On 5/3/24 6:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

On 5/3/24 2:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

Ernest Major wrote:

On 02/05/2024 15:39, Ron Dean wrote:

Ernest Major wrote:

On 01/05/2024 03:52, Ron Dean wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

On 4/30/24 4:27 AM, Ron Dean wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

On 4/26/24 6:06 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

Ernest Major wrote:

On 26/04/2024 02:31, Ron Dean wrote:

I think due to gradual increasing genetic errors and >>>>>>>>>>>>> increase rate of deleterious mutations each generation >>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes  less fit than the preceding generation, so in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> passing spans of time the genes of a species become less >>>>>>>>>>>>> and less incapable of reproduction or species survival. >>>>>>>>>>>>> This could account for many of 99%+ of of all species that >>>>>>>>>>>>> ever lived that have gone extinct. Of course the dinosaurs >>>>>>>>>>>>> became extinct due to a 6 mile diameter meteor striking the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth. Also changing weather the coming and going of ice >>>>>>>>>>>>> ages; as well massive volcano eruptions  accounts for >>>>>>>>>>>>> extinction of many species for example in Siberia.

Are you taking a progressive creationist position, in which >>>>>>>>>>>> your Intelligent Designer is continuously creating species >>>>>>>>>>>> de novo? Or are you claiming that the current 10 million >>>>>>>>>>>> (+/- a lot) species biota is the remnant of a much richer >>>>>>>>>>>> biota of a billion species?

For your information, the conclusion drawn from the fossil >>>>>>>>>>>> record is that (for multicellular eukaryotes at least) >>>>>>>>>>>> species diversity has been generally increasing over time >>>>>>>>>>>> (though with big setbacks at times of mass extinction). >>>>>>>>>>>>

snip

;

I dismissed, Although I do try to respond to questions,
challenges and issues. I cannot address every comment that's
presented due to time and my present concerns and interest. I'm
not so sure of just how important anything I see on TO is to me, >>>>>>> right now especially this thread. I never intentionally defended >>>>>>> or supported West Virginia Creationism. But rather intelligent
design has been my interest for decades.

To remind you of the context, I've removed the intermediate
material. The context is not "West Virginia creationism". The
context is the claims you've made about the natural world.

I think the weakest facets of evolution is what is _not_ known
about origins. The most serious is the question is the origin of
highly complex information. Except for life, nothing else in the
natural world has ever equaled or come close to such information.
If the present is key to the past, then there is no exception;
highly complex information comes _only_ from a mind. Without
information - there is no life.

That may be a reply, but it's not a response.

You've been advocating for "genetic entropy" in which gene pools
degrade over time to the point that species become extinct.
;

If the fossil records reflects the actual events in the history of
life, then according the late S.J. Gould and Niles Eldredge the
majority of species appear abruptly in the record, remain in virtual
stasis for their duration on the planet, then they disappear from the
fossil record.
We know that copy error occur ( mutations) very few are said to be
beneficial, but there are far more
that are detrimental, unfit to survive and are removed by natural
selection.  However,  the overwhelming majority these errors are
neutral mutations. But are there any purely neutral mutations or
errors in copying? Probably not! They would tend in one direction or
the other. Those
with slightly detrimental tendencies would survive, spread and pass
on the mutation. Since, by far the larger number of harmful mutations
exceed the beneficial ones, the accumulation of harmful mutations
would become the rule. Is there any rational or honest reason to
assert that this "genetic entropy" could not have led to species
extinction?

In response to this

I asked "Are you taking a progressive creationist position, in which
your Intelligent Designer is continuously creating species de novo?
;

Not at all. I think species can undergo minor changes, to whatever
change the genetic information within their gene pool can express.
I've read that only a relative small portion of it's gene pool is
used in the expression of an organism. Was is 99% is called waste
since no proteins are expressed? I don't this is believed today. So,
a vast amount of genetic information is present in a species gene
pool which can be used to create varying changes within species. How
many definitions is there of species? I think the best is any that
can breed and produce fertile offspring.

Or

are you claiming that the current 10 million (+/- a lot) species
biota is the remnant of a much richer biota of a billion species?"
;

Don't know exactly how to answer this. But I've read that 99%+ of
species that ever lived have gone extinct. So, less than 1% remain
today. How to translate this into numbers, IE billions???  Or why
does numbers matter?

I understand why ID advocates refrain from specifying the who of
"Intelligent Design", as they don't want to make the religious
underpinnings explicit.
;

No, that not the reason. Most observe that there is scientific
evidence for design, but there's no known scientific evidence which
_identifies_ the designer. One might believe the designer is the God,
but that's not of evidence, but rather it's a belief and only a belief!
..


