Re: oecies just appear in the strata asz

erik simpson wrote:

On 5/4/24 10:16 AM, Ron Dean wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

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.
>
The evidence shows that almost all modern phyla appeared or was placed on the planet during the Cambrian. I know of no scientific evidence observed in the fossil record demonstrating the evolution these phylum during the early Cambrian or the pre Cambrian. The modern phyla existed and no third alternative is offered. If a designer was involved in the creation of the Cambrian biota, there
is no reason to suppose it could not be involved at different times with organisms at the level at a  family (kinds) classifications of living organisms that fit within the earlier phylum category.
Each kind reproducing after it's own kind.
>
  Now this is where the evidence seems to show a restricted or guided form of evolution, all of which began and descended from these modern phyla. But I do not believe a decedent of a given phylum is ever separated from it's original phylum within which it evolved, and that first appeared during the Cambrian.
>
Using my own logic and reasoning it seems that I've arrived at a definitive form of evolution via a back door!
>

Still not answering the question.
>

I've tried. I've suspected for some time now, that it's your purpose and others to confuse and frustrate me.
 >
  You have a confused mass of phylum,

>

No, I've read that somewhere between between 30-35 modern species first appeared during the Cambrian. And this is the rendition of the first fossils of complex animals in the record.

>
family (kinds), and species all happening at different times, and kinds reproducing, and restricted or guided evolution. But then if we understand something from that, you're saying that modern species are descended from Cambrian ones. How is that compatible with extinction from genetic meltdown, which is your other claim?
>

Why can't species within a phylum branch out? Obviously they can, but most of these species became extinct without leaving offspring. While other species survive and reproduced. This would
account for the 99%+ of species that ever lived becoming extinct. I've never thought that every species date back to the Cambrian.
>
>

No modern species appeared in the Cambrian (~500 Mya).

 >
I meant to say modern phylum (not species) appeared during the Cambrian.
  Some ancestors

of modern phyla do appear, but if you were around in the Cambrian you wouldn't have identified them as such.  After all, they was only a few 10s of millions of years (at the most) separating them.  You shouldn't be frustrated, you just need to learn more about the fossil record, and it should be from a modern perspective.  Paleontology has moved fast, and Gould & Eldridge isn't "modern" anymore.  Another caution: "entropy" applied to evolution of living organisms is nonsense.

 >
  "Entropy always  increases" applies only to CLOSED systems.  Life is no more closed than

your refrigerator.
>

The word entropy wasn't mine. But it was used as a mean increasing entropy as related to _decreasing_ order.
Entropy is a negative value, Increasing entropy is down hill, increasing in entropy, disorder.
If you put ice in a glass over time it turns to water this is an increase in entropy.
You plant a seed and as the tree grows this is decreasing entropy. It's hit by lightning, dies and decay starts, this now is increasing entropy.