Re: West Virginia creationism

Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
 <snip>

In the most cases where adaptations and minor evolutionary changes are
observed it's not because new information is added to DNA, but rather
there is a loss of information.
>
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57694-8
>
Bad mutations seems to be the rule.

 *Most* mutations are harmful, but to disprove evolution you need to
show that *all*  mutations are harmful -- those rare beneficial
mutations can be selected by and amplified through natural selection,
resulting in better-functioning organisms.
>

It's not my objective to prove anything to people in whose mind is ruled by their paradigm. But rather people who are really questioning, I hope to offer some of information that I have learned since I began questioning and some conclusions I'be reached.  As far as disproving evolution, it's not possible. However, I think for the person with an unbiased frame of mind truly sees nature and natural processes as design.  I think Dawkins expressed this better than I could. It's my conclusion that deliberate and purposeful design is a _better_ explanation for what we observe in nature and natural processes. I see evolution as an alternative to design, both observe the same evidence, BUT this evidence in interpreted to fit within one's pre-existing determination or view.

 

The male sperm count is decreasing
with each generation. Each year new and previously unknown genetic
diseases are occurring just in humans. With the passing of time, there
is little doubt that our DNA, our genetics is become increasingly _less_
perfect. The Homo-sapiens species is believed to have arrived on the
scene 200,000 years ago, given the increases in genetic disorders we
observe today, it's highly _likely_ that the DNA of our early ancestors
were far closer to perfect that any of their decedents. Therefore, from
this evidence one can deduce that the proofreading and repair mechanisms
themselves are in a declining state with each generation becoming a bit
less perfect than the preceding generation. It's possible we saw this in
the extinction of Neanderthal species.
>
Beneficial mutations are rarely observed. The defective mutations are
overwhelming the beneficial mutations, as evidenced by the increasing
list of genetic disorders. Perhaps, this explains the 99% extinction
rate of all life forms that ever lived as observed or recorded in the
fossil record, as well as the numbers of the species become extinct
today. of course, human involvement accounts for some of this extinction
such as passenger pigeons, the dodo bird and the Tasmanian tiger. But to
your point the proofreading and repair systems are not perfect. But
without deliberate design how did the proofreading and repair systems
come about in the first place?

 Obviously, because something that helps something replicate itself
better is going to leave more copies of itself in the gene pool .
 

The fossil record is overwhelmed with the extinction of species 99% that ever lived are extinct, this is empirical  evidence that the vast majority of copies,  contrary to theory of survival of the fittest, disappeared from the face of earth. The fossil record depicts species appearing abruptly in the fossil record, remaining in stasis during their tenure on the planet then suddenly disappearing.
(Gould & Eldredge). Stasis was observed with little variability, I suspect the DNA of each species
during it's period of stasis, its variability was becoming increasing imperfect of it DNA continued to incur mistakes until the species became unfit to survive.

 

  Of course there is educated, guesses,
suppositions, hypothesis and theories, but no one _knows_.

 Do you consider your Intelligent Design argument to be an educated
guess, or a supposition?  And is there anything wrong with being a
hypothesis or theory?
>

No, as long as it has the can be falsified; if a theory is falsified, there is no real justification for holding on to a falsified theory until a another and better theory is advanced.  But what I have problems with is hypothesis and theories which come about in an effort to rescue a theory that  conflicts with observations and facts.  And evolution is replete with just such hypothesis which are limited only by the imagination of its proponent. Has Occam's razor been dulled or thrown away by science?

 

The question is where is the man holding hold Occam sword? Has he been
barred from entering this room of science?