But why do you fail to be specific about the

what and the when? You claim that design is self-evident, but appear
to be unable to identify what was designed.
;

The genetic code is design the genetic information is infused into
the genetics of organisms. When: perhaps when the first life
appeared: or certainly, by the time of the Cambrian. I believe the
eye was
designed. The first eyes were observed in the Cambrian when some
species of trilobites had developed, functioning eyes. Furthermore,
the master control gene of a mouse was transferred into a
fruit fly embyro and the mouse eye gene played it's role in producing
the eye in the fruit fly. Not a mouse eye but a fruit fly eye. Was
the same Gene the Pax6 gene the same gene that produced the eyes of
trilobites? The point is there _nothing_ observed in record
demonstrating of the _evolution_ of the eye.
There are detailed drawings, hypotheses and theories  regarding the
evolution of the eye, but
this is constrained only by the limit of human imagination. Not
observed evidence. Deliberate, purposeful and highly complex design
is the most reasonable and logical explanation as to the origin of
the eye. But there is nothing that can overcome ones bias and
commitment to a paradigm, even if it's wrong.

Not a real response to Ernest's questions. I don't think you even
understood the questions. Let me try:

You say that species go extinct because of mutational meltdown, and
this happens within a few million years. That means that either
species (or something not too far from species) must be created at
intervals throughout earth history. If they were created in the
Cambrian, for example, all those species would be dead by now, and
unless the genome somehow resets to perfection upon speciation, so
would all their descendants. So where does the currently existing
biota come from?

I under stood the question and I tried to answer by referencing to Gould
an Eldredge's observation. Species just abruptly appear in the earth's strata. This evidence as observed in the strata it just seems that
species appear from nowhere. G & E theorized that the evolved elsewhere
and migrated to the location they were found. There is no empirical
evidence observed which makes this case. But you have the theory of
evolution which is brought to bear. From my prospective, I know of no evidence that explains the origin of these species. One can believe or disbelieve, but one's paradigm takes control.

So you believe that God has created new species every 10-100 thousand
years since the early Cambrian, as older species die out due to mutation
decay. Correct?

The evidence shows that almost all modern phyla appeared or was placed
on the planet during the Cambrian.

Correction: The evidence shows that *most, but far from all,* modern
*animal* phyla, and perhaps some fungus phyla, appeared on the planet
during the Cambrian. (I don't expect you to remember this correction any
more than you have failed to remember it the last few times you were told.)

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/6/24 2:35 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

Mark Isaak wrote:

[...]
So you believe that God has created new species every 10-100 thousand
years since the early Cambrian, as older species die out due to
mutation decay.  Correct?

No! I don't know where that comes from.

From you. You said that mutations cause species to "decay" over a
period of thousands of years. And I have not seen you deny that
paleontology is completely bogus, which means you accept that major new
forms appear from time to time over the history of life. You accept
that small amounts of evolution can shape animals, but microevolution
won't turn Pikaia into a porcupine. The only alternative to evolution
you have ever mentioned is design, so I assume you think design applies
to all those new forms in the fossil record.

If not, then please explain to us how and when Stegosaurus formed?

The evidence shows that almost all modern phyla appeared or was
placed on the planet during the Cambrian.

Correction: The evidence shows that *most, but far from all,* modern
*animal* phyla, and perhaps some fungus phyla, appeared on the planet
during the Cambrian. (I don't expect you to remember this correction
any more than you have failed to remember it the last few times you
were told.)

I never said "all" phyla. Why respond to a comment you did not read?
You're looking for something that's not there!

Do you believe that plants evolved but animals did not? If not, you
might as well be talking about plants too, since everything you say
about animals should apply equally to them.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/6/24 7:13 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

Mark Isaak wrote:

On 5/3/24 6:47 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

The evidence shows that almost all modern phyla appeared or was
placed on the planet during the Cambrian.

Correction: The evidence shows that *most, but far from all,* modern
*animal* phyla, and perhaps some fungus phyla, appeared on the planet
during the Cambrian. (I don't expect you to remember this correction
any more than you have failed to remember it the last few times you
were told.)

You did not read the statement which is so typical, yet you committed on
it. I did _not_ write all, rather I wrote almost all. And the subject of
this topic was animal phyla, not plant phyla and not
not fungi phyla.

I read the "almost all." It is wrong. Most, but not "almost all", animal
phyla appeared at various times in the Cambrian.

And not talking about plants does not make them go away.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)