution is the absence of
observation.
Transitional or intermediate fossils between major groups
of organisms is not observed.
This bothered Darwin, but he hoped future
discoveries would vindicate his theory.
However, it has not to be. This failure was met by the Late Stephen J
Gould and Niles Eldredge. These two scientist tried to integrate the
real nature of the fossil record with Darwin's theory. Had the fossil
record supported evolution, there would have been no need for this
effort by Gould and Eldredge.
In fact, the proponents of evolution have
virtually abounded the fossil record and turned to other systems and
methods in searching for supporting evidence.
On 2023-11-20 23:47:13 +0000, Ron Dean said:
[ … ]
No disadvantage! I do not think macro-evolution in reality existed.
And a major problem that I have with evolution is the absence of
observation. Transitional or intermediate fossils between major
groups of organisms is not observed. This bothered Darwin, but he
hoped future discoveries would vindicate his theory.
However, it has not to be. This failure was met by the Late Stephen J
Gould and Niles Eldredge. These two scientist tried to integrate the
real nature of the fossil record with Darwin's theory.
Once again, you're trying to pretend that Gould and Eldredge were on
your side. A lie.
Had the fossil record supported evolution, there would have been noWhat on earth does "abounded" mean in this context?
need for this effort by Gould and Eldredge. In fact, the proponents of
evolution have virtually abounded
the fossil record and turned to other systems and methods in
searching for supporting evidence.
...
--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
On 20/11/2023 23:47, Ron Dean wrote:
No disadvantage! I do not think macro-evolution in reality existed.
You claim not to lie. You claim that you absolutely reject creationism.
You claim that macro-evolution did not occur. How do you reconcile those three positions?
And
a major problem that I have with evolution is the absence of
observation.
There are literally mountains of evidence and billions of observations supporting the factuality of common descent with modification through
the agency of natural selection
and other processes.
Expecting a CHON to
Ron videotape is an unreasonable demand.
Transitional or intermediate fossils between major groups
of organisms is not observed.
Strangely Gould, who you commonly cite in support of your position (including below), explicitly said the opposite. It's fine-grained transitions between species that are mostly absent.
This bothered Darwin, but he hoped future
discoveries would vindicate his theory.
However, it has not to be. This failure was met by the Late Stephen J Gould and Niles Eldredge. These two scientist tried to integrate the
real nature of the fossil record with Darwin's theory. Had the fossil record supported evolution, there would have been no need for this
effort by Gould and Eldredge.
The fossil record does support evolution.
1) there is biotic succession - rocks of different ages contain fossils
of different organisms; fossil species are restricted to rocks of
particular ages. (If this was not true, and the fossil record was as
rich as the one we observe, evolution would be falsified.)
2) there is correlation between the biotas found in rocks of successive ages.
3) the geographic distribution of taxa in the fossil record over time
and space (palaeobiogeography), in the same way as the distribution of present day taxa (biogeography) does, supports evolution.
4) the plethora of intermediate/transitional fossils supports evolution.
Gould and Eldredge identified a few instances of peripatric speciation
(a concept that precedes them by a few decades) in the fossil record,
and extrapolated to that being the norm.
They also hyped their proposals
by arguing against a strawman gradualism.
In fact, the proponents of evolution have
virtually abounded the fossil record and turned to other systems and methods in searching for supporting evidence.
As I pointed out to you before, your implied chronological sequence is counterfactual. Homology and biogeography always were the main evidence
for common descent. A claim that proponents of evolution have virtually abandoned the fossil record requires that they drastically reduced their reliance upon it; that isn't true.
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 5:01:46 AM UTC-5, Ernest Major wrote:
On 20/11/2023 23:47, Ron Dean wrote:
No disadvantage! I do not think macro-evolution in reality existed.
You claim not to lie. You claim that you absolutely reject creationism.
You claim that macro-evolution did not occur. How do you reconcile those
three positions?
That's one tough question you've posed to Ron. I hope you haven't scared him away.
And
a major problem that I have with evolution is the absence of
observation.
There are literally mountains of evidence and billions of observations
supporting the factuality of common descent with modification through
the agency of natural selection
Not with "natural selection" stuck on talking about differential survival *within* populations. Why the Modern Synthesis still follows Darwin on
this is beyond me.
and other processes.
Yes, like competition between different orders, like that between
pterosaurs and early birds of the Mesozoic.
Before the K-T cataclysm
spelled the end of the former, all but one of many species of
pterosaurs of the Late Maastrichtian were OVER 2 meters wingspan,
the smaller ones (of which there were many at the beginning of the Cretaceous) having succumbed to competition with birds, the LARGEST
of whom were 2 meters wingspan.
Over in sci.bio.paleontology, Sight Reader seems to have found another
epic struggle, between the orders Squamata and Rhynchocephalia.
Expecting a CHON to
Ron videotape is an unreasonable demand.
Transitional or intermediate fossils between major groups
of organisms is not observed.
Strangely Gould, who you commonly cite in support of your position
(including below), explicitly said the opposite. It's fine-grained
transitions between species that are mostly absent.
Gould wasn't that specific in _The Panda's Thumb_. In reality,
I know of NO fine-grained transitions between genera outside
of Perissodactyla, and genera-to-genera transitions between families
are also exceedingly rare.
Of course, if you opt for a definition of "transitional" that is as loose
as making a platypus "transitional" between non-mammalian therapsids
and humans, you are getting awfully far from any kind of direct descent. [However, Harshman does use that very example for "transitional".]
This bothered Darwin, but he hoped future
discoveries would vindicate his theory.
However, it has not to be. This failure was met by the Late Stephen J
Gould and Niles Eldredge. These two scientist tried to integrate the
real nature of the fossil record with Darwin's theory. Had the fossil
record supported evolution, there would have been no need for this
effort by Gould and Eldredge.
Ron is way overplaying his hand here, using "evolution" in place of "evolutionary gradualism," but you go too far in the opposite direction, Ernest.
The fossil record does support evolution.
1) there is biotic succession - rocks of different ages contain fossils
of different organisms; fossil species are restricted to rocks of
particular ages. (If this was not true, and the fossil record was as
rich as the one we observe, evolution would be falsified.)
This is highly problematic where "living fossils" like the tuatara are concerned.
2) there is correlation between the biotas found in rocks of successive
ages.
Not where the Ediacaran biota and the Cambrian biota are concerned.
Even those Ediacaran organisms that are now known to be eumetazoans are
still in the minority, and don't seem to be close to ancestry of any phylum.
By far the most widespread of these was *Kimberella*, yet it did not survive into the Cambrian. Once confidently assumed to be a mollusc,
its affinities even within bilateria are in dispute. See the
phylogenetic tree at the end of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilateria
3) the geographic distribution of taxa in the fossil record over time
and space (palaeobiogeography), in the same way as the distribution of
present day taxa (biogeography) does, supports evolution.
4) the plethora of intermediate/transitional fossils supports evolution.
The paucity of anything resembling direct ancestors argues against
what you say next.
Gould and Eldredge identified a few instances of peripatric speciation
(a concept that precedes them by a few decades) in the fossil record,
and extrapolated to that being the norm.
It was not an extrapolation, but common sense, especially if they included centrifugal speciation. Where is there evidence of speciation within large populations? The only cases I know of are in the horse family!
They also hyped their proposals
by arguing against a strawman gradualism.
Why a strawman? With "natural selection" being as hidebound as it is (see above),
I would call it the norm!
In fact, the proponents of evolution have
virtually abounded the fossil record and turned to other systems and
methods in searching for supporting evidence.
As I pointed out to you before, your implied chronological sequence is
counterfactual. Homology and biogeography always were the main evidence
for common descent. A claim that proponents of evolution have virtually
abandoned the fossil record requires that they drastically reduced their
reliance upon it; that isn't true.
It is very true. Systematists have abandoned the whole idea of direct descent.
As I wrote in reply to Sight Reader earlier today:
______________________________ excerpt ___________________________ Paleontologists have abandoned [Archaeopteryx] as a bird ancestor. But I have no idea
how much of this is due to careful anatomical study and how much due to an ideology
that dominates taxonomy, which claims that there is "no evidence" that any fossil species is ancestral
to any other species, fossil or extant.
"no evidence" = no incontrovertible proof
Meanwhile, loose "sister group" talk is everywhere, as can be seen from the on-again, off-again hypothesis that the correct grouping is
{Theropods, Ornithischians} Sauropods
rather than the > century old tradition that the following is correct:
{Theropods, Sauropods} Ornithischians.
===============================end of excerpt
from https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/19M5qy2Ib1U/m/St04WsHmCAAJ Re: Fujianvenator, Jurassic Avialan
Full disclosure: Harshman, as might be expected, tried to undermine
the above at every turn in a reply to that post.
However, you might be disappointed by the caliber of that reply.
In any event, he will get a rebuttal tomorrow.
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 9:46:42 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 9:11:39 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 11:11:35 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 11/10/23 7:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that von Daniken makes the same mistake Ron Dean makes:
From final appearance, he concludes a designer in lines with his >>>>>> preconception.
Why so coy about what that "preconception" is supposed to be?
But then, your innuendo is far more flamboyant
than the truth: nowhere in the Wikipedia article
does it suggest that von Daniken thought the extraterrestrial
visitors that he talks about were supernatural. Instead, the
title of his book refers to the hypothesis that the people of the time >>>>> thought they might be gods.
Hemi, I see you decided below to be many times more flamboyant than Mark was above,
but you put your lampoon in the wrong place. It should have gone right after the
preceding paragraph.
And von Daniken's conclusions have proven to be wrong,
as it seems likely Ron's will be.
Banking on innuendo to the end, you keep us guessing what
"conclusions" you may be referring to.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS I am highly skeptical that extraterrestrial visitors taught humans the things
that went into the design of the Antikythera mechanism, but that is because
I think OOL so rare that it only happens at most once in the lifetime of a galaxy,
even one as large as our Milky Way. What is YOUR reason for dismissing >>>>> the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors out of hand?
You know I learned something new, which I find very exciting and
invigorating.
Yeah, it must be awfully exciting and invigorating to ignore the question
I asked Mark in the end, giving him an excuse to delete it and to
pretend it never existed. This despite the fact that I gave a
highly on-topic reason for my skepticism.
It must also be tremendously invigorating to substitute
a crude satire for reasoned skepticism. You always were
more at home with flippancy than you were
with attempts to reason in an on-topic way about your
opinions and cherished beliefs.
The ancient Greeks were way too backwater ignorant to have
thought up the Antikythera mechanism on their own unaided by
extraterrestials. Therefore Planet X exists and is called Nibiru. Perhaps
Niburu is a way station for Throom? My mind has opened to endless
possibilities due to this one discovery. Thanks.
Has Giorgio Tsoukalos been alerted?
See below about Bob Casanova's reaction.
I hate to be a party pooper, Hemi, but I really wish you would try to come
to grips with the questions that make for progress on on-topic issues >>> like the Fermi paradox: If life is so easy to evolve that it is almost >>> inevitable on any planet that is suitable for it, "where is everybody?" >>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
I gave my answer, which seems to be unpopular with most of the regulars, >>> including Athel, Bill Rogers, Bob Casanova, Lawyer Daggett, and Mark Isaak.
But they are all burying their heads in the sand about it. Are you, too, >>> destined to do so?
It does look like the answer to this last question is going to be Yes.
You might interpret it as flippancy but where did the influencers that
introduced the Antikythera mechanism base their operations?
There you go again, ignoring my manifesto about the mechanism:
[quoted from above]
[end of quote]PS I am highly skeptical that extraterrestrial visitors taught humans the things
that went into the design of the Antikythera mechanism, but that is because
I think OOL so rare that it only happens at most once in the lifetime of a galaxy,
even one as large as our Milky Way.
Yeah sorry this didn’t sink into my thick skull before. But then that rarity prefers oddly your preferred Throom far flung molecular starter kit, sent way across the cosmos,
over a local option like Niburu? Do I
understand that implication correctly?
I believe alien societies may exist but are too far away to matter. I don’t
see the rationale for panspermic seeding. Nor the feasibility or chance of success.
If we are impacted by aliens it would be a Niburu like scenario
due to the speed of light and time spent in the endeavor. But if your reading of Fermi holds Niburu evaporates right?
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 9:51:45 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 9:46:42 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 9:11:39 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 11:11:35 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 11/10/23 7:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that von Daniken makes the same mistake Ron Dean makes:
From final appearance, he concludes a designer in lines with his >>>>>> preconception.
Why so coy about what that "preconception" is supposed to be?
But then, your innuendo is far more flamboyant
than the truth: nowhere in the Wikipedia article
does it suggest that von Daniken thought the extraterrestrial
visitors that he talks about were supernatural. Instead, the
title of his book refers to the hypothesis that the people of the time
thought they might be gods.
Hemi, I see you decided below to be many times more flamboyant than Mark was above,
but you put your lampoon in the wrong place. It should have gone right after the
preceding paragraph.
And von Daniken's conclusions have proven to be wrong,
as it seems likely Ron's will be.
Banking on innuendo to the end, you keep us guessing what
"conclusions" you may be referring to.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS I am highly skeptical that extraterrestrial visitors taught humans the things
that went into the design of the Antikythera mechanism, but that is because
I think OOL so rare that it only happens at most once in the lifetime of a galaxy,
even one as large as our Milky Way. What is YOUR reason for dismissing
the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors out of hand?
You know I learned something new, which I find very exciting and
invigorating.
Yeah, it must be awfully exciting and invigorating to ignore the question
I asked Mark in the end, giving him an excuse to delete it and to
pretend it never existed. This despite the fact that I gave a
highly on-topic reason for my skepticism.
It must also be tremendously invigorating to substitute
a crude satire for reasoned skepticism. You always were
more at home with flippancy than you were
with attempts to reason in an on-topic way about your
opinions and cherished beliefs.
The ancient Greeks were way too backwater ignorant to have
thought up the Antikythera mechanism on their own unaided by
extraterrestials. Therefore Planet X exists and is called Nibiru. Perhaps
Niburu is a way station for Throom? My mind has opened to endless >>>> possibilities due to this one discovery. Thanks.
Has Giorgio Tsoukalos been alerted?
The above is kept in for "historical" reasons. True 2-way communication begins here, although off to a rocky start.See below about Bob Casanova's reaction.
I hate to be a party pooper, Hemi, but I really wish you would try to come
to grips with the questions that make for progress on on-topic issues >>> like the Fermi paradox: If life is so easy to evolve that it is almost >>> inevitable on any planet that is suitable for it, "where is everybody?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
I gave my answer, which seems to be unpopular with most of the regulars,
including Athel, Bill Rogers, Bob Casanova, Lawyer Daggett, and Mark Isaak.
But they are all burying their heads in the sand about it. Are you, too,
destined to do so?
It does look like the answer to this last question is going to be Yes.
You might interpret it as flippancy but where did the influencers that >> introduced the Antikythera mechanism base their operations?
There you go again, ignoring my manifesto about the mechanism:
And now comes true communication:[quoted from above]
[end of quote]PS I am highly skeptical that extraterrestrial visitors taught humans the things
that went into the design of the Antikythera mechanism, but that is because
I think OOL so rare that it only happens at most once in the lifetime of a galaxy,
even one as large as our Milky Way.
Yeah sorry this didn’t sink into my thick skull before. But then that rarity prefers oddly your preferred Throom far flung molecular starter kit,Not the cosmos, only a part of one spiral arm of the galaxy.
sent way across the cosmos,
Beyond that, one is badly at the mercy of the law of diminishing returns.
And "Throom" is only the most radical of the well-thought-out
versions of directed panspermia. It hypothesizes the existence
of intelligent creatures with ribozymes instead of the protein enzymes of life as we know it. It thus bypasses what may be the greatest obstacle
to earth OOL, the Catch-22 of the protein takeover.
Least radical is the hypothesis whose name, invented by Howard Hershey,
I reluctantly adopted: the Xordaxian, which hypothesizes a species with essentially the same genetic code as ours. This makes it the most
easily testable of the hypotheses.
over a local option like Niburu? Do II don't dabble in rank pseudoscience. Even the idea of a Nemesis
understand that implication correctly?
causing waves of extinctions thru disturbing of the Kuiper belt
was shown unnecessary by Jack Sepkoski, who replaced it with the periodic movement
of the solar system through the plane of the galaxy.
I believe alien societies may exist but are too far away to matter. I don’tYou have only yourself to blame for that. I haven't dared to post a
see the rationale for panspermic seeding. Nor the feasibility or chance of success.
full exposition of directed panspermia in over a decade. You and your accomplices so thoroughly trashed my last attempt, in 2016, less than 1/3 of the way through,
that I fear it would be a King Canute project to attempt another one. Consequently, you will remain ignorant unless you promise to never
do anything like that again.
If we are impacted by aliens it would be a Niburu like scenarioSee above. Your word "we" is well chosen. My last serious hypothesis
due to the speed of light and time spent in the endeavor. But if your reading of Fermi holds Niburu evaporates right?
of alien visitation has to do with the radical change from the Ediacaran biota
to the Cambrian, absolutely dwarfing the second biggest one,
the change after the end of Permian extinction. [And it's about a one-time close approach, not an orbit like Nemesis or (ugh!) Niburu.]
I told Ernest Major about a bit of that change last night on this thread: see quote below.
You can safely ignore John Harshman's shoot-from-the-hip reply to that post of mine.
He is venting there almost non-stop, and in the one place where he
tried to be focused and objective, he totally blew it. I had written:
[begin quote:]
Even those Ediacaran organisms that are now known to be eumetazoans are still in the minority, and don't seem to be close to ancestry of any phylum. By far the most widespread of these was *Kimberella*, yet it did not survive into the Cambrian. Once confidently assumed to be a mollusc,
its affinities even within bilateria are in dispute. See the
phylogenetic tree at the end of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilateria
[end of quote] --https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg/m/L5YDV_BEAAAJ
Here is John's reaction to that:
"Is it not universally agreed to be a lophotrochozoan? "
-- https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg/m/LR0mNH1OAAAJ
If John had bothered to click on that Wikipedia entry, he
could have seen that the part of the tree at the
bottom shows that the answer is a resounding NO!
Specifically, it shows TWO Kimberella pictures, both with question marks,
at once indicating a lack of universal agreement. The first does
indeed fall within Lophotrochozoa--but still not within Mollusca.
The second shows it as basal to the whole of Protostomia,
whose other well-known main division is Ecdysozoa.
I've snipped the rest. No point to "historical overkill."Can we all agree that Ron Dean X is simply an ignoramus, secure in his ignorance and unwilling to examine any argument seeking to threaten it?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia, SC
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 12:06:47 PM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 9:51:45 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 9:46:42 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 9:11:39 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 11:11:35 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
It seems to me that von Daniken makes the same mistake Ron Dean makes:
From final appearance, he concludes a designer in lines with his >>>>>> preconception.
Why so coy about what that "preconception" is supposed to be? >>>>>
But then, your innuendo is far more flamboyant
than the truth: nowhere in the Wikipedia article
does it suggest that von Daniken thought the extraterrestrial >>>>> visitors that he talks about were supernatural. Instead, the
title of his book refers to the hypothesis that the people of the time
thought they might be gods.
Hemi, I see you decided below to be many times more flamboyant than Mark was above,
but you put your lampoon in the wrong place. It should have gone right after the
preceding paragraph.
And von Daniken's conclusions have proven to be wrong,
as it seems likely Ron's will be.
Banking on innuendo to the end, you keep us guessing what
"conclusions" you may be referring to.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS I am highly skeptical that extraterrestrial visitors taught humans the things
that went into the design of the Antikythera mechanism, but that is because
I think OOL so rare that it only happens at most once in the lifetime of a galaxy,
even one as large as our Milky Way. What is YOUR reason for dismissing
the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors out of hand?
You know I learned something new, which I find very exciting and >>>> invigorating.
Yeah, it must be awfully exciting and invigorating to ignore the question
I asked Mark in the end, giving him an excuse to delete it and to >>> pretend it never existed. This despite the fact that I gave a
highly on-topic reason for my skepticism.
It must also be tremendously invigorating to substitute
a crude satire for reasoned skepticism. You always were
more at home with flippancy than you were
with attempts to reason in an on-topic way about your
opinions and cherished beliefs.
The ancient Greeks were way too backwater ignorant to have
thought up the Antikythera mechanism on their own unaided by
extraterrestials. Therefore Planet X exists and is called Nibiru. Perhaps
Niburu is a way station for Throom? My mind has opened to endless >>>> possibilities due to this one discovery. Thanks.
Has Giorgio Tsoukalos been alerted?
See below about Bob Casanova's reaction.
The above is kept in for "historical" reasons. True 2-way communication begins here, although off to a rocky start.
I hate to be a party pooper, Hemi, but I really wish you would try to come
to grips with the questions that make for progress on on-topic issues
like the Fermi paradox: If life is so easy to evolve that it is almost
inevitable on any planet that is suitable for it, "where is everybody?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
I gave my answer, which seems to be unpopular with most of the regulars,
including Athel, Bill Rogers, Bob Casanova, Lawyer Daggett, and Mark Isaak.
But they are all burying their heads in the sand about it. Are you, too,
destined to do so?
It does look like the answer to this last question is going to be Yes.
You might interpret it as flippancy but where did the influencers that
introduced the Antikythera mechanism base their operations?
There you go again, ignoring my manifesto about the mechanism:
[quoted from above]
[end of quote]PS I am highly skeptical that extraterrestrial visitors taught humans the things
that went into the design of the Antikythera mechanism, but that is because
I think OOL so rare that it only happens at most once in the lifetime of a galaxy,
even one as large as our Milky Way.
And now comes true communication:
Yeah sorry this didn’t sink into my thick skull before. But then that rarity prefers oddly your preferred Throom far flung molecular starter kit,
sent way across the cosmos,
Not the cosmos, only a part of one spiral arm of the galaxy.
Beyond that, one is badly at the mercy of the law of diminishing returns.
And "Throom" is only the most radical of the well-thought-out
versions of directed panspermia. It hypothesizes the existence
of intelligent creatures with ribozymes instead of the protein enzymes of life as we know it. It thus bypasses what may be the greatest obstacle
to earth OOL, the Catch-22 of the protein takeover.
Least radical is the hypothesis whose name, invented by Howard Hershey,
I reluctantly adopted: the Xordaxian, which hypothesizes a species with essentially the same genetic code as ours. This makes it the most
easily testable of the hypotheses.
over a local option like Niburu? Do I
understand that implication correctly?
I don't dabble in rank pseudoscience. Even the idea of a Nemesis
causing waves of extinctions thru disturbing of the Kuiper belt
was shown unnecessary by Jack Sepkoski, who replaced it with the periodic movement
of the solar system through the plane of the galaxy.
I believe alien societies may exist but are too far away to matter. I don’t
see the rationale for panspermic seeding. Nor the feasibility or chance of
success.
You have only yourself to blame for that. I haven't dared to post a
full exposition of directed panspermia in over a decade. You and your accomplices so thoroughly trashed my last attempt, in 2016, less than 1/3 of the way through,
that I fear it would be a King Canute project to attempt another one. Consequently, you will remain ignorant unless you promise to never
do anything like that again.
If we are impacted by aliens it would be a Niburu like scenario
due to the speed of light and time spent in the endeavor. But if your reading of Fermi holds Niburu evaporates right?
See above. Your word "we" is well chosen. My last serious hypothesis
of alien visitation has to do with the radical change from the Ediacaran biota
to the Cambrian, absolutely dwarfing the second biggest one,
the change after the end of Permian extinction. [And it's about a one-time close approach, not an orbit like Nemesis or (ugh!) Niburu.]
I told Ernest Major about a bit of that change last night on this thread: see quote below.
You can safely ignore John Harshman's shoot-from-the-hip reply to that post of mine.
He is venting there almost non-stop, and in the one place where he
tried to be focused and objective, he totally blew it. I had written:
[begin quote:]
Even those Ediacaran organisms that are now known to be eumetazoans are still in the minority, and don't seem to be close to ancestry of any phylum.
By far the most widespread of these was *Kimberella*, yet it did not survive
into the Cambrian. Once confidently assumed to be a mollusc,
its affinities even within bilateria are in dispute. See the
phylogenetic tree at the end of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilateria
[end of quote] --https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg/m/L5YDV_BEAAAJ
Here is John's reaction to that:
"Is it not universally agreed to be a lophotrochozoan? "
-- https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg/m/LR0mNH1OAAAJ
If John had bothered to click on that Wikipedia entry, he
could have seen that the part of the tree at the
bottom shows that the answer is a resounding NO!
Specifically, it shows TWO Kimberella pictures, both with question marks, at once indicating a lack of universal agreement. The first does
indeed fall within Lophotrochozoa--but still not within Mollusca.
The second shows it as basal to the whole of Protostomia,
whose other well-known main division is Ecdysozoa.
Can we all agree that Ron Dean X is simply an ignoramus, secure in his ignorance and unwilling to examine any argument seeking to threaten it?
I can't understand why this thread has gone on as long as it has.
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 6:26:48 PM UTC-5, erik simpson wrote:
On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 12:06:47 PM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 9:51:45 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 9:46:42 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 9:11:39 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, November 10, 2023 at 11:11:35 PM UTC-5, Mark Isaak wrote:
It seems to me that von Daniken makes the same mistake Ron Dean makes:
From final appearance, he concludes a designer in lines with his
preconception.
Why so coy about what that "preconception" is supposed to be? >>>>>
But then, your innuendo is far more flamboyant
than the truth: nowhere in the Wikipedia article
does it suggest that von Daniken thought the extraterrestrial >>>>> visitors that he talks about were supernatural. Instead, the >>>>> title of his book refers to the hypothesis that the people of the time
thought they might be gods.
Hemi, I see you decided below to be many times more flamboyant than Mark was above,
but you put your lampoon in the wrong place. It should have gone right after the
preceding paragraph.
And von Daniken's conclusions have proven to be wrong,
as it seems likely Ron's will be.
Banking on innuendo to the end, you keep us guessing what
"conclusions" you may be referring to.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS I am highly skeptical that extraterrestrial visitors taught humans the things
that went into the design of the Antikythera mechanism, but that is because
I think OOL so rare that it only happens at most once in the lifetime of a galaxy,
even one as large as our Milky Way. What is YOUR reason for dismissing
the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors out of hand?
You know I learned something new, which I find very exciting and >>>> invigorating.
Yeah, it must be awfully exciting and invigorating to ignore the question
I asked Mark in the end, giving him an excuse to delete it and to >>> pretend it never existed. This despite the fact that I gave a
highly on-topic reason for my skepticism.
It must also be tremendously invigorating to substitute
a crude satire for reasoned skepticism. You always were
more at home with flippancy than you were
with attempts to reason in an on-topic way about your
opinions and cherished beliefs.
The ancient Greeks were way too backwater ignorant to have
thought up the Antikythera mechanism on their own unaided by
extraterrestials. Therefore Planet X exists and is called Nibiru. Perhaps
Niburu is a way station for Throom? My mind has opened to endless >>>> possibilities due to this one discovery. Thanks.
Has Giorgio Tsoukalos been alerted?
See below about Bob Casanova's reaction.
The above is kept in for "historical" reasons. True 2-way communication begins here, although off to a rocky start.
I hate to be a party pooper, Hemi, but I really wish you would try to come
to grips with the questions that make for progress on on-topic issues
like the Fermi paradox: If life is so easy to evolve that it is almost
inevitable on any planet that is suitable for it, "where is everybody?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
I gave my answer, which seems to be unpopular with most of the regulars,
including Athel, Bill Rogers, Bob Casanova, Lawyer Daggett, and Mark Isaak.
But they are all burying their heads in the sand about it. Are you, too,
destined to do so?
It does look like the answer to this last question is going to be Yes.
You might interpret it as flippancy but where did the influencers that
introduced the Antikythera mechanism base their operations?
