Re: CONTRARY EVIDENCE (WASRe: Evide)nce!

On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 13:12:43 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
 

Mark Isaak wrote:

On 3/19/24 9:13 AM, Ron Dean wrote:

Mark Isaak wrote:

On 3/17/24 4:25 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

  > [...]
The most vexing problem I have with evolution is the dogma of a
blind, random, unguided process.

>
Perhaps you will feel better, then, knowing that every evolutionist
also has a vexing problem with evolution as a dogma of a blind,
random, unguided process.  (In their case, the vexation typically
comes from knowing that other people mistake evolution for that.)
>

I'm an engineer. In engineering we never see this, there no chance
that a complex program can undergo random changes without dire
consequence. There might possibly be on rare occasion where an
unguided change might have no effect. Engineering starts out with an
objective or goal,  so must evolution. If there's no goal, then what
distinguishes a beneficial mutation from a bad mutation. Survival
one might say? But no! offspring with bad mutations can do
frequently survive, protected by the mother. And they can have
offspring; only the worst die out.

>
Your "I'm an engineer" comment sounds like an ecologist specializing
in whale migrations glancing at a paper on fern genetics and
commenting, "I'm a biologist. In biology we never see this."
>
Take a few years to study evolution algorithms.  There is an entire
field of engineering dedicated to the study and utilization of what
you say does not exist.
>

The members that usually survival depends largely upon luck,
surviving to adulthood without being eaten by other beast while at
rest or asleep at night and living long enough to reproduce is real.
The fittest is in reality survival of the luckiest. In other cases
massive numbers of eggs are laid. Sea turtles for example, lay eggs
by thousands and they hatch and rush forwards into the sea, except
for the large numbers that become food for birds and other animals.
Another consideration is the fact that each cell has it's own DNA
proofreading and repair systems, a defective cell can repair itself
or it is destroyed.
>
Another vexing issue for me is the will to survive. In the case of
the turtles, it's as if they _know_ they are in danger, and seek the
protection of the sea. How do the know. Instinct where did instinct
come from. Going back the first living cell. What was the impetuous
of dead inorganic chemicals to created a living cell. Did the first
living cell have the will to survive? Where did this will come from?

>
Have you thought of publishing your doubts in a scientific venue?
Probably not, maybe because if you have an ounce of sense you would
realize that your points have been raised and satisfactorily answered
long ago, probably within a couple months of when _Origins_ was
published.  But more likely because your unshakeable conviction that
everyone who disagrees with you is a dogmatist makes you think it
doesn't matter to you what the scientists say in any case.
>

You just pass over everything without any explanation. You cannot
fault the implied message, so what do you do: you shoot the messenger.
Which is about the only thing I ever get from you!

>
You have shown repeatedly that you have no interest in answers to your
challenges, so why should I waste my time?  If you really want answers,
prove it.
>

I do respond to answers, but the answers, but all to often what I see,
is something like, "it's been explained to you over and over  repeatedly
and you just ignore. Or go to a library for the answer. Or finally
someone will give an opinion without proof.

  You conveniently forgot to mention that you don't respond, in the
sense that you address the issues and questions you raised yourself,
and that you have been given explanations, over and over, and that you
continue to ignore those explanations.  That makes your comments above
just more of your lying for God.
 

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge