Re: West Virginia creationism

Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 17:33:24 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
 

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.

 That is, you don't "get" the principles of evolution.
 

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.

 How would evolution even occur with *perfect replication*?
 

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.

 Neither of those ideas are alternatives of each other.  Only evolution
fits the facts, and Intelligent Design is pseudo-intellectualism, not
a valid "alternative" to anything in science or even academia in
general.
 

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.

 LOL!  So you don't believe in survival of the fittest?

 >
I used your _own_ language to make a point. But that not-with-standing, there is evidence in the fossil record that 99% of all species that ever lived have became extinct. That's a fact recognized by both sides. It's solid empirical scientific evidence! That advocates of Intelligent design don't accept scientific evidence is false accusation directed towards us by you (as a representative of Darwin's theory) - but that's a part of your propaganda.
But contrary to the disinformation and propaganda that you publish for public and child consumption against intelligent design, ID is founded, based and predicated upon much of the same scientific evidence as you do. This methodology can be traced back to Wm. Paley who saw in the scientific evidence of his day, as primeval and underdeveloped as it was by today's standard; it was the same methodology used later by Darwin. The things and process we experiences with our five senses we don't always understand and don't know what to make of it or what it means and this was generally the case with people before Paley and Darwin. They tried to make sense of what they saw felt or heard. And this seemed purposeful, which gave rise to religions, superstitions, fairy-tales etc. This was includes attempts to explain they observed in nature and natural processes. The point in this evidence observed  is almost always subjective, without meaning until it's interpreted.
  So we examine and observe the exact same scientific evidence, but interpret this evidence to fall within a classification that makes the most sense to us.  I respect your opinions, but for me I think the evidence points to ID as the better explanation of the evidence discovered in respect of the two distinct worldviews.
 >
Just how much of kook *are* you?
 >
I hope you get some satisfaction from abusing and insulting me. maybe I deserve it.

 

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

 Where did you get this idea from?

 >
In one of the late Stephen J Gould, he wrote that species in stasis had minor variations during their tenure on the planet, but they were very much the same when they disappeared as they did when appeared in the strata. ( his words as best I can remember). This was from a book "Punctuated Equilibrium" published by the President and Fellows of Harvard College in 2007, published after his death. (His death was tragic and sad) I believe I could find the quote, if you requested it. It would take a some of my time. But I would search for the quote.

 

of it DNA continued to incur mistakes until the species became
unfit to survive.

 How would natural selection interact with this process?

 >
Obviously, given the considerable numbers of physical and mental diseases & disorders caused by detrimental mutations over vast spans of time,  natural selection permitted a few to be passed on.
'Each succeeding generation had mutations parents, grandparents didn't have. So, the genome must
have become increasingly altered over these vast periods of time.

   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 justifica tion for holding on to a falsified theory

 Thank you, Captain Obvious!
 

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?

 Occam's razor tells us to reject the idea of an Intelligent Designer
because things work quite well in biology without one.

 >
So, the simplest explanation is not necessarily the best. Another axiom of Occam razor " Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".  >

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

>