There you go again, ignoring my manifesto about the mechanism:
[quoted from above]
[end of quote]PS I am highly skeptical that extraterrestrial visitors taught humans the things
that went into the design of the Antikythera mechanism, but that is because
I think OOL so rare that it only happens at most once in the lifetime of a galaxy,
even one as large as our Milky Way.
And now comes true communication:
Yeah sorry this didn’t sink into my thick skull before. But then that
rarity prefers oddly your preferred Throom far flung molecular starter kit,
sent way across the cosmos,
Not the cosmos, only a part of one spiral arm of the galaxy.
Beyond that, one is badly at the mercy of the law of diminishing returns.
And "Throom" is only the most radical of the well-thought-out
versions of directed panspermia. It hypothesizes the existence
of intelligent creatures with ribozymes instead of the protein enzymes of
life as we know it. It thus bypasses what may be the greatest obstacle to earth OOL, the Catch-22 of the protein takeover.
Least radical is the hypothesis whose name, invented by Howard Hershey, I reluctantly adopted: the Xordaxian, which hypothesizes a species with essentially the same genetic code as ours. This makes it the most
easily testable of the hypotheses.
over a local option like Niburu? Do I
understand that implication correctly?
I don't dabble in rank pseudoscience. Even the idea of a Nemesis
causing waves of extinctions thru disturbing of the Kuiper belt
was shown unnecessary by Jack Sepkoski, who replaced it with the periodic movement
of the solar system through the plane of the galaxy.
I believe alien societies may exist but are too far away to matter. I don’t
see the rationale for panspermic seeding. Nor the feasibility or chance of
success.
You have only yourself to blame for that. I haven't dared to post a
full exposition of directed panspermia in over a decade. You and your accomplices so thoroughly trashed my last attempt, in 2016, less than 1/3 of the way through,
that I fear it would be a King Canute project to attempt another one. Consequently, you will remain ignorant unless you promise to never
do anything like that again.
If we are impacted by aliens it would be a Niburu like scenario
due to the speed of light and time spent in the endeavor. But if your reading of Fermi holds Niburu evaporates right?
See above. Your word "we" is well chosen. My last serious hypothesis
of alien visitation has to do with the radical change from the Ediacaran biota
to the Cambrian, absolutely dwarfing the second biggest one,
the change after the end of Permian extinction. [And it's about a one-time
close approach, not an orbit like Nemesis or (ugh!) Niburu.]
I told Ernest Major about a bit of that change last night on this thread: see quote below.
I call readers' attention to the following comment, about which I write something
in reaction to the words Erik Simpson added.
You can safely ignore John Harshman's shoot-from-the-hip reply to that post of mine.
He is venting there almost non-stop, and in the one place where he
tried to be focused and objective, he totally blew it. I had written:
[begin quote:]
Even those Ediacaran organisms that are now known to be eumetazoans are still in the minority, and don't seem to be close to ancestry of any phylum.
By far the most widespread of these was *Kimberella*, yet it did not survive
into the Cambrian. Once confidently assumed to be a mollusc,
its affinities even within bilateria are in dispute. See the phylogenetic tree at the end of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilateria
[end of quote] --https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg/m/L5YDV_BEAAAJ
Here is John's reaction to that:
"Is it not universally agreed to be a lophotrochozoan? "
-- https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/yl0TJZ0nueg/m/LR0mNH1OAAAJ
If John had bothered to click on that Wikipedia entry, he
could have seen that the part of the tree at the
bottom shows that the answer is a resounding NO!
<snip to get to your words, Erik>:Specifically, it shows TWO Kimberella pictures, both with question marks,
at once indicating a lack of universal agreement. The first does
indeed fall within Lophotrochozoa--but still not within Mollusca.
The second shows it as basal to the whole of Protostomia,
whose other well-known main division is Ecdysozoa.
Can we all agree that Ron Dean X is simply an ignoramus, secure in his ignorance and unwilling to examine any argument seeking to threaten it?No, because you are a fan of worse behavior by John Harshman,
and since I exposed an abysmal display of willful ignorance by him in
the very post to which you are replying, I suspect ulterior motives in your question.
Specifically, I suspect you are trying to create a false impression of
what the post to which you are replying is all about.
You could have chosen any of a number of far more appropriate posts to which you could have added this question, but you chose this one,
in which neither Hemidactylus nor I mentioned or alluded to Ron Dean.
.
I can't understand why this thread has gone on as long as it has.Let me remind you that this thread has deviated from the original
theme of Tour's five challenges. No one here has really delved into the scientific realities behind his first three challenges, and you are
showing how uninterested you are in them.
Not only that, but oodles of other arguments and discussions
have taken place on this thread that have nothing to do with Ron Dean.
Most recently, you've butted into what was turning into
a mostly satisfactory meeting of minds between Hemidactylus and myself,
and I suspect that you don't like the on-topic turn it has taken, even
if the shorter bit of talk about Harshman is left out of the picture.
Peter NyikosI wasn't talking about Harshman, Hemi, or you. I was talking about Mr. X.
On 20/11/2023 23:47, Ron Dean wrote:
No disadvantage! I do not think macro-evolution in reality existed.
You claim not to lie. You claim that you absolutely reject creationism.
You claim that macro-evolution did not occur. How do you reconcile those three positions?
And a major problem that I have with evolution is the absence of
observation.
There are literally mountains of evidence and billions of observations supporting the factuality of common descent with modification through
the agency of natural selection and other processes. Expecting a CHON to
Ron videotape is an unreasonable demand.
Transitional or intermediate fossils between major groups of
organisms is not observed.
Strangely Gould, who you commonly cite in support of your position
(including below), explicitly said the opposite. It's fine-grained transitions between species that are mostly absent.
This bothered Darwin, but he hoped future discoveries would vindicate
his theory.
However, it has not to be. This failure was met by the Late Stephen J
Gould and Niles Eldredge. These two scientist tried to integrate the
real nature of the fossil record with Darwin's theory. Had the fossil
record supported evolution, there would have been no need for this
effort by Gould and Eldredge.
The fossil record does support evolution.
1) there is biotic succession - rocks of different ages contain fossils
of different organisms; fossil species are restricted to rocks of
particular ages. (If this was not true, and the fossil record was as
rich as the one we observe, evolution would be falsified.)
2) there is correlation between the biotas found in rocks of successive
ages.
3) the geographic distribution of taxa in the fossil record over time
and space (palaeobiogeography), in the same way as the distribution of present day taxa (biogeography) does, supports evolution.
4) the plethora of intermediate/transitional fossils supports evolution.
Gould and Eldredge identified a few instances of peripatric speciation
(a concept that precedes them by a few decades) in the fossil record,
and extrapolated to that being the norm. They also hyped their proposals
by arguing against a strawman gradualism.
In fact, the proponents of evolution have virtually abounded the
fossil record and turned to other systems and methods in searching for
supporting evidence.
As I pointed out to you before, your implied chronological sequence is counterfactual. Homology and biogeography always were the main evidence
for common descent. A claim that proponents of evolution have virtually abandoned the fossil record requires that they drastically reduced their reliance upon it; that isn't true.
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 5:01:46 AM UTC-5, Ernest Major wrote:
On 20/11/2023 23:47, Ron Dean wrote:
No disadvantage! I do not think macro-evolution in reality existed.
You claim not to lie. You claim that you absolutely reject creationism.
You claim that macro-evolution did not occur. How do you reconcile those
three positions?
That's one tough question you've posed to Ron. I hope you haven't scared him away.
And
a major problem that I have with evolution is the absence of
observation.
There are literally mountains of evidence and billions of observations
supporting the factuality of common descent with modification through
the agency of natural selection
Not with "natural selection" stuck on talking about differential survival *within* populations. Why the Modern Synthesis still follows Darwin on
this is beyond me.
and other processes.
Yes, like competition between different orders, like that between
pterosaurs and early birds of the Mesozoic. Before the K-T cataclysm
spelled the end of the former, all but one of many species of
pterosaurs of the Late Maastrichtian were OVER 2 meters wingspan,
the smaller ones (of which there were many at the beginning of the Cretaceous) having succumbed to competition with birds, the LARGEST
of whom were 2 meters wingspan.
Over in sci.bio.paleontology, Sight Reader seems to have found another
epic struggle, between the orders Squamata and Rhynchocephalia.
Expecting a CHON to
Ron videotape is an unreasonable demand.
Transitional or intermediate fossils between major groups
of organisms is not observed.
Strangely Gould, who you commonly cite in support of your position
(including below), explicitly said the opposite. It's fine-grained
transitions between species that are mostly absent.
Gould wasn't that specific in _The Panda's Thumb_. In reality,
I know of NO fine-grained transitions between genera outside
of Perissodactyla, and genera-to-genera transitions between families
are also exceedingly rare.
Of course, if you opt for a definition of "transitional" that is as loose
as making a platypus "transitional" between non-mammalian therapsids
and humans, you are getting awfully far from any kind of direct descent. [However, Harshman does use that very example for "transitional".]
This bothered Darwin, but he hoped future
discoveries would vindicate his theory.
However, it has not to be. This failure was met by the Late Stephen J
Gould and Niles Eldredge. These two scientist tried to integrate the
real nature of the fossil record with Darwin's theory. Had the fossil
record supported evolution, there would have been no need for this
effort by Gould and Eldredge.
Ron is way overplaying his hand here, using "evolution" in place of "evolutionary gradualism," but you go too far in the opposite direction, Ernest.
The fossil record does support evolution.
1) there is biotic succession - rocks of different ages contain fossils
of different organisms; fossil species are restricted to rocks of
particular ages. (If this was not true, and the fossil record was as
rich as the one we observe, evolution would be falsified.)
