Re: oecies just appear in the strata asz

jillery wrote:

On Sun, 5 May 2024 12:22:04 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
 

jillery wrote:

On Sat, 4 May 2024 22:54:26 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>

Vincent Maycock wrote:

On Fri, 3 May 2024 21:47:19 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
>

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

>
And no reason to suppose anything else about the Designer's
activities, from a scientific perspective.
>

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.

>

I've recently arrived to the conclusion, based upon the fact that the
origin of the massive amounts of highly complex genetic information that
was infused into the Genetic code just didn't appear from nowhere. There
had to be a source. On this planet the only source of complex
information is from a mind.

>
>
That unguided natural processes also create complex information puts
the lie to your claim.  You act as if mindless repetition is
sufficient to make it true.
>
>

The information in genetic codes must have
come from the mind of a deity, which I've come to believe is God.
I believe that the presence of such highly complex information can be
seen as evidence of a God.

>
>
Which makes your belief true by definition, a pointless truism.
>
>

You can believe or disbelieve, but you can
only disbelieve, you cannot falsify the existence of this Being.

>
>
It's easy to create unfalsifiable claims based on unspecified and
invisible entities.  The hard thing, the scientific thing, is to
create falsifiable claims based on material evidence.
>
>

Furthermore, the fact that virtually all life on this planet is based on
the same genetic code implies a common design. Of course, evolution
advocates claim this is evidence of descent from a common ancestor.

>
>
The fact of a common genetic code by itself doesn't distinguish
between common design and common descent.
>
>

But
as to the origin of this information, these evolutionist do not have any
direct evidence demonstrating how  genetic information came into
existence. Also there is the question as to the origin of the DNA.

>
>
And cdesign proponentsists have neither direct evidence demonstrating
how genetic information came into existence, nor of a presumptive
purposeful designer of genetic information.

  Once again you conveniently ignore these facts above.  Since your
criticisms apply at least as much to ID as to evolution, they don't
work to either promote ID or demote evolution.
  

It's asserted that RNA must have come first because RNA possesses the
capacity to copy. And there is contraversy. The origin of the RNA itself
is unknown.

>
>
Controversy is easy to create using false claims as well as
unfalsifiable claims:
>
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10058490/>
**********************************
Oligomerization of cyclic purine and pyrimidine nucleotides to yield
short RNA oligomers has also been demonstrated under various
conditions.
**********************************

I read this entire article the direction of the article is directed
towards life on other planets, but it does make an effort to account for
life on this planet, but it does not pretend that the origin of the RNA
molecule has been discovered. So you are blowing smoke, trying to hide
the truth!

  Once again you accuse me of doing what you do.  Identifying the actual
origin of RNA is not only impossible but irrelevant.  The relevant
fact here is that self-replicating RNA is produced abiotically.  And
that fact disproves your oft-repeated baseless claim that the only
source of complex information is from a mind.  You can't reasonably
handwave away these facts, no matter how many times you conveniently
ignore them.
 

Be honest!

  You first.
 

And this doesn't touch the cosmological constants and the
laws of physics or natural law; which supposedly can be explained by
applying natural processes and actions.

>
>
Yes, that's the only explanation you have provided so far.  What's
your explanation based on ID?
>

That's past history and another topic. But it's one that causes a
certain atheist some little concern.

  ???  Doesn't it bother you even a tiny bit that the only explanation
you offer is based on natural processes and actions, while you offer
zero explanation based on ID?  How is that honest?
 

The word is "supposedly"! Do you know what that word suggest? Guess not.

 

That's almost a direct quote from the Bible.
>

It's saying, in different words almost exactly the same concept as the
scientific definition of a species. Do you know the most common
definition species?
>
"A species is a group of organisms that share a genetic heritage, are
able to interbreed, and to create offspring that are also fertile.
Different species are separated from each other by reproductive
barriers...mountain ranges... genetic barriers that do not allow for
reproduction between the two populations."
https://biologydictionary.net/species/

>

"A species (pl.: species) is often defined as the largest group of
organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or
mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual
reproduction"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Taxonomy_and_naming
>

But I guess you've given
up all pretense of not basing your beliefs on religion.
>

No, I never did base my beliefs on religion, quite the contrary it's
what I've learned from science that causes me to re-think religious ideas.

>
>
You keep claiming your beliefs are religion-free, yet almost all of
your claims were earlier asserted by those with expressed religious
motives.  What are the odds you just happened to use the same false
facts and illogic?
>

Another unsupported claim. My motives were never religious, but rather
based upon what I read in science papers and books. In fact, before I
read a certain book on a dare, I was an evolutionist and agnostic.

  You again post yet more oft-repeated irrelevancies.  I don't challenge
your motives here, but your recollection.  When multiple persons claim
that 2+2=7 therefore God, it's almost certain they didn't come to that
conclusion on their own, but instead repeated something they heard or
read from a common source,

 >
Absolutely no one pretend that 2+2+=7. This is so typical of the deliberate and purposeful misrepresentation of the opposition side by proponents of evolution. If you can't fault the logic, then invent an irrational dictum and present it as their logic.

 For example, your oft-repeated misunderstandings about Punctuated
Equilibrium, the Cambrian Explosion, living fossils, master control
genes, and cosmology are near carbon copies of Discotut boilerplate.
You might not have first heard them from Discotut, but your common
misunderstandings almost certainly originated from the same sources
echo-chamber style.
 

Discotut? What's the word you've misspelled?

 

    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.

>
Would gene duplication lead to there being more information in the
genome, in your view?
>

Using my own logic and reasoning it seems that I've arrived at a
definitive form of evolution via a back door!

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