Re: Observe the trend. It’s happening. Give it time.

On Sat, 8 Mar 2025 4:34:30 +0000, MarkE wrote:

On 7/03/2025 9:29 pm, Ernest Major wrote:

On 06/03/2025 00:45, MarkE wrote:

That there are things that evolution cannot achieve (a classic example
is the wheel, though even that is not unimaginable) doesn't not mean
that evolution cannot achieve things that already exist; one of the
reasons that ID is not science is it's lack of interest in accounting
for the voluminous evidence that evolution has achieved the current
biosphere.
>

>
The limits of NS are not simply due to physically possible organisms.
It's much tighter constraint. The mechanism of "differential
reproductive success" is a blunt instrument, rightly described as
explaining the survival but not arrival of the fittest.
>
To elaborate my hypotheses (not proofs):
>
1. NS, along with any other naturalistic mechanisms, do not have the
logical capacity to fully traverse the solution space, regardless of
time available. Some (many) areas of the fitness landscape will be
islands, local maxima, inaccessible via gradualistic pathways (e.g.
monotonically increasing fitness functions). These are however
accessible to intelligent design.
>
2. The time/material resources of the universe allow exploration of only
a small fraction of even the accessible solutions. Again, this
constraint does not apply to intelligent design.
>
Does the burden of proof for these hypotheses rest exclusively with ID?
Not at all. Naturalism, if being intellectually curious, honest, and
open-minded, will ask the same questions and seek to answer them.

You assertions (it's vainglorious to promote them as hypotheses) are
rooted in nonsensical presumptions. Why would "solution space"
need to be fully traversed? A sensible person would have considered
'adequately traversed' and then followed that up with an analysis
of what would be adequate. But you chose FULLY. It's beyond amateurish.
That biological evolution will never get around to testing some
potential
genomes is one of those trivial things. You can work out the math on
the number of potential genomes and the number of atoms in the universe
and figure out that they won't all wind up in some fledgling organism
asking for a try out. And so what? It doesn't advance a sensible point.
You aren't advancing a remotely sensible notion, much less a hypothesis.
Now as to your assertion about "intelligent design" being able to
somehow consider all the possibilities, I don't think so. Tell me how
you would model all the possible permutations of a yeast sized genome.
All of them. And that's not about just flashing permutations of ATCG
into memory, that's running a simulation on each. So your assertion ---

 ... Again, this
constraint does not apply to intelligent design.
>

 --- is trivially false (on top of being proposed to follow a
foolish premise).
Why would you expect people to follow you down a poorly conceived
speculation that is absolutely full of ill-informed speculations
that pile on top of obviously flawed premises? Moreover, why
don't you apply an internal editor to weed out foolish ideas
before you post them?