This is highly problematic where "living fossils" like the tuatara are concerned.
2) there is correlation between the biotas found in rocks of successive
ages.
Not where the Ediacaran biota and the Cambrian biota are concerned.
Even those Ediacaran organisms that are now known to be eumetazoans are
still in the minority, and don't seem to be close to ancestry of any phylum.
By far the most widespread of these was *Kimberella*, yet it did not survive into the Cambrian. Once confidently assumed to be a mollusc,
its affinities even within bilateria are in dispute. See the
phylogenetic tree at the end of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilateria
3) the geographic distribution of taxa in the fossil record over time
and space (palaeobiogeography), in the same way as the distribution of
present day taxa (biogeography) does, supports evolution.
4) the plethora of intermediate/transitional fossils supports evolution.
The paucity of anything resembling direct ancestors argues against
what you say next.
Gould and Eldredge identified a few instances of peripatric speciation
(a concept that precedes them by a few decades) in the fossil record,
and extrapolated to that being the norm.
It was not an extrapolation, but common sense, especially if they included centrifugal speciation. Where is there evidence of speciation within large populations? The only cases I know of are in the horse family!
They also hyped their proposals
by arguing against a strawman gradualism.
Why a strawman? With "natural selection" being as hidebound as it is (see above),
I would call it the norm!
In fact, the proponents of evolution have
virtually abounded the fossil record and turned to other systems and
methods in searching for supporting evidence.
As I pointed out to you before, your implied chronological sequence is
counterfactual. Homology and biogeography always were the main evidence
for common descent. A claim that proponents of evolution have virtually
abandoned the fossil record requires that they drastically reduced their
reliance upon it; that isn't true.
It is very true. Systematists have abandoned the whole idea of direct descent.
As I wrote in reply to Sight Reader earlier today:
______________________________ excerpt ___________________________ Paleontologists have abandoned [Archaeopteryx] as a bird ancestor. But I have no idea
how much of this is due to careful anatomical study and how much due to an ideology
that dominates taxonomy, which claims that there is "no evidence" that any fossil species is ancestral
to any other species, fossil or extant.
"no evidence" = no incontrovertible proof
Meanwhile, loose "sister group" talk is everywhere, as can be seen from the on-again, off-again hypothesis that the correct grouping is
{Theropods, Ornithischians} Sauropods
rather than the > century old tradition that the following is correct:
{Theropods, Sauropods} Ornithischians.
===============================end of excerpt
from https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/19M5qy2Ib1U/m/St04WsHmCAAJ Re: Fujianvenator, Jurassic Avialan
Full disclosure: Harshman, as might be expected, tried to undermine
the above at every turn in a reply to that post.
However, you might be disappointed by the caliber of that reply.
In any event, he will get a rebuttal tomorrow.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
U. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer-- https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 5:01:46 AM UTC-5, Ernest Major wrote:
On 20/11/2023 23:47, Ron Dean wrote:
No disadvantage! I do not think macro-evolution in reality existed.
You claim not to lie. You claim that you absolutely reject creationism. >> You claim that macro-evolution did not occur. How do you reconcile those >> three positions?
That's one tough question you've posed to Ron. I hope you haven't scared him away.
I don't scare so easily.
Strangely Gould, who you commonly cite in support of your position
(including below), explicitly said the opposite. It's fine-grained
transitions between species that are mostly absent.
Gould wasn't that specific in _The Panda's Thumb_. In reality,
I know of NO fine-grained transitions between genera outside
of Perissodactyla, and genera-to-genera transitions between families
are also exceedingly rare.
Of course, if you opt for a definition of "transitional" that is as loose as making a platypus "transitional" between non-mammalian therapsids
and humans, you are getting awfully far from any kind of direct descent. [However, Harshman does use that very example for "transitional".]
This bothered Darwin, but he hoped future
discoveries would vindicate his theory.
However, it has not to be. This failure was met by the Late Stephen J >>> Gould and Niles Eldredge. These two scientist tried to integrate the
real nature of the fossil record with Darwin's theory. Had the fossil >>> record supported evolution, there would have been no need for this
effort by Gould and Eldredge.
Ron is way overplaying his hand here, using "evolution" in place of "evolutionary gradualism," but you go too far in the opposite direction, Ernest.
Did I? Not sure, I know you've read this statement by Darwin. "Why then
is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and
gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological
record. Charles Darwin (1859), The Origin of Species, p. 280. https://ncse.ngo/darwin-transitional-fossils
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 5:01:46 AM UTC-5, Ernest Major wrote:
On 20/11/2023 23:47, Ron Dean wrote:
No disadvantage! I do not think macro-evolution in reality existed.
You claim not to lie. You claim that you absolutely reject creationism.
You claim that macro-evolution did not occur. How do you reconcile those >>> three positions?
That's one tough question you've posed to Ron. I hope you haven't
scared him away.
I don't scare so easily.
And
a major problem that I have with evolution is the absence of
observation.
There are literally mountains of evidence and billions of observations
supporting the factuality of common descent with modification through
the agency of natural selection
Not with "natural selection" stuck on talking about differential survival
*within* populations. Why the Modern Synthesis still follows Darwin on
this is beyond me.
and other processes.
Yes, like competition between different orders, like that between
pterosaurs and early birds of the Mesozoic. Before the K-T cataclysm
spelled the end of the former, all but one of many species of
pterosaurs of the Late Maastrichtian were OVER 2 meters wingspan,
the smaller ones (of which there were many at the beginning of the
Cretaceous) having succumbed to competition with birds, the LARGEST
of whom were 2 meters wingspan.
Over in sci.bio.paleontology, Sight Reader seems to have found another
epic struggle, between the orders Squamata and Rhynchocephalia.
Expecting a CHON to
Ron videotape is an unreasonable demand.
Transitional or intermediate fossils between major groups
of organisms is not observed.
Strangely Gould, who you commonly cite in support of your position
(including below), explicitly said the opposite. It's fine-grained
transitions between species that are mostly absent.
Gould wasn't that specific in _The Panda's Thumb_. In reality,
I know of NO fine-grained transitions between genera outside
of Perissodactyla, and genera-to-genera transitions between families
are also exceedingly rare.
Of course, if you opt for a definition of "transitional" that is as loose
as making a platypus "transitional" between non-mammalian therapsids
and humans, you are getting awfully far from any kind of direct descent.
[However, Harshman does use that very example for "transitional".]
This bothered Darwin, but he hoped future
discoveries would vindicate his theory.
However, it has not to be. This failure was met by the Late Stephen J
Gould and Niles Eldredge. These two scientist tried to integrate the
real nature of the fossil record with Darwin's theory. Had the fossil
record supported evolution, there would have been no need for this
effort by Gould and Eldredge.
Ron is way overplaying his hand here, using "evolution" in place of
"evolutionary gradualism," but you go too far in the opposite
direction, Ernest.
Did I? Not sure, I know you've read this statement by Darwin. "Why then
is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such
intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and
gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation
lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological
record. Charles Darwin (1859), The Origin of Species, p. 280. https://ncse.ngo/darwin-transitional-fossils
The fossil record does support evolution.
1) there is biotic succession - rocks of different ages contain fossils
of different organisms; fossil species are restricted to rocks of
particular ages. (If this was not true, and the fossil record was as
rich as the one we observe, evolution would be falsified.)
This is highly problematic where "living fossils" like the tuatara are
concerned.
There are numerous other "living fossils" several listed in Wikipedia.
Also, While visiting family out of state, I came later published a book entitled, " Living Fossils"
I did not buy these books, however, I did scan through "living
fossils" and in addition to the living fossils he discussed, he also
wrote that there are several instances where the skeleton of fossilized animals are identical to the skeletons of modern animals, but they were
given different scientific labels. He took pictures of the fossil and
modern skeletons for comparison. The look the same so, he suggest they
too should be classified as living fossils.
2) there is correlation between the biotas found in rocks of successive
ages.
Not where the Ediacaran biota and the Cambrian biota are concerned.
Even those Ediacaran organisms that are now known to be eumetazoans are
still in the minority, and don't seem to be close to ancestry of any phylum. >>
By far the most widespread of these was *Kimberella*, yet it did not survive >> into the Cambrian. Once confidently assumed to be a mollusc,
its affinities even within bilateria are in dispute. See the
phylogenetic tree at the end of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilateria
3) the geographic distribution of taxa in the fossil record over time
and space (palaeobiogeography), in the same way as the distribution of
present day taxa (biogeography) does, supports evolution.
4) the plethora of intermediate/transitional fossils supports evolution.
The paucity of anything resembling direct ancestors argues against
what you say next.
Gould and Eldredge identified a few instances of peripatric speciation
(a concept that precedes them by a few decades) in the fossil record,
and extrapolated to that being the norm.
It was not an extrapolation, but common sense, especially if they included >> centrifugal speciation. Where is there evidence of speciation within large >> populations? The only cases I know of are in the horse family!
They also hyped their proposals
by arguing against a strawman gradualism.
Why a strawman? With "natural selection" being as hidebound as it is
(see above),
I would call it the norm!
In fact, the proponents of evolution have
virtually abounded the fossil record and turned to other systems and
methods in searching for supporting evidence.
As I pointed out to you before, your implied chronological sequence is
counterfactual. Homology and biogeography always were the main evidence
for common descent. A claim that proponents of evolution have virtually
abandoned the fossil record requires that they drastically reduced their >>> reliance upon it; that isn't true.
It is very true. Systematists have abandoned the whole idea of direct descent.
As I wrote in reply to Sight Reader earlier today:
______________________________ excerpt ___________________________
Paleontologists have abandoned [Archaeopteryx] as a bird ancestor. But
I have no idea
how much of this is due to careful anatomical study and how much due to
an ideology
that dominates taxonomy, which claims that there is "no evidence" that
any fossil species is ancestral
to any other species, fossil or extant.
"no evidence" = no incontrovertible proof
Meanwhile, loose "sister group" talk is everywhere, as can be seen from the >> on-again, off-again hypothesis that the correct grouping is
{Theropods, Ornithischians} Sauropods
rather than the > century old tradition that the following is correct:
{Theropods, Sauropods} Ornithischians.
===============================end of excerpt
from
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.bio.paleontology/c/19M5qy2Ib1U/m/St04WsHmCAAJ
Re: Fujianvenator, Jurassic Avialan
Full disclosure: Harshman, as might be expected, tried to undermine
the above at every turn in a reply to that post.
However, you might be disappointed by the caliber of that reply.
In any event, he will get a rebuttal tomorrow.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
U. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
. Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating
. to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design
. or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes
. no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the
. species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History.
I have two early classes to prepare for today, and I'm not even ready to head out from home, so I have time only for a question for now.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 1:41:51 AM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
<gargantuan snip to get to your last quote>
. Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriatingDid Gould give a definition of "transitional" narrow enough to rule out Harshman's claim that a platypus is transitional between non-mammalian therapsids and humans?
. to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design
. or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes
. no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the
. species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS Got to go now. Duty calls from several directions.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 7:56:52 AM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I have two early classes to prepare for today, and I'm not even ready to head out from home, so I have time only for a question for now.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 1:41:51 AM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
<gargantuan snip to get to your last quote>
. Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating
. to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design . or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes
. no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the . species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History.
Did Gould give a definition of "transitional" narrow enough to rule out Harshman's claim that a platypus is transitional between non-mammalian therapsids and humans?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS Got to go now. Duty calls from several directions.
I'm afraid I find your question to be absurd.
Why would Gould have anticipated
your rather strained hypothetical about what John might say,
especially when
you contrive it as a strawman you hope to argue against. Yes, you are transparent.
You do this all the time, complain about things people didn't write to anticipate
questions you, and generally you alone, want to have answered.
Gould quote made it clear that he was complaining about the way his writings get taken out of context. It looks like you want to do exactly that.
As to your actual question about if a platypus (or any monotreme) can be considered
transitional between X and Y, well obviously it can for certain X and Y depending on
one's definition of transitional.
Playing a poisoning the well game by pre-emptively
deciding that you want to ridicule any concept of transitional that would include
the platypus as representative of a state that existed between non-mammalian therapsids and humans is something you say you dislike in others --- polemic.
If one were to anticipate you, you seem to have a fixation for direct ancestors, with
some unspecified level of fuzz around direct.
I imagine you continuing by asserting
that certain asserted transitionals have too much fuzz, more fuzz than you allow.
They you might invoke genus level, or order, as if those terms had solid enough
meaning to invoke. And clearly, any extant species cited as transitional between
two other species that are separated by 10, or 50, or 100 million years will be
highly derived from whatever common ancestors they share. If somebody starts quibbling about these things they appear to me to be more interested in sewing
confusion than advancing any useful understandings.
And all of this evades they key scientific point, which is that there is compelling
evidence for universal common descent. It was observed in Darwin's day, and it has been enriched with improved understandings of anatomy, physiology, developmental biology, and the big dog --- molecular genetics. It is furthermore
incompatible with any well formulated "intelligent design" hypotheses because
even the ID people aren't foolish enough to add ad-hoc rules about not borrowing
across well separated lineages.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:31:52 AM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 7:56:52 AM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I have two early classes to prepare for today, and I'm not even ready to head out from home, so I have time only for a question for now.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 1:41:51 AM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
<gargantuan snip to get to your last quote>
. Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating
. to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design
. or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes
. no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the
. species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History.
Did Gould give a definition of "transitional" narrow enough to rule out Harshman's claim that a platypus is transitional between non-mammalian therapsids and humans?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS Got to go now. Duty calls from several directions.
I'm afraid I find your question to be absurd.I find YOUR "finding" absurd, with the "I'm afraid" part blatantly insincere.
Here is why: a competent reasoner with a good understanding
of evolutionary relationships would take into account
the words "narrow enough to" [which you blissfully ignore]
and realize what the real issue here is.
Namely, do two species, each obviously
far off the direct ancestry of the other, qualify as transitional
to each other under differences of similar magnitude,
the way GOULD used the term?
Why would Gould have anticipatedJohn HAS said it, and here's another interesting feature
your rather strained hypothetical about what John might say,
of our exchange: to remove any anthropocentric bias,
I suggested that a platypus, were it capable of thinking,
would contemplate its amazing beak, so different from that
of a duck, and opine that humans are transitional between
non-mammalian therapsids and itself.
That beak is so sensitive to electric fields that it is able to
sense prey in water so murky that its vision is useless.
It might be interesting to compare its sensitivity to detail
with the sonar of some bats or cetaceans. What a contrast with our
primitive mouth parts!
Harshman made no objection to this use of "transitional".
IIRC, he explicitly agreed with it.
especially whenThis ridiculous piece of sophistry is illustrative of the way you, like Harshman,
you contrive it as a strawman you hope to argue against. Yes, you are transparent.
are a polemicist first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third.
You do this all the time, complain about things people didn't write to anticipateIf this is the best example of such behavior you can find, it implicitly refutes
questions you, and generally you alone, want to have answered.
your polemical allegation, and makes you look like a fool.
The expanded
Gould quote made it clear that he was complaining about the way his writingsAu contraire: YOU took the quote out of the context of any definition
get taken out of context. It looks like you want to do exactly that.
Gould might have given, or referred readers to. Without such a definition, one is prey to examples like the TWO I gave.
I know enough paleontology to give thousands of similarly strained
examples of "transitional species," but then you could RIGHTLY complain
that those are mere "hypotheticals" and "strawmen" that Gould would
never endorse. If I had NOT given Harshman as a concrete example,
your idiotic use of those two words in quotes would have been rational.
As it is, the obvious inference is that you are an anti-ID fanatic who
is determined to discredit the most reasonable things I say by hook or crook.
As to your actual question about if a platypus (or any monotreme) can be consideredFallacy of begging the question. Did GOULD give a definition that would shed light on how he would deal with *specific* X and Y. Like I said, if you have your "knappies in a knot [1]" about the ones I gave, with X and Y interchangeable
transitional between X and Y, well obviously it can for certain X and Y depending on
one's definition of transitional.
to boot, I can give you a thousand more.
[1] This is a favorite taunt of jillery's, and I don't recall you ever criticizing her for it.
Only difference is, she sometimes uses all caps for the first word.
Playing a poisoning the well game by pre-emptivelyYou are trying to read my mind -- something that Harshman has made a perennial
deciding that you want to ridicule any concept of transitional that would include
the platypus as representative of a state that existed between non-mammalian
therapsids and humans is something you say you dislike in others --- polemic.
farce of accusing me of unsuccessfully trying to do him, yet never, *never*, NEVER
explaining how I allegedly got his motivation wrong. [2]
But I am different. I will freely explain how my motivation is far more mundane
than the poison-pen spin-doctoring you gave it. It is simply this: if Gould DID
use "transitional" with a meaning as wide as what I've suggested, his complaint
simply devolves into one of creationists accusing him of having *explicitly* made a claim he did not explicitly make.
If they had merely noted that Gould had never made a case for direct descent of any order of mammals from any order of non-mammals, they might have
been on unassailable ground. In fact, your tirade suggests that you
know this to be true, and that all the venom that you have poured on me
is just an elaborate piece of misdirection.
[2] This has been the case for half a dozen years at least. I hadn't
been keeping close watch before that, and when I started keeping
close watch, I couldn't recall any exceptions.
If one were to anticipate you, you seem to have a fixation for direct ancestors, withI've specified a level above, in what a creationist might have
some unspecified level of fuzz around direct.
justifiably said about Gould.
Deal with it.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS I've left in the rest of your comments, which progress to the merely sophomoric level, below.
There is just enough truth sprinkled in here and there to convince moderately anti-ID people
(not just fanatics like yourself) that it is not to be as easily dismissed as the raving that you indulged in above.
I imagine you continuing by asserting
that certain asserted transitionals have too much fuzz, more fuzz than you allow.
They you might invoke genus level, or order, as if those terms had solid enough
meaning to invoke. And clearly, any extant species cited as transitional between
two other species that are separated by 10, or 50, or 100 million years will be
highly derived from whatever common ancestors they share. If somebody starts
quibbling about these things they appear to me to be more interested in sewing
confusion than advancing any useful understandings.
And all of this evades they key scientific point, which is that there is compelling
evidence for universal common descent. It was observed in Darwin's day, and
it has been enriched with improved understandings of anatomy, physiology, developmental biology, and the big dog --- molecular genetics. It is furthermore
incompatible with any well formulated "intelligent design" hypotheses because
even the ID people aren't foolish enough to add ad-hoc rules about not borrowing
across well separated lineages.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 3:56:52 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 8:31:52 AM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 7:56:52 AM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
I have two early classes to prepare for today, and I'm not even ready to
head out from home, so I have time only for a question for now.
On Monday, November 27, 2023 at 1:41:51 AM UTC-5, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
<gargantuan snip to get to your last quote>
. Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating
. to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design
. or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes
. no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the
. species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History.
Did Gould give a definition of "transitional" narrow enough to rule out
Harshman's claim that a platypus is transitional between non-mammalian therapsids and humans?
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina at Columbia http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS Got to go now. Duty calls from several directions.
I'm afraid I find your question to be absurd.I find YOUR "finding" absurd, with the "I'm afraid" part blatantly insincere.
Here is why: a competent reasoner with a good understanding
of evolutionary relationships would take into account
the words "narrow enough to" [which you blissfully ignore]
and realize what the real issue here is.
Namely, do two species, each obviously
far off the direct ancestry of the other, qualify as transitional
to each other under differences of similar magnitude,
the way GOULD used the term?
Why would Gould have anticipatedJohn HAS said it, and here's another interesting feature
your rather strained hypothetical about what John might say,
of our exchange: to remove any anthropocentric bias,
I suggested that a platypus, were it capable of thinking,
would contemplate its amazing beak, so different from that
of a duck, and opine that humans are transitional between
non-mammalian therapsids and itself.
That beak is so sensitive to electric fields that it is able to
sense prey in water so murky that its vision is useless.
It might be interesting to compare its sensitivity to detail
with the sonar of some bats or cetaceans. What a contrast with our primitive mouth parts!
Harshman made no objection to this use of "transitional".
IIRC, he explicitly agreed with it.
especially whenThis ridiculous piece of sophistry is illustrative of the way you, like Harshman,
you contrive it as a strawman you hope to argue against. Yes, you are transparent.
are a polemicist first, a propagandist second, and a reasoner a distant third.
You do this all the time, complain about things people didn't write to anticipateIf this is the best example of such behavior you can find, it implicitly refutes
questions you, and generally you alone, want to have answered.
your polemical allegation, and makes you look like a fool.
The expanded
Gould quote made it clear that he was complaining about the way his writingsAu contraire: YOU took the quote out of the context of any definition Gould might have given, or referred readers to. Without such a definition, one is prey to examples like the TWO I gave.
get taken out of context. It looks like you want to do exactly that.
I know enough paleontology to give thousands of similarly strained examples of "transitional species," but then you could RIGHTLY complain that those are mere "hypotheticals" and "strawmen" that Gould would
never endorse. If I had NOT given Harshman as a concrete example,
your idiotic use of those two words in quotes would have been rational.
As it is, the obvious inference is that you are an anti-ID fanatic who
is determined to discredit the most reasonable things I say by hook or crook.
As to your actual question about if a platypus (or any monotreme) can be consideredFallacy of begging the question. Did GOULD give a definition that would shed
transitional between X and Y, well obviously it can for certain X and Y depending on
one's definition of transitional.
light on how he would deal with *specific* X and Y. Like I said, if you have
your "knappies in a knot [1]" about the ones I gave, with X and Y interchangeable
to boot, I can give you a thousand more.
[1] This is a favorite taunt of jillery's, and I don't recall you ever criticizing her for it.
Only difference is, she sometimes uses all caps for the first word. >Playing a poisoning the well game by pre-emptively
deciding that you want to ridicule any concept of transitional that would includeYou are trying to read my mind -- something that Harshman has made a perennial
the platypus as representative of a state that existed between non-mammalian
therapsids and humans is something you say you dislike in others --- polemic.
farce of accusing me of unsuccessfully trying to do him, yet never, *never*, NEVER
explaining how I allegedly got his motivation wrong. [2]
But I am different. I will freely explain how my motivation is far more mundane
than the poison-pen spin-doctoring you gave it. It is simply this: if Gould DID
use "transitional" with a meaning as wide as what I've suggested, his complaint
simply devolves into one of creationists accusing him of having *explicitly*
made a claim he did not explicitly make.
If they had merely noted that Gould had never made a case for direct descent
of any order of mammals from any order of non-mammals, they might have been on unassailable ground. In fact, your tirade suggests that you
know this to be true, and that all the venom that you have poured on me
is just an elaborate piece of misdirection.
[2] This has been the case for half a dozen years at least. I hadn't
been keeping close watch before that, and when I started keeping
close watch, I couldn't recall any exceptions.
If one were to anticipate you, you seem to have a fixation for direct ancestors, withI've specified a level above, in what a creationist might have
some unspecified level of fuzz around direct.
justifiably said about Gould.
Deal with it.
The best way to deal with your dishonest games
give you another chance. Clearly, my mistake.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
PS I've left in the rest of your comments, which progress to the merely sophomoric level, below.
There is just enough truth sprinkled in here and there to convince moderately anti-ID people
(not just fanatics like yourself) that it is not to be as easily dismissed as the raving that you indulged in above.
I imagine you continuing by asserting
that certain asserted transitionals have too much fuzz, more fuzz than you allow.
They you might invoke genus level, or order, as if those terms had solid enough
meaning to invoke. And clearly, any extant species cited as transitional between
two other species that are separated by 10, or 50, or 100 million years will be
highly derived from whatever common ancestors they share. If somebody starts
quibbling about these things they appear to me to be more interested in sewing
confusion than advancing any useful understandings.
And all of this evades they key scientific point, which is that there is compelling
evidence for universal common descent. It was observed in Darwin's day, and
it has been enriched with improved understandings of anatomy, physiology,
developmental biology, and the big dog --- molecular genetics. It is furthermore
incompatible with any well formulated "intelligent design" hypotheses because
even the ID people aren't foolish enough to add ad-hoc rules about not borrowing
across well separated lineages.
"Lawyer Daggett," I will overlook your libelous two-line response below if you
enter the thread I began on Monday, and redeem yourself as suggested
in the following excerpt from the first post I did to it today. The "conversation"
to which it refers is a roundtable discussion in which James Tour played
a prominent role yesterday, hosted by Harvard Professor and OOL researcher Lee Cronin.
[BEGIN QUOTE]
There may still be time, before the conversation is [publicly] posted, for the biochemistry-savvy
folks here to redeem themselves by finding some *scientific* flaw in [at least one of] Tour's first
three challenges. Their disgraceful performances up to now were described in the OP, which I've left in below. Besides Athel, "Lawyer Daggett" has made noises
from time to time about being a biochemistry hotshot, and Bill Rogers seems to think of himself as one, too.
The first two at least would look bad if the panel had uncovered some flaw as
mentioned above, and it turned out to be so simple that they could easily have
picked up on it themselves.
[END OF QUOTE]
Reference: https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/vkewFZdg_9g/m/1Vpymf58AgAJ
Re: JAMES TOUR VICTORIOUS?!
Nov. 29, 2023, 11:46 AM
Peter Nyikos
Sorry to be so long in responding to any of your posts in reply to me.
I have had very little free time in months for posting, and I tend
to reply to well-established regulars under such circumstances.
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:01:38?PM UTC-5, El Kabong wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Athel is being selectively nosy. There are plenty of people here who are more secretive
about their backgrounds than Ron Dean. For instance, jillery has not revealed her (?) real name(s),
place of work (if any), her (?) gender, the city in which she (?) lives, her (?) post-secondary education....
But Athel is supremely uninterested in any of these details.
That's because, you see, jillery is safely in the anti-ID camp. In fact, fanatically so.
Athel is too, but his fanaticism only becomes apparent under widely scattered "Black Swan" circumstances.
IMO it's generally a bad idea to use your real name on
Usenet, for obvious reasons. Some malignants take usenet
feuds way too far.
Your words only apply to certain kinds of people, IMO.
If you look carefully at the last six posts which "Lawyer Daggett" and I
did in reply to each other on this long-running thread,
IMO you will see why he uses a pseudonym
and fails to give any clues about his employer's identity.
And you might even be able to see why I am the opposite,
from the way I respond to him.
I have nothing to hide, and I am careful, every time I do
a four-line virtual .sig, to insert "-- standard disclaimer --" at the end of one of the lines.
This is the disclaimer that what I write has nothing official about
it where my employer is concerned.
I use four-line virtual .sigs to signal that the post I have done
has science-based information or opinions in it. Some personal
comments could, however, also be part of it.
In the long run, a poster's rep will live or die by their
competence and integrity. Readers will figure people out
regardless of CV or other personal information.
Here in talk.origins, a poster's *expressed* reputation has
next to nothing to do with integrity, but almost everything to do with whom that person is
at odds with and whom he is in a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" relationship. Dirty debating tactics abound, but the reaction is more
like in a sports arena where people overlook infractions by the
team for which they are rooting, but treat the opposing team with
various degrees of contempt.
I suppose you are familiar with the way a big contingent of home team fans at a basketball game
make all kinds of noise when a player on the opposing team is trying
to make a free throw, in order to distract him/her. Keep in mind that almost all those free throws are due to personal fouls by people on the team for which they are rooting.
Ron chooses to bring up his background, with sometimes
conflicting details, expecting cred.
I haven't seen any examples where the things he says
about his *background* conflict. Can you describe one or two?
If his stories don't add up, that in itself is fair game. Ron has
posted under many other nyms, tho not recently, and which
he has denied.
I asked him about this, and he named four rather
simple variations on his name. Even though I hadn't
heard it from him, I could see clearly that "R.Dean" and "Ron Dean"
were the same person years ago.
Another poster compiled a list of those
alleged nyms, and it was long.
In talk.origins?
Beyond that, I don't know or care about anyone's real
identity. I do wonder about Ron's motivation.
Why focus so much on Ron? Is it because you have learned
he is someone who can be safely attacked without
any serious repercussions?
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:02:02?PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/7/23 1:33 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:17:01?PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:I dunno, I saw him many years ago and he looked just like John Wayne,
On 12/7/23 1:00 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:Jeff Bridges. Definitely.
On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 10:01:56?PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:While I have you here, since you've met him, does Rooster Cogburn more
If you look carefully at the last six posts which "Lawyer Daggett" and I.
did in reply to each other on this long-running thread,
IMO you will see why he uses a pseudonym
and fails to give any clues about his employer's identity.
Miss Mattie Ross
closely resemble John Wayne or Jeff Bridges? Opinions differ.
but when I saw him again years later, he didn't.
Tycho Brahe
Definitely not Tycho Brahe. The silver nose would have been unmistakable. >No! No! Tycho Brahe is MY name!
On 12/7/23 1:00 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 10:01:56?PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote: >>While I have you here, since you've met him, does Rooster Cogburn more >closely resemble John Wayne or Jeff Bridges? Opinions differ.
If you look carefully at the last six posts which "Lawyer Daggett" and I >>> did in reply to each other on this long-running thread,.
IMO you will see why he uses a pseudonym
and fails to give any clues about his employer's identity.
Miss Mattie Ross
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:02:02 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:
On 12/7/23 1:33 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:17:01 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote:I dunno, I saw him many years ago and he looked just like John Wayne,
On 12/7/23 1:00 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:Jeff Bridges. Definitely.
On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 10:01:56 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:While I have you here, since you've met him, does Rooster Cogburn more >> closely resemble John Wayne or Jeff Bridges? Opinions differ.
If you look carefully at the last six posts which "Lawyer Daggett" and I.
did in reply to each other on this long-running thread,
IMO you will see why he uses a pseudonym
and fails to give any clues about his employer's identity.
Miss Mattie Ross
but when I saw him again years later, he didn't.
Tycho Brahe
Definitely not Tycho Brahe. The silver nose would have been unmistakable.No! No! Tycho Brahe is MY name!
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 14:07:25 -0800 (PST)
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:02:02 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote: >>> On 12/7/23 1:33 PM, erik simpson wrote:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:17:01 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote: >>>>> On 12/7/23 1:00 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:I dunno, I saw him many years ago and he looked just like John Wayne,
Jeff Bridges. Definitely.On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 10:01:56 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:While I have you here, since you've met him, does Rooster Cogburn more >>>>> closely resemble John Wayne or Jeff Bridges? Opinions differ.
If you look carefully at the last six posts which "Lawyer Daggett" and I.
did in reply to each other on this long-running thread,
IMO you will see why he uses a pseudonym
and fails to give any clues about his employer's identity.
Miss Mattie Ross
but when I saw him again years later, he didn't.
Tycho Brahe
Definitely not Tycho Brahe. The silver nose would have been unmistakable. >> No! No! Tycho Brahe is MY name!
I expect the whole lot of you are really called Spartacus.
On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 9:41:58?PM UTC-5, El Kabong wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to be so long in responding to any of your posts in reply to me.
I have had very little free time in months for posting, and I tend
to reply to well-established regulars under such circumstances.
On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:01:38?PM UTC-5, El Kabong wrote:
peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
Athel is being selectively nosy. There are plenty of people here who are more secretive
about their backgrounds than Ron Dean. For instance, jillery has not revealed her (?) real name(s),
place of work (if any), her (?) gender, the city in which she (?) lives, her (?) post-secondary education....
But Athel is supremely uninterested in any of these details.
That's because, you see, jillery is safely in the anti-ID camp. In fact, fanatically so.
Athel is too, but his fanaticism only becomes apparent under widely scattered "Black Swan" circumstances.
IMO it's generally a bad idea to use your real name on
Usenet, for obvious reasons. Some malignants take usenet
feuds way too far.
Your words only apply to certain kinds of people, IMO.
Your "obvious reasons" become obscure from the way you
backpedaled farther down from the following comment.
My words only apply to the kind of people who hate being
doxxed and harrassed and having hate mail sent to their
employers, and other such nasty shit.
That never happened to me in this century. The closest thing to
that was when someone who disappeared almost two years ago,
Oxyaena, announced that she was going to email a complaint
about me to my employer, (falsely) alleging libel about a point of disagreement between me on the one hand and her and Erik Simpson
on the other. I immediately announced a boycott of both of them
for the rest of 2019 (some ten months) and she never made good
on her "promise."
If you look carefully at the last six posts which "Lawyer Daggett" and I did in reply to each other on this long-running thread,
IMO you will see why he uses a pseudonym
and fails to give any clues about his employer's identity.
And you might even be able to see why I am the opposite,
from the way I respond to him.
What difference does it make where other posters work or
what their real names are?
So much for what you wrote about "having hate mail sent to their
employers," eh?
It's none of my or your
business. Stop being such a fuss-budget.
When someone backpedals as blatantly as you are doing here,
I generally ask them, "How many reverse gears does your bicycle have?"
I have nothing to hide, and I am careful, every time I do
a four-line virtual .sig, to insert "-- standard disclaimer --" at the end of one of the lines.
This is the disclaimer that what I write has nothing official about
it where my employer is concerned.
I use four-line virtual .sigs to signal that the post I have done
has science-based information or opinions in it. Some personal
comments could, however, also be part of it.
It wasn't clear (to me) what you meant with your standard
disclaimer, but if you wish to separate your views from
your employer's, why do you go out of your way to let
everyone know where you work and what you do?
Nobody in talk.origins gives a hoot about what you say next,
on account of this habit of mine. There are lots of experts
on lots of subjects here, and one of the most liked people
here brags about his expertise often.
If appeal
to your authority is the best scientific support you can
provide for your info & opinions, maybe you can up your
game a bit.
If I don't give adequate scientific support, people are free
to challenge me, and I reply as best I can with more science.
I usually do very well, because I pick my opening comments very carefully.
You really have a lot to learn about both me and the ways
of other t.o. participants.
In the long run, a poster's rep will live or die by their
competence and integrity. Readers will figure people out
regardless of CV or other personal information.
Here in talk.origins, a poster's *expressed* reputation has
next to nothing to do with integrity, but almost everything to do with whom that person is
at odds with and whom he is in a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
relationship.
The following analogy seems to have mostly gone
over your head, especially the "overlook infractions" part.
Dirty debating tactics abound, but the reaction is more
like in a sports arena where people overlook infractions by the
team for which they are rooting, but treat the opposing team with
various degrees of contempt.
That says more about you than you meant.
So you ignorantly think. When I drove up to see a women's basketball at Clemson
when they hosted my university's team (which was almost as good then than it is
now), the official Clemson cheerleaders chanted at one point:
"Cock-a-doodle do! Cock-a-doodle-do!
Carolina Gamecocks, to hell with you!"
I was so staggered, I was speechless. If I had had my wits about me, I would have yelled,
"Is this the Clemson cheerleaders' idea of Southern hospitality?"
I suppose you are familiar with the way a big contingent of home team fans at a basketball game
make all kinds of noise when a player on the opposing team is trying
to make a free throw, in order to distract him/her. Keep in mind that almost
all those free throws are due to personal fouls by people on the team for which they are rooting.
Good free-throw shooters shrug off the crowd noise.
Audience participation is part of the game.
I was really surprised to see how Ron shrugged off your catcalls.
That is NOT the way he behaves towards t.o. regulars.
Concluded in next reply, hopefully tomorrow. If not, some time early next week.
Peter Nyikos
On Friday, December 8, 2023 at 7:02:03 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 14:07:25 -0800 (PST)
erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 2:02:02 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote: >>>> On 12/7/23 1:33 PM, erik simpson wrote:I expect the whole lot of you are really called Spartacus.
On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 1:17:01 PM UTC-8, John Harshman wrote: >>>>>> On 12/7/23 1:00 PM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:I dunno, I saw him many years ago and he looked just like John Wayne,
Jeff Bridges. Definitely.On Friday, December 1, 2023 at 10:01:56 PM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:While I have you here, since you've met him, does Rooster Cogburn more >>>>>> closely resemble John Wayne or Jeff Bridges? Opinions differ.
If you look carefully at the last six posts which "Lawyer Daggett" and I.
did in reply to each other on this long-running thread,
IMO you will see why he uses a pseudonym
and fails to give any clues about his employer's identity.
Miss Mattie Ross
but when I saw him again years later, he didn't.
Tycho Brahe
Definitely not Tycho Brahe. The silver nose would have been unmistakable. >>> No! No! Tycho Brahe is MY name!
That's what I would have said about the others, though in different words.
I could name about ten more Spartacuses among the talk.origins regulars.
It's too early to tell yet, but El Kabong bids fair to become the newest Spartacus.
On the other hand, I am a notorious dissenter here, and am less like the Spartacuses
than even you, who rarely stray into on-topic discussion/debate.
Peter Nyikos
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:32:08 AM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
This is the second and final reply to this post of yours, whoever you are. >> On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 9:41:58 PM UTC-5, El Kabong wrote:
I think he might really be Pete Townsend.
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 2:07:08 PM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Lawyer Daggett <j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:.
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 10:32:08 AM UTC-5, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:Who?
This is the second and final reply to this post of yours, whoever you are. >>>> On Sunday, December 3, 2023 at 9:41:58 PM UTC-5, El Kabong wrote:
I think he might really be Pete Townsend.
Won't get fooled again
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 08:38:43 |
| Calls: | 10,388 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,835 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
